Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Nah. What Charles misses in his commentary But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is only competing with "like" technology. All the FCC would have to do to make Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant to a common spec. Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends in the 3650 band. As long as the rules only type accept a common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice. Rich - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message----- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > Frankly, > > The FCC shou
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
rilly OFDM specifically, but a requirement to have X number of mbps per X mhz of spectrum, equivellent to the higher speed modulations of OFDM. Alvarion is fighting improved policy is a stretch. I'll go as far as saying Alvarion has always been one of the LEADING contributors/supporters to incourage improved policy for the industry. If not the definitive #1 supporter. And that I thank and recognize Alvarion for. But on 3650, I did not share Alvarion's views. A lot of time went into 3650, debating what should be offered, before it was offered. Many thought it to be a gift to independant ISPs. To protest the allocation, was indirectly almost a protest against WISPs, and it didn't help to add in "licenced", which was NOT the initial intent for the band. Allthough many WISPs will convert to partially licenced where applicable as they grow, the bulk of WISPs today are not Licensed operators. So giving it to Licensed does not infer benefit to WISPs. 3650 was the first attempt to give better than unlicenced to the WISP industry who deserved to have it, after their stunning success at struggling with junk band spectrum for so long. Tom, I really think you need to reread our filings or maybe stop listening to those who may have an axe to grind. Brad Its very possible that Alvarion's views were made in the intent to cause possitive change for the benefit of all. But I did not get that impression based on my views that I expressed earlier in this post. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or cooperate to attempt to co-exist. And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are located, and how to contact them. It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability for more providers to cooexist. And quite honestly, I think its an experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy. One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their available spectrum range channels. Narrowing channel selection down to the point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the spectrum range. I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5 Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin. However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz. This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose. I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude competiton and possible innovators. The whole point in 3650 was to attempt to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced. I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to Alvarion's reputation. Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that? The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in engineering phase designed for the spectrum range. Its was innovative rules prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused. There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification. I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to escape the noise and improve SNR. When the whole band is allowed for PTP, it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell site, and totally destroy it without anywhere for the existing provider
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Tom, Dang you got this all wrong. Let's make sure we understand what Alvarion's comments said so everyone understands. Our comment breaking the band in two was to strip rural and suburban from the top 100 US markets. Top 100 markets split in two 25 Mhz chunks and licensed with the REST of the US being UL. There is plenty of broadband in those top 100 markets. The FCC's intent for the 3650 band is suburbs and rural access. " There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification." That's just not correct. What we don't want to do is build a product that you'll have to rip out and replace because it doesn't meet the future spec when we finally get a ruling on what the product should look and smell like then most will invest and deliver a product. "Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that?" The 3650 is a rural broadband play getting you access to your own spectrum to serve those customers without having to compete with baby monitors and wifi gear on every street corner. Innovation won't take place unless the FCC takes a stand on technology. IMHO what we don't need is a bunch more inefficient 20 mhz spectrum hogs at sub 10 meg speeds or worse. And to say Alvarion is fighting improved policy is a stretch. Tom, I really think you need to reread our filings or maybe stop listening to those who may have an axe to grind. Brad -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >In other words, the number of > licenses is infinite. Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or cooperate to attempt to co-exist. And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are located, and how to contact them. It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability for more providers to cooexist. And quite honestly, I think its an experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy. One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their available spectrum range channels. Narrowing channel selection down to the point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the spectrum range. I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5 Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin. However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz. This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose. I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude competiton and possible innovators. The whole point in 3650 was to attempt to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced. I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to Alvarion's reputation. Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that? The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in engineering phase designed for the spectrum range. Its was innovative rules prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused. There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification. I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to escape the noise and improve SNR. When the whole band is allowed for PTP, it replicates the same fla
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
IN 2.4Ghz you have the 3-1 rule and a very high noisefloor, practically everywhere. On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:23:22 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > 3.5Ghz does, > > I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely > on > 900Mhz. > > What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? > > With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP > or > mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. > > Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service > > to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. > > > > 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > > > 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > > > 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors > > > > 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by > > clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors > > to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. > > > > When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above > > availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. > > At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones > > in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. > > > > - > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> How do you figure? > >> You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "WISPA General List" > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> > >> > >> > Frankly, > >> > > >> > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the > >> > industry > >> > to > >> > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found > >> > is > >> > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be > >> > small > >> > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale > >> > deployments > >> > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. > >> > > >> > - > >> > > >> > Jeff > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form > >> >> 477s > >> >> also > >> >> > >> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards > >> >> "flaunting > >> >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC > >> >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" > >> >> that > >> >> can't be taken seriously > >> >> > >> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink > >> >> flamingo > >> >> suit when he represents the industry in DC > >> >> > >> >> -Charles > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> CWLab > >> >> Technology Architects > >> >> http://www.cwlab.com > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -Original Message- > >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >> On > >> >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM > >> >> To: WISPA General List > >> >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> >>
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or cooperate to attempt to co-exist. And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are located, and how to contact them. It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability for more providers to cooexist. And quite honestly, I think its an experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy. One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their available spectrum range channels. Narrowing channel selection down to the point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the spectrum range. I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5 Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin. However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz. This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose. I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude competiton and possible innovators. The whole point in 3650 was to attempt to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced. I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to Alvarion's reputation. Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that? The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in engineering phase designed for the spectrum range. Its was innovative rules prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused. There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification. I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to escape the noise and improve SNR. When the whole band is allowed for PTP, it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell site, and totally destroy it without anywhere for the existing provider to temporarilly move to, until resolved. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Matt, I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration) compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of, there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to miss the market. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a PTP radio. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WIS
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Right, I would not want that. In fact, the WiMAX Forum, Intel, Alvarion, Redline, the WCA...none of us filed reconsiderations that advocated making the whole band exclusively licensed. Within our industry only Motorola filed for total exclusive licenses, though today they have moderated their position somewhat. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:56 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment I misunderstood one of your earlier emails then. I thought you were advocating the split of the entire band into mutually exclusive licenses. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >Matt, >I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light >licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration) >compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of, >there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for >get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of >licenses is infinite. > >Patrick Leary >AVP Marketing >Alvarion, Inc. >o: 650.314.2628 >c: 760.580.0080 >Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >-Original Message- >From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can >their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two >companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to >miss the market. > >-Matt > >Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp >>type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, >>but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you >>wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a >>PTP radio. >> >>Patrick >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered >>bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but >>sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the >>shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I >>don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be >>interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive >>spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a >>WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service >>operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile >>service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). >>Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" >>services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures >>would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, >>but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. >> >>-Matt >> >>Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>in >> >> >> >> >>>900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power >>> >>> >primary > > >>>users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should >>> >>> >have > > >>>the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. >>>Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. >>> >>>I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into >>> >>> >something > > >>>like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the >>>entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which >>> >>> >case > > >>>the entire range should be usable. >>> >>>Patrick >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>> >>>Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. >>> >>>-Matt >>> &
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I misunderstood one of your earlier emails then. I thought you were advocating the split of the entire band into mutually exclusive licenses. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration) compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of, there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to miss the market. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a PTP radio. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Matt, I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration) compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of, there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of licenses is infinite. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to miss the market. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp >type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, >but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you >wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a >PTP radio. > >Patrick > >-Original Message- >From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered >bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but >sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the >shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I >don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be >interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive >spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a >WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service >operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile >service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). >Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" >services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures >would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, >but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. > >-Matt > >Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz >> >> >in > > >>900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary >>users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have >>the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. >>Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. >> >>I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something >>like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the >>entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case >>the entire range should be usable. >> >>Patrick >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. >> >>-Matt >> >>Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed >>> >>> >3.65 > > >>>product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am >>> >>> >>> >>> >>in >> >> >> >> >>>complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and >>> >>> >>> >>> >>utility >> >> >> >> >>>of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I >>>support essentially splitting the band. >>> >>>Patrick Leary >>>AVP Marketing >>>Alvarion, Inc. >>>o: 650.314.2628 >>>c: 760.580.0080 >>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM >>>To: 'WISPA General List' >>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>> >>>Hi Patrick, >>> >>>But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unl
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I certainly understand SNR and how it effects licensed gear as well. If you want to operate a network of any size you are going to need at least 3 channels. Further, even with 3 channels you will need to operate more than one sector on the same channel at a base station, which is certainly going to lower your SNR. We see this today we 5.8Ghz where self-interference is the only kind of interference we run into most of the time. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: Hi Matt, You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [ma
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to miss the market. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a PTP radio. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Hi Matt, You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just >26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high >power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and >operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not >merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types >of services. > >I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into >something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that >will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P >radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. > >Patrick > >-Original Message- >From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. > >-Matt > >Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed >>3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all >>that. I am >> >> >in > > >>complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and >> >> >utility > > >>of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I >>support essentially splitting the band. >> >>Patrick Leary >>AVP Marketing >>Alvarion, Inc. >>o: 650.314.2628 >>c: 760.580.0080 >>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>Hi Patrick, >> >>But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ >>unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the >>area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats >>you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( >> >>-Charles >> >>--- >>CWLab >>Technology Architects >>http://www.cwlab.com >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>On Behalf Of Patrick Leary >>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >>A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment >>yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. >> >>Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other >>factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our >>802.16e >> >> >version > > >>of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the >>base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE >>with a >> >> >SIM > > >>card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation >>and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external anten
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a PTP radio. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in >900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary >users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have >the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. >Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. > >I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something >like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the >entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case >the entire range should be usable. > >Patrick > >-Original Message- >From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. > >-Matt > >Patrick Leary wrote: > > > >>You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 >>product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am >> >> >in > > >>complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and >> >> >utility > > >>of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I >>support essentially splitting the band. >> >>Patrick Leary >>AVP Marketing >>Alvarion, Inc. >>o: 650.314.2628 >>c: 760.580.0080 >>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>Hi Patrick, >> >>But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless >>3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area >>(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for >>breakfast, lunch & dinner =( >> >>-Charles >> >>--- >>CWLab >>Technology Architects >>http://www.cwlab.com >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>Behalf Of Patrick Leary >>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >>A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding >>much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. >> >>Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors >>are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e >> >> >version > > >>of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base >>station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a >> >> >SIM > > >>card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and >>you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. >> >>Patrick Leary >>AVP Marketing >>Alvarion, Inc. >>o: 650.314.2628 >>c: 760.580.0080 &g
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Gh
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: >You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 >product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in >complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility >of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I >support essentially splitting the band. > >Patrick Leary >AVP Marketing >Alvarion, Inc. >o: 650.314.2628 >c: 760.580.0080 >Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >-Original Message- >From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >Hi Patrick, > >But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless >3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area >(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for >breakfast, lunch & dinner =( > >-Charles > >--- >CWLab >Technology Architects >http://www.cwlab.com > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Patrick Leary >Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > >A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding >much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. > >Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors >are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version >of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base >station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM >card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and >you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. > >Patrick Leary >AVP Marketing >Alvarion, Inc. >o: 650.314.2628 >c: 760.580.0080 >Vonage: 650.641.1243 >-Original Message- >From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > >>3.5Ghz does, >> >> > >I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on > >900Mhz. > >What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? > >With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or >mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. > >Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. > >Tom DeReggi >RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >- Original Message - >From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > >>The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed >>service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. >> >>5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors >> >>5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors >> >>4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors >> >>3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by >>clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works >>indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. >> >>When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above >>availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. >>At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the >>ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. >> >>- >> >>Jeff >> >> >> >>On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Frankly, The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. - Jeff On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s also The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that can't be taken seriously Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC -Charles --
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed > service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. > > 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors > > 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by > clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works > indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. > > When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above > availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. > At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the > ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. > > - > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> How do you figure? >> You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> > Frankly, >> > >> > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the >> > industry >> > to >> > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found >> > is >> > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be >> > small >> > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale >> > deployments >> > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. >> > >> > - >> > >> > Jeff >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their >
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Certification is a multi stage process. The first set of certs is purely political, you are right. Wave 1 is merely an equipment level handshake. It is not until Wave 2 testing that the critical features needed by operators will be tested. Our solution is already beyond that (we have over 50 full commercial deployments with BreezeMAX) so we had initially planned to go straight to Wave 2. But Wave 1 is taking so long and the market has the mistaken impression that if you do not have Wave 1 complete than you are behind. So we will get our Wave 1 stamp. It is important to recognize that just having Wave 1 means nothing in the long or even mid term, since anyone with a Wave 1 cert will have to go back and get a Wave 2. Each later Wave is higher in value and represents a more complex system. Many small vendors will not make it beyond Wave 2. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment To say the least -- a highly upsetting (to many operators) isse about WiMAX is the fact that not all WiMAX is created equal... Sure, WiMAX talks about QoS, ARQ, encryption, scheduled MACs, etc -- but is it required for base certification today? Hehe -Charles P.S. -- BREAKING NEWS FOR WISP types -- I saw a WORKING DEMO of a MINI-PCI WiMAX card for 3.5 Some interesting CPE makers (they all use this mini-pci WiMAX card inside) http://www.ente.com.pl/default.aspx?docId=2555&mId1=2509 http://www.winetworks.com/products_win2000.html "The Book" CPE (IMO - quite nifty looking) http://www.quadmaxsystems.se/products.php --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment All WiMAX vendors will have some version of this type of CPE since that is a mandatory requirement for licensed band operators. Each will have their own attempts at special sauce to differentiate their offering. It will get very interesting come fall (which is not to say that these last 8 years have not been interesting!) Patrick -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Patrick Leary wrote: > A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment > yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. > > Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors > are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version > of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the > base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE > with a SIM > card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation > and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 I don't know how much more we cn ask for, "zero truck roll self install" How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are we talking here. Please throw something out there for pricing. Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email me
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Yes -- but WHAT are you deploying in 5.8? The most commonly used 5.8 systems out there are EXTREMELY BASIC as compared to what stuff out there can do -- but that is required, since interference robustness / reliability is the #1 consideration in license-exempt band operation There are systems out there (Navini for instance) that do some really cool things, but are basically useless in today's license-exempt frequencies b/c of interference All those "cool" things don't mean @[EMAIL PROTECTED] if you've got a -70 / -80 noise floor -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 1:03 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Charles Wu wrote: >What do you think is going to happen? > > > Exactly the same thing that we have with 5.8Ghz, but without all the non-operators. While that isn't the same as mutually exclusive spectrum, it is a big step forward for all of us successful companies using 5.8Ghz. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Charles Wu wrote: What do you think is going to happen? Exactly the same thing that we have with 5.8Ghz, but without all the non-operators. While that isn't the same as mutually exclusive spectrum, it is a big step forward for all of us successful companies using 5.8Ghz. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
A shared license (w/ zero barriers to entry, etc) w/out a very strict coordination scheme (which will never be implemented by the FCC due to the fact that it's A LOT of work to build, maintain and administer) is still basically an unlicensed system Say there are 10 operators in a market You deploy your fancy schmancy 1024-FFT OFDM/mimo/beam-forming/space-coded/blah blah system w/ it's superior scheduled WiMAX MAC The other 9 of em deploy FM modulated FSK based systems across town What do you think is going to happen? -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment But, 3.65 isn't going to be unlicensed; it is going to be a shared license program. IMHO, that means that you will only have to contend with other operators as opposed to every consumer with a laptop. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: >W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* > >You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / >portability in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment > >-Charles > >--- >CWLab >Technology Architects >http://www.cwlab.com > > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of jeffrey thomas >Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > >The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service >to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. > >5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > >5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > >4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors > >3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by >clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works >indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. > >When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above >availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. >At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones >in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. > >- > >Jeff > > > >On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >>How do you figure? >>You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? >> >>Tom DeReggi >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >>- Original Message - >>From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "WISPA General List" >>Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> >> >>>Frankly, >>> >>>The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the >>>industry >>>to >>>really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is >>>that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be >>> >>> >small > > >>>and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale >>> >>> >deployments > > >>>outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. >>> >>>- >>> >>>Jeff >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their >>>>Form >>>>477s >>>>also >>>> >>>>The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >>>>"flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just >>>>reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates >>>>a bunch of "cowboys" >>>> >>>> >that > > >>>>can't be taken seriously >>>> >>>>Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >>>>flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC >>>> >>>>-Charles >>>> >>>>--- >>>>CWLab >>>>Technology Architects >>>>http://www.cwlab.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-Original Message- >>>
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Hi Patrick, But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed > service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. > > 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors > > 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by > clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works > indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. > > When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above > availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. > At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the > ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. > > - > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> How do you figure? >> You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> > Frankly, >> > >> > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the >> > industry >> > to >> > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found >> > is >> > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be >> > small >> > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale >> > deployments >> > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. >> > >> > - >> > >> > Jeff >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their >> >> Form 477s also >> >> >> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >> >> "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just >> >> reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just >> >> creates a bunch of "cowboys" that >> >> can't be taken seriously >> >> >> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >> >> flamingo >> >> suit when he represents the industry in DC
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
To say the least -- a highly upsetting (to many operators) isse about WiMAX is the fact that not all WiMAX is created equal... Sure, WiMAX talks about QoS, ARQ, encryption, scheduled MACs, etc -- but is it required for base certification today? Hehe -Charles P.S. -- BREAKING NEWS FOR WISP types -- I saw a WORKING DEMO of a MINI-PCI WiMAX card for 3.5 Some interesting CPE makers (they all use this mini-pci WiMAX card inside) http://www.ente.com.pl/default.aspx?docId=2555&mId1=2509 http://www.winetworks.com/products_win2000.html "The Book" CPE (IMO - quite nifty looking) http://www.quadmaxsystems.se/products.php --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment All WiMAX vendors will have some version of this type of CPE since that is a mandatory requirement for licensed band operators. Each will have their own attempts at special sauce to differentiate their offering. It will get very interesting come fall (which is not to say that these last 8 years have not been interesting!) Patrick -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Patrick Leary wrote: > A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment > yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. > > Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors > are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version > of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the > base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE > with a SIM > card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation > and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 I don't know how much more we cn ask for, "zero truck roll self install" How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are we talking here. Please throw something out there for pricing. Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
But, 3.65 isn't going to be unlicensed; it is going to be a shared license program. IMHO, that means that you will only have to contend with other operators as opposed to every consumer with a laptop. -Matt Charles Wu wrote: W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / portability in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Frankly, The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. - Jeff On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s also The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that can't be taken seriously Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" a single base station? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Gino, Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: Towerstream anyone ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Jeffrey, I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement powers of the FCC 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
W/out a license, 3.6 is going to work just as *bad* You really need 700 (or a <1 GHz band) to really get mobility / portability in an unlicensed / uncoordinated environment -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > How do you figure? > You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Frankly, > > > > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the > > industry > > to > > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is > > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small > > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments > > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. > > > > - > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their > >> Form > >> 477s > >> also > >> > >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards > >> "flaunting > >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC > >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that > >> can't be taken seriously > >> > >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink > >> flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC > >> > >> -Charles > >> > >> --- > >> CWLab > >> Technology Architects > >> http://www.cwlab.com > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> > >> > >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier > >> deployment > >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of > >> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> said: > >>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to > >>> "test" a single base station? > >>> > >>> Gino A. Villarini > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger > >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >>> > >>> Gino, > >>> > >>> Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial > >>>
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Unfortunately, such CPE are not going to happen in 5.8GHz, WiMAX or not. Neither the band physics or power limits allow for it. There are a host of other major issues surrounding UL WiMAX that all work against it appearing any time this year. These include at least the following: - the uncertainty over 3650MHz. This is a much better potential WiMAX UL band than 5.8GHz for three reasons - power, physics, and less ambient interference (no consumer devices). - the WiMAX Forum profile for UL WiMAX only includes 5.8GHz, so it excludes 355MHz of band in 5GHz. - the 802.16 MAC is poorly suited as written for unlicensed bands since it assumes no competition for the air and has no mechanism for battling interference. Thus the formation by the IEEE of TG 802.16h, a task group we chair that is trying to come up with some technology neutral method for sharing bands, even among competing technologies like 802.11 and 802.16. - lack of self-install limits the creation of a mass market - existing UL equipment prices are already at thresholds for where WiMAX CPE will be later this year and WiMAX base stations are much more expensive than UL APs - the only UL WIMAX profile covers only 802.16d-2004, known as fixed WiMAX. The ratification of 802.16e-2005 largely will result in .e superseding .d since .e can also be used for fixed, but provides soft migration path to full mobile. For example, the North American versions of BreezeMAX we are bringing will be 802.16e-2005, bypassing .d entirely. All these things stack the cards against UL WiMAX, at least in a 5.8GHz variant. That is also why for UL in 5GHz we lead with BreezeACCESS VL and will for some time. We believe it to be the UL 5GHz of record, especially with upcoming firmware version 4.0, which, among other things brings 802.3 QinQ VLAN, automatic channel bandwidth scanning and selection, over 40,000 pps and with the new MAP (multimedia application prioritization) feature allows for simultaneous VoIP calls per sector of as much as 280 WITH a MOS score of 4.0, which is very high voice QoS. That is a 750% increase over previous VoIP performance. I realize the average WISP thinks VL is just your basic Atheros chipset in an outdoor case, but the reality is far different. In our stuff, the chips are just the basic building block. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Is Alvarion going to do the same for 5.8G unlicensed Wimax? All though license and high power may not be there, the technical features could have a major positive impact. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding > much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. > > Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other > factors > are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e > version > of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base > station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a > SIM > card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and > you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > -Original Message- > From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> 3.5Ghz does, > > I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely > on > > 900Mhz. > > What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? > > With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP > or > mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. > > Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > >> The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service >> to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. >> >> 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors >> >> 5.4 doesnt rea
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
All WiMAX vendors will have some version of this type of CPE since that is a mandatory requirement for licensed band operators. Each will have their own attempts at special sauce to differentiate their offering. It will get very interesting come fall (which is not to say that these last 8 years have not been interesting!) Patrick -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Patrick Leary wrote: > A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding > much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. > > Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors > are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version > of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base > station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM > card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and > you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 I don't know how much more we cn ask for, "zero truck roll self install" How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are we talking here. Please throw something out there for pricing. Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Is Alvarion going to do the same for 5.8G unlicensed Wimax? All though license and high power may not be there, the technical features could have a major positive impact. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > Frankly, > > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the > industry > to > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found > is > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be > small > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale > deployments > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. > > - > > Jeff > > > > > > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form >> 477s >> also >> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >> "flaunting >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" >> that >> can't be taken seriously >> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >> flamingo >> suit when he represents the industry in DC >> >> -Charles >> >> --- >> CWLab >> Technology Architects >> http://www.cwlab.com >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier >> deployment >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I >> know >> of >> one company that has
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Pretty exciting. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > Frankly, > > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the > industry > to > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found > is > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be > small > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale > deployments > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. > > - > > Jeff > > > > > > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form >> 477s >> also >> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >> "flaunting >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" >> that >> can't be taken seriously >> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >> flamingo >> suit when he represents the industry in DC >> >> -Charles >> >> --- >> CWLab >> Technology Architects >> http://www.cwlab.com >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier >> deployment >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I >> know >> of >> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 >> CPE. >> >> >> >> >> - >> >> Jeff >>
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
To make it easier, maybe you can give what you believe to be an industry price. I realize you can't give a price of Alvarion at this point. But you can give us a hip shoot of what you think common pricing for ce and ap are. Thanks George George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Patrick Leary wrote: A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 I don't know how much more we cn ask for, "zero truck roll self install" How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are we talking here. Please throw something out there for pricing. Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service > to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. > > 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors > > 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors > > 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by > clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors > to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. > > When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above > availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. > At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones > in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. > > - > > Jeff > > > > On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> How do you figure? >> You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> > Frankly, >> > >> > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the >> > industry >> > to >> > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found >> > is >> > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be >> > small >> > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale >> > deployments >> > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. >> > >> > - >> > >> > Jeff >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form >> >> 477s >> >> also >> >> >> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >> >> "flaunting >> >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC >> >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" >> >> that >> >> can't be taken seriously >> >> >> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >> >> flamingo >> >> suit when he represents the industry in DC >> >> >> >> -Charles >> >> >> >> --- >> >> CWLab >> >> Technology Architects >> >> http://www.cwlab.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> On >> >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM >> >> To: WISPA General List >> >> Subject: RE: [WISPA]
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > Frankly, > > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the > industry > to > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found > is > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be > small > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale > deployments > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. > > - > > Jeff > > > > > > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form >> 477s >> also >> >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >> "flaunting >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" >> that >> can't be taken seriously >> >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >> flamingo >> suit when he represents the industry in DC >> >> -Charles >> >> --- >> CWLab >> Technology Architects >> http://www.cwlab.com >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier >> deployment >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know >> of >> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 >> CPE. >> >> >> >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to >>> "test" >>> a single base station? >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>> >>> Gino, >>> >>> Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? >>> >>> jack >>> >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini wrote: >>> >>>> Towerstream anyone ? >>>> >>>> Gino A. Villarini >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>> t
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
For me, the statement old saying that comes to mind is, "the definition of character is what one does when no one else is looking." Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: jeffrey thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:59 PM To: WISPA General List; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Patrick, It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > commercial services using 3650MHz. > > - Patrick > > -Original Message- > From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the > law" w/ a 3650 deployment > > > --- > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > Clarifications > > > Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising > turn-key > 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in > congested > license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules > back > in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in > the > 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the > deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment > manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. > As > things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under > Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. > > Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done > strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial > network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or > technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The > rules > provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services > prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. > > Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing > > 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service > > Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to > conduct the following type of operations: > (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research > (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States > Government, or for export purposes. > (c)Communications essential to a research project. > (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. > (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization > in > any other service. > (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons > engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. > (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory > approval of such equipment. > (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not > related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory > testing or calibration of equipment. > (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or > engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. > (j) Limited market studies. > (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under > paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon > demonstration of need > > 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License > > (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will > be > issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing > radio > waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a > use > of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in > connection > with research projects when existing communications facilities are > inadequate. > > 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Stat
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?
No, I do not think so. The 5.47-5.725GHz issue is resolved. It is only a matter of the FCC setting certification criteria. 3650MHz is still unresolved, though the commission has begun work on it again. Once resolution occurs, then they have to go through the steps of creating the registration process for the light licensing and certification process. This will not complete for sure this year. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Gino A. Villarini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX? So Patrick, can we expect 3.65 be available at the same time as 5.4 ... q3-q4 ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:18 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX? That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16, or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have an actual contention requirement in the rules itself. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX? Will the 3650 be WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based. Any updates? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors 3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. - Jeff On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > How do you figure? > You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Frankly, > > > > The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry > > to > > really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is > > that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small > > and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments > > outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. > > > > - > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form > >> 477s > >> also > >> > >> The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards > >> "flaunting > >> the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC > >> argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that > >> can't be taken seriously > >> > >> Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo > >> suit when he represents the industry in DC > >> > >> -Charles > >> > >> --- > >> CWLab > >> Technology Architects > >> http://www.cwlab.com > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of jeffrey thomas > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> > >> > >> In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier > >> deployment > >> which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of > >> one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - > >> > >> Jeff > >> > >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> said: > >>> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" > >>> a single base station? > >>> > >>> Gino A. Villarini > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger > >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > >>> To: WISPA General List > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >>> > >>> Gino, > >>> > >>> Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? > >>> > >>> jack > >>> > >>> > >>> Gino A. Villarini wrote: > >>> > >>>> Towerstream anyone ? > >>>> > >>>> Gino A. Villarini > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > >>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > >>>> -Original Message- > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
How do you figure? You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Frankly, The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. - Jeff On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s also The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that can't be taken seriously Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" a single base station? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Gino, Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: Towerstream anyone ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Jeffrey, I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement powers of the FCC 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term WISP service. jack jeffrey thomas wrote: Patrick, It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any commercial services using 3650MHz. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requireme
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
WISPA works to make sure that when government decides they will be taking a role in our industry that they do so without harming us. You cannot lobby anonymously. You CAN stand and be counted or hide and cower under a rock in obscurity. If you are one of the rock dwellers I am sure you are not alone. We'll see which group wins out in the end, those who stand up and fight for what is right or those who hide and cower in obscurity. Scriv Mark Koskenmaki wrote: Can you blame them? Congress is now considering demanding that ALL ISP's log ALL data to and from thier customers. Seems like a few someones a while back thought that we needed more government involvement in the ISP business. Right now, I think more and more are thinking that thier ONLY chance of survival is obscurity. BTW, tell the FCC that when they stop issuing forms that only work with ONE program from ONE vendor, they'll have more luck in getting them filled out. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:14 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s also The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that can't be taken seriously Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
The bill was killed off in committee, but don't think we have seen the last of it. We must be forever vigilant, epically under our current government. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Can you blame them? Congress is now considering demanding that ALL ISP's log ALL data to and from thier customers. Seems like a few someones a while back thought that we needed more government involvement in the ISP business. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
So, 3650MHz isn't going to fall under Part90 rules? Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Comments inline. > Even given the 5% of WISP operators who intentionally run too much > power, I don't feel their "lawlessness" is as serious as someone who > receives a experimental license under false pretenses and then > unlawfully profits from their lawbreaking. Considering the band with be a part-15 band, I don't see why its Nearly as a big deal as someone taking a band that would have been Auctioned off for thousands upon thousands of dollars. > > By the way, which company has twenty-eight 3.6 GHz special temporary > authorizations (STAs)in 14 markets and is allegedly selling commercial > service to 2000 subscribers? I can't say due to non disclosure agreements. The funny thing about them Is they got the STA's and have yet to really use them, so all the money They spent on lawyers obtaining the STA's is going to waste anyways. > > jack > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > >> Jack, >> >> The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate >> systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While >> it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved >> fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I >> encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally >> turns a blind eye until someone complains. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> >>> Jeffrey, >>> >>> I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone >>> who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed >>> "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating >>> purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): >>> >>> 1. Someone with no business sense >>> 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement >>> powers of the FCC >>> 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy >>> 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term >>> WISP service. >>> jack >>> >>> >>> >>> jeffrey thomas wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Patrick, >>>> >>>> It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments >>>> as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the >>>> fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and >>>> that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. >>>> >>>> Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be >>>> evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that >>>> is available today will be compliant. *shrug* >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any >>>>> commercial services using 3650MHz. >>>>> >>>>> - Patrick >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM >>>>> To: 'WISPA General List' >>>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>>> >>>>> Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the >>>>> law" w/ a 3650 deployment >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>>> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM >>>>> Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - >>>>> Clarifications >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising >>>>> turn-key >>>>> 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Comments inline. > Even given the 5% of WISP operators who intentionally run too much > power, I don't feel their "lawlessness" is as serious as someone who > receives a experimental license under false pretenses and then > unlawfully profits from their lawbreaking. Considering the band with be a part-15 band, I don't see why its Nearly as a big deal as someone taking a band that would have been Auctioned off for thousands upon thousands of dollars. > > By the way, which company has twenty-eight 3.6 GHz special temporary > authorizations (STAs)in 14 markets and is allegedly selling commercial > service to 2000 subscribers? I can't say due to non disclosure agreements. The funny thing about them Is they got the STA's and have yet to really use them, so all the money They spent on lawyers obtaining the STA's is going to waste anyways. > > jack > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > >> Jack, >> >> The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate >> systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While >> it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved >> fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I >> encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally >> turns a blind eye until someone complains. >> >> - >> >> Jeff >> >> On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> >>> Jeffrey, >>> >>> I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone >>> who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed >>> "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating >>> purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): >>> >>> 1. Someone with no business sense >>> 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement >>> powers of the FCC >>> 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy >>> 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term >>> WISP service. >>> jack >>> >>> >>> >>> jeffrey thomas wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Patrick, >>>> >>>> It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments >>>> as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the >>>> fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and >>>> that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. >>>> >>>> Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be >>>> evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that >>>> is available today will be compliant. *shrug* >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any >>>>> commercial services using 3650MHz. >>>>> >>>>> - Patrick >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM >>>>> To: 'WISPA General List' >>>>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>>> >>>>> Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the >>>>> law" w/ a 3650 deployment >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>>> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM >>>>> Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - >>>>> Clarifications >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising >>>>> turn-key >>>>> 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in >>>>> congested >>>>> license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules >>>>> back >>>>> in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in >>>>&g
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Can you blame them? Congress is now considering demanding that ALL ISP's log ALL data to and from thier customers. Seems like a few someones a while back thought that we needed more government involvement in the ISP business. Right now, I think more and more are thinking that thier ONLY chance of survival is obscurity. BTW, tell the FCC that when they stop issuing forms that only work with ONE program from ONE vendor, they'll have more luck in getting them filled out. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! - - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:14 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s > also > > The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting > the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC > argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that > can't be taken seriously > > Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo > suit when he represents the industry in DC > > -Charles > > --- > CWLab > Technology Architects > http://www.cwlab.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jeffrey thomas > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment > which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of > one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. > > > > > - > > Jeff > > On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > > Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" > > a single base station? > > > > Gino A. Villarini > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Jack Unger > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Gino, > > > > Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? > > > > jack > > > > > > Gino A. Villarini wrote: > > > > > Towerstream anyone ? > > > > > > Gino A. Villarini > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > > > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of Jack Unger > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM > > > To: WISPA General List > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > > > Jeffrey, > > > > > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of > > > anyone > > > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > > > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > > > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > > > > > 1. Someone with no business sense > > > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the > > > enforcement > > > powers of the FCC > > > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > > > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > > > WISP service. > > >jack > > > > > > > > > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Patrick, > > >> > > >>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" > > >>deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, > > >>banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for > > >>unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on > > >>them is very low. > > >> > > >>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Frankly, The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. - Jeff On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s > also > > The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting > the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC > argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that > can't be taken seriously > > Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo > suit when he represents the industry in DC > > -Charles > > --- > CWLab > Technology Architects > http://www.cwlab.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jeffrey thomas > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment > which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of > one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. > > > > > - > > Jeff > > On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: >> Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" >> a single base station? >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of Jack Unger >> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >> Gino, >> >> Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? >> >> jack >> >> >> Gino A. Villarini wrote: >> >>> Towerstream anyone ? >>> >>> Gino A. Villarini >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On Behalf Of Jack Unger >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>> >>> Jeffrey, >>> >>> I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of >>> anyone >>> who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed >>> "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating >>> purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): >>> >>> 1. Someone with no business sense >>> 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the >>> enforcement >>> powers of the FCC >>> 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy >>> 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term >>> WISP service. >>>jack >>> >>> >>> >>> jeffrey thomas wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Patrick, >>>> >>>> It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" >>>> deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, >>>> banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for >>>> unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on >>>> them is very low. >>>> >>>> Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be >>>> evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources >>>> that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any >>>>> commercial services using 3650MHz. >>>>>
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?
So Patrick, can we expect 3.65 be available at the same time as 5.4 ... q3-q4 ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:18 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX? That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16, or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have an actual contention requirement in the rules itself. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX? Will the 3650 be WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based. Any updates? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?
Thanks Patrick, I understood there was an issue there that needed to get resolved. George Patrick Leary wrote: That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16, or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have an actual contention requirement in the rules itself. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX? Will the 3650 be WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based. Any updates? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?
That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16, or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have an actual contention requirement in the rules itself. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX? Will the 3650 be WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based. Any updates? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. 'Patrick Leary'.vcf Description: Binary data -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s also The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards "flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that can't be taken seriously Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" > a single base station? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Gino, > > Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? > > jack > > > Gino A. Villarini wrote: > > > Towerstream anyone ? > > > > Gino A. Villarini > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Behalf Of Jack Unger > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Jeffrey, > > > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of > > anyone > > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > > > 1. Someone with no business sense > > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the > > enforcement > > powers of the FCC > > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > > WISP service. > >jack > > > > > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > > > > >>Patrick, > >> > >>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" > >>deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, > >>banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for > >>unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on > >>them is very low. > >> > >>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be > >>evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources > >>that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* > >> > >>- > >> > >>Jeff > >> > >>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> > >>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > >>>commercial services using 3650MHz. > >>> > >>>- Patrick > >>> > >>>-Original Message- > >>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > >>>To: 'WISPA General List' > >>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >>> > >>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be > >>>"breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment > >>> > >>> > >>>--- > >>>To: "'WISPA General List'" > >>>Cc: ; > >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > >>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > >>>Clarifications > >>> > >>> > >>&
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Jeffrey, I agree that WISPs should not exceed the 4-watt access point power limit. I think you're correct that out of the 5000 or so WISPs probably 20% exceed the power limit. I'd estimate that of those 20% probably 75% of them don't know how to calculate the power limit and 5% exceed the limit intentionally. Is this "lack of judgment ability" on the part of a large number of WISPs; I'd say no. It's lack of judgment on the part of a small percentage of WISPs. Probably the reason you haven't heard of anyone being fined is because the FCC has a limited budget and there has been pressure for years from broadcasters, large wireless companies, and certain entrenched political interest groups to abolish the FCC. Only a few years ago, the "Progress and Freedom Foundation" (a false-front "astroturf" group) http://www.pff.org/ was lobbying on behalf of large telecommunications companies to abolish the FCC. Here's some links "outing" the Progress and Freedom Foundation. http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1497699 Here's a long list of the big-money industries whose interests the Progress and Freedom Foundation lobbies for. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_and_Freedom_Foundation The FCC never expected to have to budget for and go out and enforce the Part 15 rules. If enforcement had been budgeted for, we probably wouldn't have any license-free spectrum today; it would have cost too much to enforce the Part 15 rules. It might be a good idea if the FCC did shut down a few overpowered network operators that cause problems for other nearby law-abiding Part 15 operators. Setting an example of enforcement could go a long way towards motivating operators to learn and to obey the law. In addition, fining a few of the amplifier companies that sell high-powered amps to anyone who comes along would also have a positive effect on our industry. Even given the 5% of WISP operators who intentionally run too much power, I don't feel their "lawlessness" is as serious as someone who receives a experimental license under false pretenses and then unlawfully profits from their lawbreaking. By the way, which company has twenty-eight 3.6 GHz special temporary authorizations (STAs)in 14 markets and is allegedly selling commercial service to 2000 subscribers? jack jeffrey thomas wrote: Jack, The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally turns a blind eye until someone complains. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Jeffrey, I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement powers of the FCC 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term WISP service. jack jeffrey thomas wrote: Patrick, It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any commercial services using 3650MHz. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in co
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" a > single base station? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Gino, > > Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? > > jack > > > Gino A. Villarini wrote: > > > Towerstream anyone ? > > > > Gino A. Villarini > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jack Unger > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Jeffrey, > > > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone > > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > > > 1. Someone with no business sense > > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement > > powers of the FCC > > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > > WISP service. > >jack > > > > > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > > > > >>Patrick, > >> > >>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments > >>as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the > >>fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and > >>that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. > >> > >>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be > >>evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that > >>is available today will be compliant. *shrug* > >> > >>- > >> > >>Jeff > >> > >>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" > >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> > >>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > >>>commercial services using 3650MHz. > >>> > >>>- Patrick > >>> > >>>-Original Message- > >>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > >>>To: 'WISPA General List' > >>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >>> > >>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the > >>>law" w/ a 3650 deployment > >>> > >>> > >>>--- > >>>To: "'WISPA General List'" > >>>Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > >>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > >>>Clarifications > >>> > >>> > >>>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising > >>>turn-key > >>>3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in > >>>congested > >>>license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules > >>>back > >>>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in > >>>the > >>>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the > >>>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment > >>>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. > >>>As > >>>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under > >>>Subpart 5: Experimental Ra
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Wow, I think I heard a bell ring somewhere. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:58:32 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Towerstream anyone ? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Jeffrey, > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > 1. Someone with no business sense > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement > powers of the FCC > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > WISP service. >jack > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > > Patrick, > > > > It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments > > as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the > > fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and > > that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. > > > > Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be > > evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that > > is available today will be compliant. *shrug* > > > > - > > > > Jeff > > > > On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > >>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > >>commercial services using 3650MHz. > >> > >>- Patrick > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > >>To: 'WISPA General List' > >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> > >>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the > >>law" w/ a 3650 deployment > >> > >> > >>--- > >>To: "'WISPA General List'" > >>Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > >>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > >>Clarifications > >> > >> > >>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising > >>turn-key > >>3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in > >>congested > >>license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules > >>back > >>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in > >>the > >>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the > >>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment > >>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. > >>As > >>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under > >>Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. > >> > >>Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done > >>strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial > >>network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or > >>technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The > >>rules > >>provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services > >>prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. > >> > >>Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing > >> > >>47CFR5.3: Scope of Service > >> > >>Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to > >>conduct the following type of operations: > >>(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research > >>(b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States > >>Government, or for export purposes. > >>(c)Communications essential to a research project. > >>(d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techni
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Jack, The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally turns a blind eye until someone complains. - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Jeffrey, > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > 1. Someone with no business sense > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement > powers of the FCC > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > WISP service. >jack > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > > Patrick, > > > > It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments > > as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the > > fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and > > that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. > > > > Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be > > evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that > > is available today will be compliant. *shrug* > > > > - > > > > Jeff > > > > On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > >>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > >>commercial services using 3650MHz. > >> > >>- Patrick > >> > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > >>To: 'WISPA General List' > >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > >> > >>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the > >>law" w/ a 3650 deployment > >> > >> > >>--- > >>To: "'WISPA General List'" > >>Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > >>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > >>Clarifications > >> > >> > >>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising > >>turn-key > >>3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in > >>congested > >>license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules > >>back > >>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in > >>the > >>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the > >>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment > >>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. > >>As > >>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under > >>Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. > >> > >>Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done > >>strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial > >>network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or > >>technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The > >>rules > >>provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services > >>prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. > >> > >>Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing > >> > >>47CFR5.3: Scope of Service > >> > >>Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to > >>conduct the following type of operations: > >>(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research > >>(b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States > >>Government, or for export purposes. > >>(c)Communications essential to a research project. > >>(d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. > >>(e)Field st
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
They don't even have 150 customers in some markets! Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Gino, They may need that many to test the full throughput capabilities. So what are the details of what they are doing? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: > Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" a > single base station? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Gino, > > Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? > > jack > > > Gino A. Villarini wrote: > > >>Towerstream anyone ? >> >>Gino A. Villarini >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>-Original Message- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>Behalf Of Jack Unger >>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>Jeffrey, >> >>I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone >>who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed >>"experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating >>purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): >> >>1. Someone with no business sense >>2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement >>powers of the FCC >>3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy >>4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term >>WISP service. >> jack >> >> >> >>jeffrey thomas wrote: >> >> >> >>>Patrick, >>> >>>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments >>>as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the >>>fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and >>>that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. >>> >>>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be >>>evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that >>>is available today will be compliant. *shrug* >>> >>>- >>> >>>Jeff >>> >>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any >>>>commercial services using 3650MHz. >>>> >>>>- Patrick >>>> >>>>-Original Message- >>>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM >>>>To: 'WISPA General List' >>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>> >>>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the >>>>law" w/ a 3650 deployment >>>> >>>> >>>>--- >>>>To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>>Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM >>>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - >>>>Clarifications >>>> >>>> >>>>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising >>>>turn-key >>>>3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in >>>>congested >>>>license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules >>>>back >>>>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in >>>>the >>>>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the >>>>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment >>>>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. >>>>As >>>>things currently stand, deploying a
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Gino, They may need that many to test the full throughput capabilities. So what are the details of what they are doing? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" a single base station? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Gino, Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: Towerstream anyone ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Jeffrey, I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement powers of the FCC 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term WISP service. jack jeffrey thomas wrote: Patrick, It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any commercial services using 3650MHz. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type of operations: (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export purposes. (c)Communications essential to a research project. (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in any other service. (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment. (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory testing or calibration of equipment. (i) Development of radio techni
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" a single base station? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Gino, Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: > Towerstream anyone ? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Jeffrey, > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > 1. Someone with no business sense > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement > powers of the FCC > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > WISP service. >jack > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > >>Patrick, >> >>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments >>as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the >>fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and >>that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. >> >>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be >>evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that >>is available today will be compliant. *shrug* >> >>- >> >>Jeff >> >>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> >>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any >>>commercial services using 3650MHz. >>> >>>- Patrick >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM >>>To: 'WISPA General List' >>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>> >>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the >>>law" w/ a 3650 deployment >>> >>> >>>--- >>>To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM >>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - >>>Clarifications >>> >>> >>>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising >>>turn-key >>>3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in >>>congested >>>license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules >>>back >>>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in >>>the >>>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the >>>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment >>>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. >>>As >>>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under >>>Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. >>> >>>Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done >>>strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial >>>network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or >>>technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The >>>rules >>>provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services >>>prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. >>> >>>Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing >>> >>>47CFR5.3: Scope of Service >>> >>>Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to >>>conduct the following type of operations: >>>(a)Experimentations in scientific
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
They currently hold 13 Experimental Licenses for 3.65 - 3.7 and 5.4-5.725 Check them out yourself and make you own conclusions https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/els/reports/GenericSearchResult.cfm?Re questTimeout=500 Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Gino, Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: > Towerstream anyone ? > > Gino A. Villarini > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Jeffrey, > > I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone > who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed > "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating > purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): > > 1. Someone with no business sense > 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement > powers of the FCC > 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy > 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term > WISP service. >jack > > > > jeffrey thomas wrote: > > >>Patrick, >> >>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments >>as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the >>fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and >>that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. >> >>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be >>evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that >>is available today will be compliant. *shrug* >> >>- >> >>Jeff >> >>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> >>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any >>>commercial services using 3650MHz. >>> >>>- Patrick >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM >>>To: 'WISPA General List' >>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>> >>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the >>>law" w/ a 3650 deployment >>> >>> >>>--- >>>To: "'WISPA General List'" >>>Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM >>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - >>>Clarifications >>> >>> >>>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising >>>turn-key >>>3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in >>>congested >>>license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules >>>back >>>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in >>>the >>>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the >>>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment >>>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. >>>As >>>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under >>>Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. >>> >>>Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done >>>strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial >>>network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or >>>technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The >>>rules >>>provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services >>>prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. >>> >>>Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing >>> >>>47CFR5.3: Scope of Service >>> >>>Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitt
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Gino, Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service? jack Gino A. Villarini wrote: Towerstream anyone ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Jeffrey, I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement powers of the FCC 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term WISP service. jack jeffrey thomas wrote: Patrick, It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any commercial services using 3650MHz. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type of operations: (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export purposes. (c)Communications essential to a research project. (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in any other service. (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment. (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory testing or calibration of equipment. (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. (j) Limited market studies. (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon demonstration of need 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use of radio not provi
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Towerstream anyone ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Jeffrey, I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement powers of the FCC 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term WISP service. jack jeffrey thomas wrote: > Patrick, > > It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments > as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the > fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and > that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. > > Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be > evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that > is available today will be compliant. *shrug* > > - > > Jeff > > On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any >>commercial services using 3650MHz. >> >>- Patrick >> >>-----Original Message- >>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the >>law" w/ a 3650 deployment >> >> >>--- >>To: "'WISPA General List'" >>Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM >>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - >>Clarifications >> >> >>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising >>turn-key >>3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in >>congested >>license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules >>back >>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in >>the >>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the >>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment >>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. >>As >>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under >>Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. >> >>Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done >>strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial >>network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or >>technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The >>rules >>provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services >>prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. >> >>Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing >> >>47CFR5.3: Scope of Service >> >>Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to >>conduct the following type of operations: >>(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research >>(b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States >>Government, or for export purposes. >>(c)Communications essential to a research project. >>(d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. >>(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization >>in >>any other service. >>(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons >>engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. >>(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory >>approval of such equipment. >>(h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not >>related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory >>testing or calibration of equipment. >>(i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or >>engineering data rela
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Jeffrey, I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): 1. Someone with no business sense 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement powers of the FCC 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term WISP service. jack jeffrey thomas wrote: Patrick, It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any commercial services using 3650MHz. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type of operations: (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export purposes. (c)Communications essential to a research project. (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in any other service. (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment. (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory testing or calibration of equipment. (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. (j) Limited market studies. (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon demonstration of need 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection with research projects when existing communications facilities are inadequate. 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how th
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Patrick, It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* - Jeff On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > commercial services using 3650MHz. > > - Patrick > > -Original Message- > From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the > law" w/ a 3650 deployment > > > --- > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > Clarifications > > > Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising > turn-key > 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in > congested > license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules > back > in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in > the > 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the > deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment > manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. > As > things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under > Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. > > Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done > strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial > network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or > technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The > rules > provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services > prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. > > Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing > > 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service > > Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to > conduct the following type of operations: > (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research > (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States > Government, or for export purposes. > (c)Communications essential to a research project. > (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. > (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization > in > any other service. > (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons > engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. > (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory > approval of such equipment. > (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not > related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory > testing or calibration of equipment. > (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or > engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. > (j) Limited market studies. > (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under > paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon > demonstration of need > > 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License > > (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will > be > issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing > radio > waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a > use > of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in > connection > with research projects when existing communications facilities are > inadequate. > > 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements > > (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio > Service > must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in > detail > the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific > objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of > experimentation > has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, > or > expansion, or
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?
Will the 3650 be WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based. Any updates? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
jeffrey thomas wrote: sure. Hi Jeff, so sure is your answer, and no is Patricks. You got something different than Patrick that says a wisp can set up a link and put it into production 24/7? George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
sure. On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:58:34 -0700, "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I understood that the 3650 was not to be used in commercial links. I'm > assuming money makes it commercial. > I would like to deploy a couple links for non paying situations, cameras > for a city park. I'd also like to have the licenseand not be wasting > my limited unlicensed spectrum. > > Do you think this is a legit use for 3650? > > George > > > Patrick Leary wrote: > > Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > > commercial services using 3650MHz. > > > > - Patrick > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > > > Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the > > law" w/ a 3650 deployment > > > > > > --- > > To: "'WISPA General List'" > > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > > Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > > Clarifications > > > > > > Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key > > 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested > > license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back > > in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the > > 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the > > deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment > > manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As > > things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under > > Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. > > > > Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done > > strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial > > network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or > > technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules > > provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services > > prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. > > > > Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing > > > > 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service > > > > Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to > > conduct the following type of operations: > > (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research > > (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States > > Government, or for export purposes. > > (c)Communications essential to a research project. > > (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. > > (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in > > any other service. > > (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons > > engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. > > (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory > > approval of such equipment. > > (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not > > related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory > > testing or calibration of equipment. > > (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or > > engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. > > (j) Limited market studies. > > (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under > > paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon > > demonstration of need > > > > 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License > > > > (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be > > issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio > > waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use > > of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection > > with research projects when existing communications facilities are > > inadequate. > > > > 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements > > > > (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service > > must enclose with the application a narrative statement
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
George, I think there is a lot of this sort of thing happening and I think intentions are good, but, no, I do not think this meets the requirement. Patrick -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment I understood that the 3650 was not to be used in commercial links. I'm assuming money makes it commercial. I would like to deploy a couple links for non paying situations, cameras for a city park. I'd also like to have the licenseand not be wasting my limited unlicensed spectrum. Do you think this is a legit use for 3650? George Patrick Leary wrote: > Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any > commercial services using 3650MHz. > > - Patrick > > -Original Message- > From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the > law" w/ a 3650 deployment > > > --- > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM > Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - > Clarifications > > > Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key > 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested > license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back > in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the > 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the > deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment > manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As > things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under > Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. > > Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done > strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial > network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or > technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules > provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services > prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. > > Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing > > 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service > > Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to > conduct the following type of operations: > (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research > (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States > Government, or for export purposes. > (c)Communications essential to a research project. > (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. > (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in > any other service. > (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons > engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. > (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory > approval of such equipment. > (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not > related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory > testing or calibration of equipment. > (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or > engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. > (j) Limited market studies. > (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under > paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon > demonstration of need > > 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License > > (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be > issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio > waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use > of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection > with research projects when existing communications facilities are > inadequate. > > 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements > > (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service > must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail > the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific > objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation > has a reasonable promise
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I understood that the 3650 was not to be used in commercial links. I'm assuming money makes it commercial. I would like to deploy a couple links for non paying situations, cameras for a city park. I'd also like to have the licenseand not be wasting my limited unlicensed spectrum. Do you think this is a legit use for 3650? George Patrick Leary wrote: Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any commercial services using 3650MHz. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type of operations: (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export purposes. (c)Communications essential to a research project. (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in any other service. (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment. (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory testing or calibration of equipment. (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. (j) Limited market studies. (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon demonstration of need 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection with research projects when existing communications facilities are inadequate. 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already investigated. For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a nice online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any commercial services using 3650MHz. - Patrick -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type of operations: (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export purposes. (c)Communications essential to a research project. (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in any other service. (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment. (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory testing or calibration of equipment. (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. (j) Limited market studies. (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon demonstration of need 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection with research projects when existing communications facilities are inadequate. 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already investigated. For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a nice online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned b
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
It's about dang time they got off the dime on this! Shoot, the rules are already set. Are you hearing anything about the impact of the petitions of reconsideration? thanks Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:57 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment No one. The allocation is not yet finalized. Any licenses being granted are 24 month STAs (special temporary authority). One cannot deploy fee-based services using an STA as STA's are intended for testing purposes. Sources within the FCC tell me though that the decision is coming to a head, maybe as soon as this summer. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Who has FCC aproved 3650 equipment on the market, and is there any balpark pricing? Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be "breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment --- To: "'WISPA General List'" Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - Clarifications Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules back in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the 3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. As things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to conduct the following type of operations: (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research (b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States Government, or for export purposes. (c)Communications essential to a research project. (d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in any other service. (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory approval of such equipment. (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory testing or calibration of equipment. (i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service. (j) Limited market studies. (k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon demonstration of need 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection with research projects when existing communications facilities are inadequate. 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already investigated. For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a nice online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Patrick, WE hold a STA License for 3.65, can you point us to the right Alvarion gear available ? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:57 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment No one. The allocation is not yet finalized. Any licenses being granted are 24 month STAs (special temporary authority). One cannot deploy fee-based services using an STA as STA's are intended for testing purposes. Sources within the FCC tell me though that the decision is coming to a head, maybe as soon as this summer. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Who has FCC aproved 3650 equipment on the market, and is there any balpark pricing? Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
I thought someone said that Redline had a system out for testing? Actualy I thought Bullit said he had some deployed. Does Alvarion have a system that they are testing? George Patrick Leary wrote: No one. The allocation is not yet finalized. Any licenses being granted are 24 month STAs (special temporary authority). One cannot deploy fee-based services using an STA as STA's are intended for testing purposes. Sources within the FCC tell me though that the decision is coming to a head, maybe as soon as this summer. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Who has FCC aproved 3650 equipment on the market, and is there any balpark pricing? Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
No one. The allocation is not yet finalized. Any licenses being granted are 24 month STAs (special temporary authority). One cannot deploy fee-based services using an STA as STA's are intended for testing purposes. Sources within the FCC tell me though that the decision is coming to a head, maybe as soon as this summer. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Who has FCC aproved 3650 equipment on the market, and is there any balpark pricing? Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. 'Patrick Leary'.vcf Description: Binary data -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
