Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
True. But the FCC didn't specify any mechanism as far as I recall. They've left HOW it gets done up to you guys. 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:05 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Marlon, Let's not split hairs. For the most part CSMA/CD is wifi collision avoidance ie contention based.. -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 11:39 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Whoa there Haas! I NEVER said that wifi would be a good thing at 3650. I agree with you that YOU guys should give us much more efficient radios when/if we get that band opened up. However, I DO like the contention based mechanism. And most wisps do when they understand what it means (licensed quality without the licensed price). You guys should combine APC, DFS and SDR in this band and give us the best of all available systems AND we get to keep our protection from Tsunami style radios. WiFi's 22 mhz wide channel is out dated at best and should be changed. It should be flexible, use less where you need the scalability and more where you need the speed (backhaul vs. distribution etc.). The point I'm trying to make with these comments is that the FCC is on the right track. But the industry is growing so far and so fast that there needs to be even more. 5 years from when it's introduced will see 3650 swamped in some markets. Maybe less. If we don't start thinking that way now, what will people do while we take another 5 years to find more spectrum? 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Mark, Well said. I agree with about everything you said. You're on the mark. Keep in mind the telco's don't have 6 month ROI's either. Some are better than others but past three years for them seems to be the norm. Obviously they have the deeper pockets. The whole reason I brought the word "efficient" up was because many WISP's believed wifi based 3650 was a great idea where others including me see it as more of the same (waste of valuable spectrum). Therefore, Marlon like others, say 50 mhz isn't enough. I'm saying with the right technology that will do 14-18 meg's in a 5 Mhz channel 50 Mhz is breath of fresh air! Let's not waste it or look foolish.. like Steve Stroh said, "So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC." Brad -Original Message----- From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 I don't think any of us are opposed to "more efficient", and frankly, it seems that more efficient is coming down the pike. The evolution of data vs spectrum use in terms of efficiency has made quantum leaps in a relatively short period of time. I've discussed this for as long as I've been on these lists... Ubiquitous last mile acceptance (not deployment) does not revolve around spectrum efficiency or even all that much on specific technology, as much is it revolves around it being at a price consumers will pay. How many wireless networks have been built that don't reach a single residence, but instead, operate at prices that exclude widespread *acceptance*? We're ALL "deployers" with the notion of "build it, and they will come" to a larger or smaller degree. Some of us don't build until "they come", but in all cases, consumer ACCEPTANCE of the cost and a willingness to pay it, is the the single determining factor when it comes to success as ubiquitous broadband.Years ago, Patrick Leary and I debated the notion of residental broadband. I said that residental broadband is the key to WI
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper-Version 2
It's really up to the group. I still don't like it though. I'm trying to think much further down the road. Those at the FCC who are up on these issues seem to acknowledge that broadband wireless is growing much faster than anyone thought it could. And that it's one of the most efficiently used bands there is (many devices per square mile all doing custom work for anyone that wants them!!!). It's that very success that's hurting more and more operators though. The manufactures and the standards bodies aren't keeping pace with the changing market place. And in a way, we're not either. I'm certainly not interested in taking out what I've already got on the air Not for a few more years anyway. Again, I'm trying to look 5 to 10 years down the road. AND we're NOT talking to the FCC with these documents. We're talking to congress. 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: "Mark Koskenmaki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper-Version 2 Could you say something that looks a bit like this: 3650 is unlikely to be a wide-spread last mile distribution spectrum because manufacturers are unlikely to develop an array cost-effective end user solutions for only 50 mhz of contiguous spectrum. Instead, it will effectively become a middle mile, with single point solutions adapted from other licensed or unlicensed spectrum, effectively becoming backbone and infrastructure, rather than last mile distribution. While an important asset in the hands of providers, it, in itself, is not possible to be that ubitquitous last mile. Does that perspective seem accurate and more diplomatic? 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: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2 Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 >I would strike the "only 50 MHz of spectrum" statement about 3650. The > industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally > efficient systems with what we get for free... > -- 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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2
Is it fair to say that licensed bands that are totally controlled and only have to deal with voice have much different requirements? And is it fair to say that one way itfs channels (remember this was originally TV channels) has different requirements as well? We're talking about BROADBAND. A new technology that already does most of what those technologies did. And will likely be tasked, sooner than later, to do ALL of what those bands were originally intended for? 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: "Steve Stroh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2 MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or subtracted. 5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz. Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular telephone industry in the US using analog technology. So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC. FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the "WHOLE TV band" is: Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHz Channels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHz Total 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments. Thanks, Steve On Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? 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 --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com -- 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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Whoa there Haas! I NEVER said that wifi would be a good thing at 3650. I agree with you that YOU guys should give us much more efficient radios when/if we get that band opened up. However, I DO like the contention based mechanism. And most wisps do when they understand what it means (licensed quality without the licensed price). You guys should combine APC, DFS and SDR in this band and give us the best of all available systems AND we get to keep our protection from Tsunami style radios. WiFi's 22 mhz wide channel is out dated at best and should be changed. It should be flexible, use less where you need the scalability and more where you need the speed (backhaul vs. distribution etc.). The point I'm trying to make with these comments is that the FCC is on the right track. But the industry is growing so far and so fast that there needs to be even more. 5 years from when it's introduced will see 3650 swamped in some markets. Maybe less. If we don't start thinking that way now, what will people do while we take another 5 years to find more spectrum? 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:24 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Mark, Well said. I agree with about everything you said. You're on the mark. Keep in mind the telco's don't have 6 month ROI's either. Some are better than others but past three years for them seems to be the norm. Obviously they have the deeper pockets. The whole reason I brought the word "efficient" up was because many WISP's believed wifi based 3650 was a great idea where others including me see it as more of the same (waste of valuable spectrum). Therefore, Marlon like others, say 50 mhz isn't enough. I'm saying with the right technology that will do 14-18 meg's in a 5 Mhz channel 50 Mhz is breath of fresh air! Let's not waste it or look foolish.. like Steve Stroh said, "So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC." Brad -Original Message- From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 I don't think any of us are opposed to "more efficient", and frankly, it seems that more efficient is coming down the pike. The evolution of data vs spectrum use in terms of efficiency has made quantum leaps in a relatively short period of time. I've discussed this for as long as I've been on these lists... Ubiquitous last mile acceptance (not deployment) does not revolve around spectrum efficiency or even all that much on specific technology, as much is it revolves around it being at a price consumers will pay. How many wireless networks have been built that don't reach a single residence, but instead, operate at prices that exclude widespread *acceptance*? We're ALL "deployers" with the notion of "build it, and they will come" to a larger or smaller degree. Some of us don't build until "they come", but in all cases, consumer ACCEPTANCE of the cost and a willingness to pay it, is the the single determining factor when it comes to success as ubiquitous broadband.Years ago, Patrick Leary and I debated the notion of residental broadband. I said that residental broadband is the key to WISP success. Patrick used to say that ubiquitous wireless broadband was not even to be considered. That until and or unless the cost our services is such it becomes nothing more than an incidental to daily life, broadband by WISP's is just a tiny market without a serious future, has been my contention. It remains so. The telcos understood this, and built upon the notion that the consumer's end cost barrier to start had to be minimal. They bought CPE by the millions and they're priced at less what it costs to get a nice pair of shoes.Even they understood the notion of cost barrier to acceptance. Which brings us full circle. How does a WISP deploy with ACCPTANCE rates that qualify it to be 'ubiquitous', without commodity prices to the consumer?Many answer this by using low-cost gear at the consumer end. Which, of course, brings us to the chicken and egg debate... How do we get advanced technnologically, spectrum-efficient, multiple capability gear which can be deployed at cost poin
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Believe me, I'm all in favor of more efficient radio systems. Anything like those slow, use up the whole band, FHSS radios really needs to go away j/k hehehehe Anyhow Brad, what's wrong with BOTH? More spectrum AND more efficient radios. I think the sad truth of the matter is that most manufactures are likely to stick to the current 20 mhz channel sizes unless forced to do something else. They'll just keep giving us more and more speed from that 20 mhz. Good or bad, cars are built to the size of the road and vise verse today. Same for trains, ships via the panama canal etc. I'd love to be wrong. But so far it's looking like everyone wants that stupid "triple play" thing and that means bandwidth. Lots of it. And bandwidth takes channel size. laters, 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 A typical BTA for a MMDS or ITFS build may only be 24 Mhz. Half of what you're saying isn't enough (50 Mhz). Some projects I'm working on have a whopping total of 10 mhz. I remember Patrick disagreeing with the contention based protocal in 3650 not the amount of spectrum. Like I said before, the alternative is for more efficient radio systems and not gear that takes up a 20 mhz channel to get you 6-10 meg's like most systems being deployed today in the name of cheap, interference resilient, or whatever other name you put on the product. I would aurgue the point that the FCC wants more efficient use of our unlicensed bands now and in the future. Brad -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? 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 -- 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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
I have little need of more microwave spectrum. I need spectrum in the low UHF or high VHF bands to get thru these trees. I think many, if not most, rural WISP's would agree with me. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to the commerce committee folks. For those that don't know there are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue. As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here: Monday, March 27, 2006 WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today. At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed. Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago. Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market that measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radio on her channel. It is not going to happen. The standards in the 04-186 rulemaking stipulate that no device will interfere with any licensed use of the television channel space under any circumstances. WISPs have every intention of making full use of any of these unused television channels as soon as possible for broadband delivery and we will make sure we do no harm. The United States of America will have to make use of sub - 1 GHz spectrum to make broadband available to all citizens in a cost effective and timely fashion. In fact, use of unused television channels is the only logical path that delivers the promise of ubiquitous low-cost broadband to all Americans. Without access to this spectrum the United States will continue to fall behind the rest of the world. It would be a shame for the country that invented Internet to allow themselves to fall behind in bringing this miracle of modern communications to every citizen. Nearly half of all available television channels are left unused even in the top markets of the United States. In the rural areas the available channels are largely unused for any purpose. Even channels that are utilized in a given
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
funding provided by an acceptable to the point of "ubiquitous" service?Cellular took... errmmm, what? 15 years? TV.. is what, on only it's 2nd generation in over 50 years? Thus, I disagree, philosophically. We need either the chicken or the egg. I'll take either one. But whatever it is, it has to be useable, at ubiquitous acceptance price points, by anyone. So, is that cheap technology that is spectrally efficient, with small slices of protected spectrum? Or is it broad spectrum, so cheap technology can take advantage of it to build acceptance and critical mass of purchasing and manufact uring scale to achieve the cheap, GOOD technology? Thus, deploying gear that costs $200 / end for backhual/ distribution in 3650 is the key to rapid acceptance. And that rapid acceptance will bring about the technological generations that bring the 3, 5, and 7 mhz wide and efficient uses.If use is restricted until that becomes available, I predict it never will, and we will have failed to gain sufficient mass, and our industry does a pratfall, become relegated to solely niche markets. I've hedged all my bets. I chose a niche market, and seek price levels which will bring ubiquitous acceptance.What can I say, it's only how I think... 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 > A typical BTA for a MMDS or ITFS build may only be 24 Mhz. Half of what > you're saying isn't enough (50 Mhz). Some projects I'm working on have a > whopping total of 10 mhz. > > I remember Patrick disagreeing with the contention based protocal in 3650 > not the amount of spectrum. > > Like I said before, the alternative is for more efficient radio systems and > not gear that takes up a 20 mhz channel to get you 6-10 meg's like most > systems being deployed today in the name of cheap, interference resilient, > or whatever other name you put on the product. I would aurgue the point that > the FCC wants more efficient use of our unlicensed bands now and in the > future. Brad > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Yes, Yes i would like to have groups of 3, 6 MHz channels right about 518-580 MHz, boy would that smoke.>-Original Message->From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 02:59 PM>To: 'WISPA General List'>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2>>>MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's >fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or >subtracted.>>5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz.>>Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular >telephone industry in the US using analog technology.>>So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" >at the FCC.>>FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the "WHOLE TV band" is:>>Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHz>Channels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHz>Total 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments.>>>Thanks,>>Steve>>>On Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:>>> Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is >> mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band?>>>> Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band.>>>> I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all >> excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to >> make it useful! My how times change. grin.>>>> Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an >> alternative?>>>> What are other people's thoughts?>>>> 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>>--->>Steve Stroh>425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com>>-- >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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
MMDS/ITFS/BRS is approximately 190 MHz (I don't remember what the FCC's fiddling at the lower end to create BRS out of ITFS/MMDS added or subtracted. 5.4 GHz band is 255 MHz. Original 800 MHz cellular spectrum was 50 MHz and sparked cellular telephone industry in the US using analog technology. So, stating "only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC. FYI, my math on license-exempt use of the "WHOLE TV band" is: Channels 21 – 36 (512 MHz – 608 MHz) = 96 MHz Channels 38 – 51 (614 MHz – 698 MHz) = 84 MHz Total 180 MHz in 6 MHz increments. Thanks, Steve On Mar 28, 2006, at 09:46, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? 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 --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2
Could you say something that looks a bit like this: 3650 is unlikely to be a wide-spread last mile distribution spectrum because manufacturers are unlikely to develop an array cost-effective end user solutions for only 50 mhz of contiguous spectrum. Instead, it will effectively become a middle mile, with single point solutions adapted from other licensed or unlicensed spectrum, effectively becoming backbone and infrastructure, rather than last mile distribution. While an important asset in the hands of providers, it, in itself, is not possible to be that ubitquitous last mile. Does that perspective seem accurate and more diplomatic? 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: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -Version 2 > Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? > How much was the new 5.4 gig band? > > Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. > > I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited > about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it > useful! My how times change. grin. > > Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? > > What are other people's thoughts? > > 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - > Version 2 > > > >I would strike the "only 50 MHz of spectrum" statement about 3650. The > > industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally > > efficient systems with what we get for free... > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2
Understood. But it is only 50 mhz. How much is itfs? How much is mmds? How much was the new 5.4 gig band? Part of what we're looking for is the WHOLE TV band. I remember Patrick saying that none of you manufacturers were at all excited about 3650 because there just wasn't enough spectrum there to make it useful! My how times change. grin. Your point is well taken though. What would you suggest as an alternative? What are other people's thoughts? 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: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 I would strike the "only 50 MHz of spectrum" statement about 3650. The industry has paid billions for way less. The answer is using spectrally efficient systems with what we get for free... -Original Message- From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:02 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - Version 2 Hi All, Barring something that you guys see that we've missed this will be sent to the commerce committee folks. For those that don't know there are a couple of bills in Congress at this time that deal with this issue. As I can't send an attachment to the isp list I'll put the text here: Monday, March 27, 2006 WISPA TV White Spaces Position Paper WISPA is the WISP industry's only industry owned and operated trade association. We're a 501c6 corporation with a 7 person, membership elected board. We believe that the FCC's Broadband Access Task Force had it right in saying that there should be more unlicensed spectrum made available. The 5.4 GHz band is a good start, it's got some severe power level limitations though. It also only works in areas where there is clear line of sight which means it will not work well to deliver service to customers directly in locations where there are trees, buildings or other obstructions between a service tower and a potential customer. For these areas we require sub- 1 GHz frequencies exactly like that which can be delivered by unused television channel space. As of this writing 5.4 GHz is not allowed for use legally in the United States. The new 3650 MHz band is also currently in a state of limbo. And even when opened up it's got huge exclusion zones and is only 50 MHz of spectrum. In short the unlicensed broadband industry needs help to be able to adequately serve the millions of potential broadband customers we have to say no to every day because we do not have spectrum that can penetrate trees and other obstructions. This is a problem which accounts for 60% or more potential customers being told no when they ask for service in areas where unlicensed broadband services are currently being delivered. The remedy to this is clear. The Senate Commerce Committee can make this obstacle go away by simply tasking the FCC with passing their own proposed rulemaking number 04-186. This will allow 100% of potential service areas to be served with high quality broadband in all corners of this country. Even the most rural areas can be served cost effectively if we have access to unlicensed use of unused television channels. Please help us help America regain our technological leadership role in the world by giving us access to these channels to allow broadband for all citizens today. At this time there are somewhere in the area of 28,000 licenses relating to spectrum use in the USA. In fact, almost all spectrum is licensed today. The basic licensing of spectrum is mostly unchanged in nearly a century now. Certainly there are some changes, the recent ITFS changes are a good example, but the basic principal has not changed. Technology has changed. Spectrum policy rules should reflect what's possible today, not what was possible 70 years ago. Today there are already high speed wireless data systems on the market that measure their environment and change channels to avoid interference. There are also systems that measure the signal needed between two points and adjust power levels accordingly. The 04-186 rulemaking we are asking for requires these technological features in any system using unused television channels to make sure that no harm is done now or in the future to licensed users of these channels. Grandma will never miss a television program from an unlicensed radi
