Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
With the few exceptions of extreme things like selling Drugs to addicts, selling Guns to terrorists, selling stolen goods, I find it hard to call any seller unethical, if there is a willing buyer, and if it is clearly disclosed what is being sold without attempting to deceive the buyer, and

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-05 Thread Jack Unger
Not really; it depends on what the mutual fund chooses to invest in. If the mutual fund invests in businesses that makes greenhouse-gas-reducing electric vehicles for example, that might be very acceptable (ethical) to some. On the other hand, investing in a mutual fund that invests in finance

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-05 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
If you buy a security, the prices rises, you sell the security, you make money. You have not added anything of value to the world. Irrespective of the nature of the company behind the security. Even if you are investing in a company that rescues slave labor children from sweatshops, if it is

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-05 Thread reader
How so? How does buying ownership in a publicly owned entity inflate the c ost of a needed commodity? obviously, there must be a marketplace to buy and sell commodities... And those who sell, to those who buy, for purposes of buying and selling commodities for use seems perfectly legitemate

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-05 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
N.B., I never used the word commodity. However, the commodity exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade do trade in commodities without adding any value. You say that a marketplace for the exchange of commodity securities are OK as long as options and derivatives are excluded? How about just

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-05 Thread reader
insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP If you buy a security,

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-05 Thread reader
If you have the money to buy - pay for in full - oil and wait until winter, then what business is it of ours? Again, we're discussing OWNERSHIP here, which is where I drew my line. As for this action, a lot of farmers and homeowners fill their heating oil tanks at opportune times. I fail to

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-05 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
OK, this thread must die. But if you need heating oil in the winter, I will be happy to sell you some ;-) (or corn or wheat or sugar or pork bellies) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re:

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Charles N Wyble
Matt Liotta wrote: On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: Well there is a place WISPA could be useful. As an organization, go and work with the FSS owners to come up with a framework where WISPA members could more easily gain exceptions to the exclusion zones.

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Mike Hammett
I believe that WiMax is great... greater than equipment we currently use. I just don't use it at this time because of the cost. I also don't buy into a lot of the hype people (press, manufacturers, vendors, others) are pushing. I had a project that required 10 meg of synchronous, committed

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
What is your opinion about the greatness of WiMax based upon? - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I believe that WiMax is

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Mike Hammett
Increased spectral efficiency Advanced antenna support (the only benefit I understand is increased signal margin) Higher likelihood of multiple vendors vs. many previous BWA technologies, though not now Eventual lower CPE cost, though not now -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread John Scrivner
Here is a list of some of what makes WiMax better than most other WISP solutions out there: -Engineered for outdoor broadband wireless delivery -Strict Interoperability Requirement between all vendors -Standardized platform which has been accepted globally -Support for multiple antenna ie. MIMO,

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Canopy is outdoor. I don't want interop as I want to control users to my system. The coverage, range, throughput has been totally smoke to date. I am still waiting for 70 Mbps at 70 miles PTMP. We don't roam, allow roaming or want to allow roaming. We don't operate in areas where ITU is a

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread John Scrivner
I am not trying to tell people that they should abandon what they have. I am simply trying to make the case for WiMax in 3.65 GHz space. I do not think that is in conflict with what you have deployed. Is Motorola planning to deploy a system for 3.65 GHz? I have not heard anything about that.

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread John Scrivner
Replies below: On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Canopy is outdoor. And many have done quite well with is. I have some in my own network now. I will likely deploy more of this myself where it makes sense. I don't want interop as I want to control users

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Mot has been asking their users for opinions as to what they should do there. They were very interested in whether or not we thought it should be standards based. I told them that I wanted a closed proprietary system. - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Gino Villarini
What was their feedback? I could only see canopy 400 working on this bandthey could also port their wimax solution but thats a different price range gino -Original Message- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 1:57 PM To: WISPA General List

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
There was lots of discussions as to what we wanted to see on the roadmap. They seemed to be surprised that several of the more vocal attendees didn't care about a standards based (WiMax) solution. 3X backwards compatible vs the new (faster, non backward compatible) generation of canopy was a

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread reader
It does mine. Inflating the price of a needed commodity - that is, increasing it with no added value - is unethical, in my estimation. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread reader
insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP I do not think we should

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-04 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Then I guess the precludes any participation in any mutual fund or almost any type of broker investments. Oh well... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Tom DeReggi
John, I support that opinion. I was never for splitting the band. That was always the worst choice in my opinion. I was not against WiMax use of it, I was just dead against Full Licensing of any of it, liek the WIMax guys originally were asking for. Although a mute point for me, as I'm in a

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Tom DeReggi
Every once in a while you read a post, that you say, I'm really glad I read that. That was one of them. Well said. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent:

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Harold Bledsoe
I agree that CBP should not have been a requirement for the hardware. A listen before you speak protocol makes some bad assumptions about the chances of a successful packet delivery. For example, on a longer PTP link, just because there is noise at the transmitter, it does not mean that there is

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread David Peterson
There are cheaper options than 10k per sector but you are correct that's about the going rate between 10 and 15k per sector. However, this equipment is not anywhere near the same as the tinker toys as Scriv puts it. This equipment will last you much longer than the commodity equipment. It's

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Mike Hammett
I know it's done all the time, but I don't believe in wrecking a company just to sell it (not that I plan on selling my operation). From a buyer's perspective, I would rather the company hadn't converted operations lately just so that I could convert to what I wanted without having just bought

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Tom DeReggi
Its irrelevent how long the equipment will last, if the company that deploys it does not last. Its all about cash flow and healthy financials, not spec sheets. 10k-15k a sector is Huge. I hope these manufacturers, make it affordable, before the market is over. how much more do you think you

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread chris cooper
I think it's very important to remember the cost of the CPE in this equation. The CPE will be the primary driver in your ROI. If you can spread the fixed cost of the AP over a large number of subs, obviously the cost to add a user declines each time you add another sub. However, if the CPE

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Matt Liotta
The WiMAX vendors are focused on the cost of the CPE; not the sector. CPE can be had for anywhere between $200 and $500 currently depending on vendor and volume. Vendors are working to get that price down with a 12 month target of being under $100. The oversubscription you can do on a

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Matt Liotta
The economics is simple with WiMAX. Either high revenue customers or lots of customers. If you don't have the volume or the revenue there are plenty of other cost effective solutions. -Matt On Jul 3, 2008, at 12:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: I've been seeing WiMAX CPE for $500 - $1000 in

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Scottie Arnett
I agree with what John is saying in most part. The reluctance to fully support 3.65Ghz may be the cost for some, I know it is me. It is hard to justify spending 3x to Nx for a 3.65Ghz AP or SM. Another problem I have with 3.65Ghz is the NLOS problems. Where I operate we have hills, and lots of

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Tom DeReggi
Low CPE cost Excellent Point. However, its also important to be realistic about how many subs will occur on a sector. Our network has an average ratio of CPEs per AP of about 7. CPE cost has little effect on ROI in that condition. But yes agreed, if you can get the sub count up per sector

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Tom DeReggi
Matt, Are you finding that the low noise floor (free spectrum) enabling high modulations are getting you the more CPE per sector, or are you finding that the WiMax protocol is delivering better results than other proprietary TDD based systems of equivellent modulations? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread reader
I know that a certain number of us ARE going to build a network for the sole purpose of suckering...errr, selling it to someone else. Now, I have severe ethical disagreements with this notion. It reminds me of flipping houses or speculative oil investing, perhaps? Now, to build a business

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Steve Barnes
Our network has an average ratio of CPEs per AP of about 7. CPE cost has little effect on ROI in that condition. Not so sure I understand this statement. If I currently pay $175/ CPE and a Wimax CPE is $500 That greatly affects my ROI. If your saying from an earlier thread that once a CPE is

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Hmmm, didn't realize flipping houses was an ethical gray area... (gosh, buy a distressed property, gut and redo the kitchen and bathroom, give it some landscaping- and make some dough. That is unethical? You know some of the original colonies of the new world had rules against charging

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread chris cooper
Id have to say that the current landscape makes the oil investors look pretty sharp as well. I know the roughnecks around here poured some serious money into those holes they punched in the ground. I think they are pumping plenty of dollars back out now. chris -Original Message- From:

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Yeah, I got no problem with drilling for oil or any mineral. Actually even trading in options and derivatives is fine with me. Sub prime predatory lending is on the other side of the fence along with payday lenders, but we all have a line that we will not cross. Not my day to judge. -

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread Chuck McCown - 3
Yeahbut, recognizing an arbitrage opportunity does not trigger my ethical shutdown circuit. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-03 Thread John Scrivner
I do not think we should build our networks for the sole purpose of suckering, err, selling to someone else. I do believe that I want anything I build to have value in the event I do sell. That is not suckering anyone. Why not build something that holds value or appreciates in value? I know a

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-02 Thread Harold Bledsoe
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation in that band. -Hal -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-02 Thread John Scrivner
I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think about the issues involved. How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We will see which

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-02 Thread Mike Hammett
$10k for a single AP is why. I can outfit two whole towers with MTI sector antennas for the price of 1 WiMAX radio. Gross throughput. My Mikrotik can do 35 megs of throughput vs. 20 (albeit a larger channel). I want to use WiMAX as it is more spectrally efficient (most important advantage

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-02 Thread Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE
* Harold Bledsoe wrote, On 7/2/2008 3:19 PM: I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation in that band. I agree with Hal. As an amateur radio operator as well as someone in this and the

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-02 Thread Matt Liotta
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: 3650 is a real PITA because of the grandfathered FSSes. I think, though, we might want to think about moving the full 50 mHz to restricted instead of unrestricted as I don't see unrestricted coming anytime soon. Well there is a place

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-02 Thread reader
I am reminded of a short story I read many years ago. A salesman for farm equipment was out calling on customers in middle America and following his directions found himself turning off the maintained county road into a side road and was immediately confronted with a wide, very deeply rutted,

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-01 Thread reader
That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a tear and decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want. I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of nonsense is about, but when it declares that 802.11 does not detect dissimilar systems, then nothing can EVER be

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-01 Thread Harold Bledsoe
The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of based on power level. If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the mechanism is activated at -82dBm. Otherwise it requires a relatively high energy level (-62dBm). Although I agree that even -62dBm seems fair. It would be very useful

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-01 Thread reader
The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted. The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the atheros mechanism is just an energy detection, it will not be allowed. This is what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some of which were from the FCC to someone

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-07-01 Thread John Scrivner
I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do away with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz as required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position from our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity for WISPs to move up to the

[WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

2008-06-30 Thread tonylist
Update from the FCC. This makes is very clear to me what the FCC is looking for, if there are any questions or comments feel free. Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com Tony: Thank you for