Re: [WISPA] What do you think?

2006-05-26 Thread Jack Unger
I was wondering when WISPs were going to WAKE UP to the backbone providers both setting the tolls AND operating the toll booths. Looks like it's - 1. Kiss up 2. Pay up, or 3. Turn around and bend over. Remember the old saying - The big fish eat the little fish Mark Koskenmaki wrote: The

[WISPA] Looking for an operator in the Dallas metro area

2006-05-26 Thread Matt Liotta
We are looking for a fixed wireless operator in the Dallas metro area that primarily serves business customers that would be interested in a partner or an acquisition. Contact me offlist if you are interested. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

[WISPA] St Cloud, FL

2006-05-26 Thread Peter R.
http://www.wispcentric.com/content/view/4404/87/ http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/osceola/orl-wifi2006may20,0,4256542.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-osceola May 20, 2006 *St. Cloud, Florida, is probably unfairly receiving close scrutiny on its free, city-wide network paid with

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Charles Wu
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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Matt Liotta
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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Charles Wu
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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Charles Wu
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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Charles Wu
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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Matt Liotta
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

[WISPA] (no subject)

2006-05-26 Thread Jeff Broadwick
Hi All, If anyone is interested in attending Globalcomm (Chicago, June 4th-7th), here is a discount coupon good for a free floor pass(es) or $150 off of a complete registration: http://www.imagestream.com/Globalcomm2006.PDF Hope to see you there! Jeff Jeffrey Broadwick, Sales Manager

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Patrick Leary
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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Matt Liotta
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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Patrick Leary
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.

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Matt Liotta
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

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-26 Thread Patrick Leary
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