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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
