Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
John, The BIGGEST thing that we have to protest was the request to SPLIT the spectrum of only 50Mhz total. Splitting it will mean slow speed offerings from WISPs, and no where to move to to avoid interference. The band will be most valuable to us as one large chunk regardless if its contention based on Wimax 16h. The beauty of the FCC's intent to allow MULTIPLE methods of contention based, is the key to getting cost down. The same would apply if Wimac 16h was allowed. If 16H was certified good for 3650, there is a chance prices will go low, if they also know other vendor's protocols would also be allowed. I'd rather see interference than Vendor ownership of the band. We can deal with Interferecne just like we do it today. My 2 cents. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week Can you tell me again what the broad strokes were of the WiMAX Forum and Alvarion responses to the 3650 Ruling? I want top make sure I am making accurate statements before we debate this any further. If memory serves me correctly the WiMAX Forum and Alvarion asked that 3650 be split between unlicensed and licensed use is this correct? What else was requested and who requested what exactly? Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, I feel I have contributed with past posts. Google search 802.16h and you'll see what the Wimax group is working on. QOS in the unlicensed bands with a Wimax brand. The FCC also mentioned Wimax in the same breath as contention based so my guess is they want the industry to figure it out which is why we are having this dialog. My point all along is that many may ask for something that only a few will build which means you'll have more of the same products you have today. I don't think it's a secret to why the FCC wanted a contention based system. They didn't want any one vendor's radio monopolizing the band such as you know who. So if the Wimax Group is working on a solution for proper sharing of the spectrum with QOS in mind, why wouldn't you want it (of course leaving price aside for the moment)? My issue below is that some in the Wifi camp don't want you to look under the Wimax hood and they seem to be spreading snakehead analogies with other half truths and that is indeed sad. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week Brad, Why don't you contribute some constructive information WISPA could use to develop a response that gives us a reason to favor your position and helps us in our efforts to make use of this band. If contention based systems will not work then why did the FCC stipulate this in their proposed ruling? Scriv Brad Larson wrote: "While I confess I am not an engineer, I am informed by those that are that while theoretically true, the practical effect will be to make contention-based technology impossible and to limit the utility of the band to licensee using WiMax and using 3650- 3700 MHz as a "spillover" band to lower their costs." "Why must every available frequency be made "WiMax friendly" anymore than every available frequency should be "broadcast friendly" or "PCS friendly."" I'm sure Harold means well but this is the kind of thing that is totally ridiculous. If he would have looked under the hood (and his informed engineers) he would have seen that the Wimax Forum IS working on a solution to "always on" license free technology. Google search 802.16h. What stops the wifi crowd from participating? Kind of blows away his aurgument (and his in-the-know engineers). And if the Wimax Forum really wanted to "limit the utility of the band to a licensee" I believe there response to the R&O would have read quite differently. Personally I like Harold and have followed a bunch of his editorials including some on the Wireless Phila project but I really think he could have thought through this one some more. Just my several cents. Brad -----Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:55 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Cc: 'FCC Discussion' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week To help things out a bit...we did summarize this "contention-based" debate in our latest newsletter... Basically...positions are as follows: The 3650 "Contention-Based" Debate Point: MAP Goes on the Offensive WiMAX is something like the Northern Snakehead. The snakehead is a perfectly fine species in its home waters, has enormous flexibility and du
RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
Alvarion suggested the Top 50 US cities split in two 25 mhz licensed chunks. Rest of US in an unlicensed manner. Similar to what Canada had done in the past. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week Can you tell me again what the broad strokes were of the WiMAX Forum and Alvarion responses to the 3650 Ruling? I want top make sure I am making accurate statements before we debate this any further. If memory serves me correctly the WiMAX Forum and Alvarion asked that 3650 be split between unlicensed and licensed use is this correct? What else was requested and who requested what exactly? Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: >John, I feel I have contributed with past posts. Google search 802.16h and >you'll see what the Wimax group is working on. QOS in the unlicensed bands >with a Wimax brand. The FCC also mentioned Wimax in the same breath as >contention based so my guess is they want the industry to figure it out >which is why we are having this dialog. My point all along is that many may >ask for something that only a few will build which means you'll have more of >the same products you have today. > >I don't think it's a secret to why the FCC wanted a contention based system. >They didn't want any one vendor's radio monopolizing the band such as you >know who. So if the Wimax Group is working on a solution for proper sharing >of the spectrum with QOS in mind, why wouldn't you want it (of course >leaving price aside for the moment)? > >My issue below is that some in the Wifi camp don't want you to look under >the Wimax hood and they seem to be spreading snakehead analogies with other >half truths and that is indeed sad. Brad > > >-Original Message- >From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:49 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week > > >Brad, >Why don't you contribute some constructive information WISPA could use >to develop a response that gives us a reason to favor your position and >helps us in our efforts to make use of this band. If contention based >systems will not work then why did the FCC stipulate this in their >proposed ruling? Scriv > > > >Brad Larson wrote: > > > >>"While I confess I am not an engineer, I am informed by those that are that >>while theoretically true, the practical effect will >>be to make contention-based technology impossible and to limit the utility >>of the band to licensee using WiMax and using 3650- 3700 MHz as a >>"spillover" band to lower their costs." >> >>"Why must every available frequency be made "WiMax friendly" anymore than >>every available frequency should be "broadcast friendly" or "PCS >> >> >friendly."" > > >>I'm sure Harold means well but this is the kind of thing that is totally >>ridiculous. If he would have looked under the hood (and his informed >>engineers) he would have seen that the Wimax Forum IS working on a solution >>to "always on" license free technology. Google search 802.16h. What stops >>the wifi crowd from participating? Kind of blows away his aurgument (and >> >> >his > > >>in-the-know engineers). And if the Wimax Forum really wanted to "limit the >>utility of the band to a licensee" I believe there response to the R&O >> >> >would > > >>have read quite differently. >> >>Personally I like Harold and have followed a bunch of his editorials >>including some on the Wireless Phila project but I really think he could >>have thought through this one some more. Just my several cents. Brad >> >> >> >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:55 PM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Cc: 'FCC Discussion' >>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week >> >> >>To help things out a bit...we did summarize this "contention-based" debate >>in our latest newsletter... >> >>Basically...positions are as follows: >> >>The 3650 "Contention-Based" Debate >>Point: MAP Goes on the Offensive >> >>WiMAX is something like the Northern Snakehead. The snakehead is a >>perfectly fine species in its home waters, has enormous flexibility and >>durability for a fish, and is reported to be quite tasty. But
Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
Can you tell me again what the broad strokes were of the WiMAX Forum and Alvarion responses to the 3650 Ruling? I want top make sure I am making accurate statements before we debate this any further. If memory serves me correctly the WiMAX Forum and Alvarion asked that 3650 be split between unlicensed and licensed use is this correct? What else was requested and who requested what exactly? Thanks, Scriv Brad Larson wrote: John, I feel I have contributed with past posts. Google search 802.16h and you'll see what the Wimax group is working on. QOS in the unlicensed bands with a Wimax brand. The FCC also mentioned Wimax in the same breath as contention based so my guess is they want the industry to figure it out which is why we are having this dialog. My point all along is that many may ask for something that only a few will build which means you'll have more of the same products you have today. I don't think it's a secret to why the FCC wanted a contention based system. They didn't want any one vendor's radio monopolizing the band such as you know who. So if the Wimax Group is working on a solution for proper sharing of the spectrum with QOS in mind, why wouldn't you want it (of course leaving price aside for the moment)? My issue below is that some in the Wifi camp don't want you to look under the Wimax hood and they seem to be spreading snakehead analogies with other half truths and that is indeed sad. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week Brad, Why don't you contribute some constructive information WISPA could use to develop a response that gives us a reason to favor your position and helps us in our efforts to make use of this band. If contention based systems will not work then why did the FCC stipulate this in their proposed ruling? Scriv Brad Larson wrote: "While I confess I am not an engineer, I am informed by those that are that while theoretically true, the practical effect will be to make contention-based technology impossible and to limit the utility of the band to licensee using WiMax and using 3650- 3700 MHz as a "spillover" band to lower their costs." "Why must every available frequency be made "WiMax friendly" anymore than every available frequency should be "broadcast friendly" or "PCS friendly."" I'm sure Harold means well but this is the kind of thing that is totally ridiculous. If he would have looked under the hood (and his informed engineers) he would have seen that the Wimax Forum IS working on a solution to "always on" license free technology. Google search 802.16h. What stops the wifi crowd from participating? Kind of blows away his aurgument (and his in-the-know engineers). And if the Wimax Forum really wanted to "limit the utility of the band to a licensee" I believe there response to the R&O would have read quite differently. Personally I like Harold and have followed a bunch of his editorials including some on the Wireless Phila project but I really think he could have thought through this one some more. Just my several cents. Brad -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:55 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Cc: 'FCC Discussion' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week To help things out a bit...we did summarize this "contention-based" debate in our latest newsletter... Basically...positions are as follows: The 3650 "Contention-Based" Debate Point: MAP Goes on the Offensive WiMAX is something like the Northern Snakehead. The snakehead is a perfectly fine species in its home waters, has enormous flexibility and durability for a fish, and is reported to be quite tasty. But let it loose in the Potomac (in this case, the 3650 Band) and it will quickly drive off or kill many of the native species (WiFi, Mesh, Other Technologies)... A "Contended" Rebuttal Counterpoint from the WiMAX "Posse" In the end, unless our (the WiMAX forums) recommendations are adopted, the 3650 rules will end up creating a sort of limbo of a Mexican stand-off, ensuring that decent use of the band doesn't happen for a long time (like what's happening in 5.4 GHz)... Full summary/story is in our newsletter: Page 5 http://www.cwlab.com/newsletter/volume2-7/volume2-7.pdf -Charles --- WISPNOG Park City, UT http://www.wispnog.com August 15-17, 2005 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FCC Discussion Subject: [WISPA] 3650 due next week Importance: Hig
RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
John, I feel I have contributed with past posts. Google search 802.16h and you'll see what the Wimax group is working on. QOS in the unlicensed bands with a Wimax brand. The FCC also mentioned Wimax in the same breath as contention based so my guess is they want the industry to figure it out which is why we are having this dialog. My point all along is that many may ask for something that only a few will build which means you'll have more of the same products you have today. I don't think it's a secret to why the FCC wanted a contention based system. They didn't want any one vendor's radio monopolizing the band such as you know who. So if the Wimax Group is working on a solution for proper sharing of the spectrum with QOS in mind, why wouldn't you want it (of course leaving price aside for the moment)? My issue below is that some in the Wifi camp don't want you to look under the Wimax hood and they seem to be spreading snakehead analogies with other half truths and that is indeed sad. Brad -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week Brad, Why don't you contribute some constructive information WISPA could use to develop a response that gives us a reason to favor your position and helps us in our efforts to make use of this band. If contention based systems will not work then why did the FCC stipulate this in their proposed ruling? Scriv Brad Larson wrote: >"While I confess I am not an engineer, I am informed by those that are that >while theoretically true, the practical effect will >be to make contention-based technology impossible and to limit the utility >of the band to licensee using WiMax and using 3650- 3700 MHz as a >"spillover" band to lower their costs." > >"Why must every available frequency be made "WiMax friendly" anymore than >every available frequency should be "broadcast friendly" or "PCS friendly."" > >I'm sure Harold means well but this is the kind of thing that is totally >ridiculous. If he would have looked under the hood (and his informed >engineers) he would have seen that the Wimax Forum IS working on a solution >to "always on" license free technology. Google search 802.16h. What stops >the wifi crowd from participating? Kind of blows away his aurgument (and his >in-the-know engineers). And if the Wimax Forum really wanted to "limit the >utility of the band to a licensee" I believe there response to the R&O would >have read quite differently. > >Personally I like Harold and have followed a bunch of his editorials >including some on the Wireless Phila project but I really think he could >have thought through this one some more. Just my several cents. Brad > > > > > >-Original Message- >From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:55 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Cc: 'FCC Discussion' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week > > >To help things out a bit...we did summarize this "contention-based" debate >in our latest newsletter... > >Basically...positions are as follows: > >The 3650 "Contention-Based" Debate >Point: MAP Goes on the Offensive > >WiMAX is something like the Northern Snakehead. The snakehead is a >perfectly fine species in its home waters, has enormous flexibility and >durability for a fish, and is reported to be quite tasty. But let it loose >in the Potomac (in this case, the 3650 Band) and it will quickly drive off >or kill many of the native species (WiFi, Mesh, Other Technologies)... > >A "Contended" Rebuttal >Counterpoint from the WiMAX "Posse" > >In the end, unless our (the WiMAX forums) recommendations are adopted, the >3650 rules will end up creating a sort of limbo of a Mexican stand-off, >ensuring that decent use of the band doesn't happen for a long time (like >what's happening in 5.4 GHz)... > >Full summary/story is in our newsletter: Page 5 >http://www.cwlab.com/newsletter/volume2-7/volume2-7.pdf > >-Charles > >--- >WISPNOG Park City, UT >http://www.wispnog.com >August 15-17, 2005 > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 >Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:04 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: FCC Discussion >Subject: [WISPA] 3650 due next week >Importance: High > > >Hi All, > >All this talk about antennas and maps is cool stuff. But I've still not >gotten current direction from the paid membership and if we&#
Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
Brad, Why don't you contribute some constructive information WISPA could use to develop a response that gives us a reason to favor your position and helps us in our efforts to make use of this band. If contention based systems will not work then why did the FCC stipulate this in their proposed ruling? Scriv Brad Larson wrote: "While I confess I am not an engineer, I am informed by those that are that while theoretically true, the practical effect will be to make contention-based technology impossible and to limit the utility of the band to licensee using WiMax and using 3650- 3700 MHz as a "spillover" band to lower their costs." "Why must every available frequency be made "WiMax friendly" anymore than every available frequency should be "broadcast friendly" or "PCS friendly."" I'm sure Harold means well but this is the kind of thing that is totally ridiculous. If he would have looked under the hood (and his informed engineers) he would have seen that the Wimax Forum IS working on a solution to "always on" license free technology. Google search 802.16h. What stops the wifi crowd from participating? Kind of blows away his aurgument (and his in-the-know engineers). And if the Wimax Forum really wanted to "limit the utility of the band to a licensee" I believe there response to the R&O would have read quite differently. Personally I like Harold and have followed a bunch of his editorials including some on the Wireless Phila project but I really think he could have thought through this one some more. Just my several cents. Brad -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:55 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Cc: 'FCC Discussion' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week To help things out a bit...we did summarize this "contention-based" debate in our latest newsletter... Basically...positions are as follows: The 3650 "Contention-Based" Debate Point: MAP Goes on the Offensive WiMAX is something like the Northern Snakehead. The snakehead is a perfectly fine species in its home waters, has enormous flexibility and durability for a fish, and is reported to be quite tasty. But let it loose in the Potomac (in this case, the 3650 Band) and it will quickly drive off or kill many of the native species (WiFi, Mesh, Other Technologies)... A "Contended" Rebuttal Counterpoint from the WiMAX "Posse" In the end, unless our (the WiMAX forums) recommendations are adopted, the 3650 rules will end up creating a sort of limbo of a Mexican stand-off, ensuring that decent use of the band doesn't happen for a long time (like what's happening in 5.4 GHz)... Full summary/story is in our newsletter: Page 5 http://www.cwlab.com/newsletter/volume2-7/volume2-7.pdf -Charles --- WISPNOG Park City, UT http://www.wispnog.com August 15-17, 2005 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: FCC Discussion Subject: [WISPA] 3650 due next week Importance: High Hi All, All this talk about antennas and maps is cool stuff. But I've still not gotten current direction from the paid membership and if we're going to file against the stuff that Motorola etc. is asking the FCC to do I need to get it done asap. Do you guys remember the issues or do I need to dig out the old posts? All opinions wanted, but only the paid members count :-) 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 -- WISPA Wireless List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
