RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 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 > 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 u
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 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 points that win the acceptance war? It seems it's slowly happening because of WISP growth previous to this point. I am convinced that in 10 years, we're going to be offering today's wired speeds to our customers, for purposes we haven't even considered feasible yet. But only, and ONLY if we figure out how to become sufficiently large numbers of acceptance to be 'ubiquitous'. This is NOT going to happen with $400 CPE at a residence. Nor at $300. Nolt at $200. Maybe not at $150.At least not without some very interesting funding that's not interested in a return... So how do we make that leap? I don't have the answer. But I have certainly had the conversation with people who've decided what thier strategy is. For some, it's do whatever it takes to get the customer, even if it means "trash" end gear. Others (including me) have gone for a bit higher road. Others, seek the deep pockets funding first. Each has varying levels of success, but at least some of every approach have succeeded. Frankly, I don't know how we're going to get such great technology at Walmart prices... But I do know that if we don't, we're not going to be around in the future, because at least the cable and telco industries already have demonstrated they can get good "acceptance" at thier prices. Frankly, I don't know how the FCC views this. Thier attitude toward 3650 seemed to indicate a realization of what I've stated above. Maybe not. Heck, I don't even know if the majority of us even have this idea in mind in the first place. Are we prepared for 60 to 70% acceptance rates in our defined areas of deployment? Can we actually install that fast? If we can, can we actually finance it?DSL turning up in a town means that they're prepared for 20 to 40% acceptance. Often within less than a year. Those, I believe, are the factors for ubiqu
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 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/
RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper - V ersion 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 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 chan
