Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-06-13 Thread Rich Comroe

Nah.  What Charles misses in his commentary


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 =(


is that a band doesn't need to be licensed to insure that a technology is 
only competing with like technology.  All the FCC would have to do to make 
Charles presumption all wet is to only type accept 3650 products compliant 
to a common spec.  Unless I'm mistaken, there aren't any GPS-synced FM-based 
FSK friends in the 3650 band.  As long as the rules only type accept a 
common interference avoidance spec (or a contention spec as many call it), 
then unlicensed systems in the same band play nice.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


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 I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
version

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
SIM

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works
indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the
ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 Frankly,

 The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
 industry
 to
 really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found
 is
 that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-31 Thread Brad Larson
Tom, Dang you got this all wrong. Let's make sure we understand what
Alvarion's comments said so everyone understands. Our comment breaking the
band in two was to strip rural and suburban from the top 100 US markets. Top
100 markets split in two 25 Mhz chunks and licensed with the REST of the US
being UL. There is plenty of broadband in those top 100 markets. The FCC's
intent for the 3650 band is suburbs and rural access. 

 There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is
the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having
the balls to make gear to meet the specification. 

That's just not correct. What we don't want to do is build a product that
you'll have to rip out and replace because it doesn't meet the future
spec when we finally get a ruling on what the product should look and
smell like then most will invest and deliver a product. 

Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of
technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy.  The attempted
3650 rules were to foster improved policy.  Why would anyone fight that?

The 3650 is a rural broadband play getting you access to your own spectrum
to serve those customers without having to compete with baby monitors and
wifi gear on every street corner. Innovation won't take place unless the FCC
takes a stand on technology. IMHO what we don't need is a bunch more
inefficient 20 mhz spectrum hogs at sub 10 meg speeds or worse. And to say
Alvarion is fighting improved policy is a stretch.

Tom, I really think you need to reread our filings or maybe stop listening
to those who may have an axe to grind. Brad


-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

In other words, the number of
 licenses is infinite.

Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or

cooperate to attempt to co-exist.
And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are 
located, and how to contact them.

It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to

operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability 
for more providers to cooexist.  And quite honestly, I think its an 
experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could

help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy.

One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments 
suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The 
reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their 
available spectrum range channels.  Narrowing channel selection down to the 
point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just 
repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the 
spectrum range.  I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5 
Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is 
also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin.

However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any 
requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz.
This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I 
also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it

all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose.

I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits 
is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude 
competiton and possible innovators.  The whole point in 3650 was to attempt 
to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced.

I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to 
Alvarion's reputation.  Its not only important to incourage innovation and 
more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient 
Policy.  The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy.  Why would

anyone fight that?

The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention 
based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in 
engineering phase designed for the spectrum range.  Its was innovative rules

prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused.

There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the

manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the 
balls to make gear to meet the specification.

I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP 
link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using 
higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to 
escape the noise and improve SNR.  When the whole band is allowed for PTP, 
it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio 
can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-31 Thread Tom DeReggi
 modulations of 
OFDM.



Alvarion is fighting improved policy is a stretch.


I'll go as far as saying Alvarion has always been one of the LEADING 
contributors/supporters to incourage improved policy for the industry. If 
not the definitive #1 supporter. And that I thank and recognize Alvarion 
for.  But on 3650, I did not share Alvarion's views.  A lot of time went 
into 3650, debating what should be offered, before it was offered. Many 
thought it to be a gift to independant ISPs. To protest the allocation, was 
indirectly almost a protest against WISPs, and it didn't help to add in 
licenced, which was NOT the initial intent for the band.  Allthough many 
WISPs will convert to partially licenced where applicable as they grow, the 
bulk of WISPs today are not Licensed operators. So giving it to Licensed 
does not infer benefit to WISPs.  3650 was the first attempt to give better 
than unlicenced to the WISP industry who deserved to have it, after their 
stunning success at struggling with junk band spectrum for so long.



Tom, I really think you need to reread our filings or maybe stop listening
to those who may have an axe to grind. Brad


Its very possible that Alvarion's views were made in the intent to cause 
possitive change for the benefit of all.  But I did not get that impression 
based on my views that I expressed earlier in this post.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc


-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.


Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, 
or


cooperate to attempt to co-exist.
And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are
located, and how to contact them.

It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed 
to


operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability
for more providers to cooexist.  And quite honestly, I think its an
experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome 
could


help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy.

One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments
suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The
reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their
available spectrum range channels.  Narrowing channel selection down to 
the

point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just
repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the
spectrum range.  I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5
Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is
also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin.

However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any
requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz.
This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I
also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as 
it


all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same 
purpose.


I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits
is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude
competiton and possible innovators.  The whole point in 3650 was to 
attempt

to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced.

I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful 
to

Alvarion's reputation.  Its not only important to incourage innovation and
more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient
Policy.  The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy.  Why 
would


anyone fight that?

The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention
based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in
engineering phase designed for the spectrum range.  Its was innovative 
rules


prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused.

There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is 
the


manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having 
the

balls to make gear to meet the specification.

I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP
link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using
higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to
escape the noise and improve SNR.  When the whole band is allowed for PTP,
it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio
can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell site, and totally
destroy it without anywhere for the existing provider to temporarilly move
to, until resolved.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-30 Thread Matt Liotta
There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can 
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two 
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to 
miss the market.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


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 radio.

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


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.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and
  

 


utility


   


of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
 


factors
 


are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
  

 


version


   


of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
  

 


SIM


   


card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



  

 


3.5Ghz does,
 



   


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
  

 


on


   


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-30 Thread Matt Liotta
I certainly understand SNR and how it effects licensed gear as well. If 
you want to operate a network of any size you are going to need at least 
3 channels. Further, even with 3 channels you will need to operate more 
than one sector on the same channel at a base station, which is 
certainly going to lower your SNR. We see this today we 5.8Ghz where 
self-interference is the only kind of interference we run into most of 
the time.


-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:


Hi Matt,

You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost
impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR
In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed
bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 

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. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types 
of services.


I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into 
something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that 
will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P 
radio, in which case the entire range should be usable.


Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and
  

 


utility


   

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I 
support essentially splitting the band.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Patrick Leary

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment 
yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.


Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 
802.16e
  

 


version


   

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the 
base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE 
with a
  

 


SIM


   

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation 
and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.


Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-30 Thread Patrick Leary
Matt,
I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light
licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration)
compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of,
there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for
get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can 
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two 
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to 
miss the market.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

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 radio.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

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.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into
something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which
case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and
   

  

utility
 



of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
  

factors
  

are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
   

  

version
 



of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the
base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-30 Thread Matt Liotta
I misunderstood one of your earlier emails then. I thought you were 
advocating the split of the entire band into mutually exclusive licenses.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


Matt,
I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light
licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration)
compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of,
there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for
get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can 
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two 
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to 
miss the market.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 


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 radio.

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



   


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.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into
 


something
 


like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which
 


case
 


the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and
 



   


utility


  

 


of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-30 Thread Patrick Leary
Right, I would not want that. In fact, the WiMAX Forum, Intel, Alvarion,
Redline, the WCA...none of us filed reconsiderations that advocated making
the whole band exclusively licensed. Within our industry only Motorola filed
for total exclusive licenses, though today they have moderated their
position somewhat.

Patrick

 -Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:56 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

I misunderstood one of your earlier emails then. I thought you were 
advocating the split of the entire band into mutually exclusive licenses.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

Matt,
I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light
licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing (registration)
compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of,
there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply for
get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can 
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two 
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to 
miss the market.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

  

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 radio.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

 



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.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into
  

something
  

like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which
  

case
  

the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and
  

 



utility


   

  

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-30 Thread Tom DeReggi

In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.


Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or 
cooperate to attempt to co-exist.
And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are 
located, and how to contact them.


It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to 
operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability 
for more providers to cooexist.  And quite honestly, I think its an 
experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could 
help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy.


One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments 
suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The 
reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their 
available spectrum range channels.  Narrowing channel selection down to the 
point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just 
repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the 
spectrum range.  I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5 
Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is 
also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin.


However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any 
requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz.
This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I 
also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it 
all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose.


I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits 
is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude 
competiton and possible innovators.  The whole point in 3650 was to attempt 
to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced.


I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to 
Alvarion's reputation.  Its not only important to incourage innovation and 
more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient 
Policy.  The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy.  Why would 
anyone fight that?


The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention 
based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in 
engineering phase designed for the spectrum range.  Its was innovative rules 
prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused.


There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the 
manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the 
balls to make gear to meet the specification.


I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP 
link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using 
higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to 
escape the noise and improve SNR.  When the whole band is allowed for PTP, 
it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio 
can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell site, and totally 
destroy it without anywhere for the existing provider to temporarilly move 
to, until resolved.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



Matt,
I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light
licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing 
(registration)

compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of,
there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply 
for

get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to
miss the market.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


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 radio.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

The radios that exist for 900Mhz

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-30 Thread jeffrey thomas
IN 2.4Ghz you have the 3-1 rule and a very high noisefloor, practically
everywhere.


On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:23:22 -0400, Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  3.5Ghz does,
 
 I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
 on 
 900Mhz.
 
 What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?
 
 With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP
 or 
 mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.
 
 Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
 - Original Message - 
 From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 
  The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
  to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.
 
  5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
 
  5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors
 
  4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors
 
  3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
  clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
  to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.
 
  When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
  availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
  At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
  in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
 
 
  On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  How do you figure?
  You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?
 
  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
  Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 
   Frankly,
  
   The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the 
   industry
   to
   really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
   is
   that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
   small
   and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
   deployments
   outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
  
   -
  
   Jeff
  
  
  
  
  
   On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
   477s
   also
  
   The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
   flaunting
   the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
   argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys 
   that
   can't be taken seriously
  
   Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink 
   flamingo
   suit when he represents the industry in DC
  
   -Charles
  
   ---
   CWLab
   Technology Architects
   http://www.cwlab.com
  
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   On
   Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
   Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
  
  
   In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
   deployment
   which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know 
   of
   one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 
   CPE.
  
  
  
  
   -
  
   Jeff
  
   On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   said:
   Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to 
   test
   a single base station?
  
   Gino A. Villarini
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
   tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   On Behalf Of Jack Unger
   Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
  
   Gino,
  
   Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
  
   jack
  
  
   Gino A. Villarini wrote:
  
   Towerstream anyone ?
  
   Gino A. Villarini
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
   tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   On Behalf Of Jack Unger
   Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
  
   Jeffrey,
  
   I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of
   anyone
   who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
   experimental system and using it for a commercial, 
   revenue-generating
   purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
  
   1. Someone with no business sense
   2. Someone with no appreciation

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-27 Thread Charles Wu
Hi Matt,

You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost
impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR
In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed
bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

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. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types 
of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into 
something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that 
will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P 
radio, in which case the entire range should be usable.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and


utility
  

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I 
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment 
yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 
802.16e


version
  

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the 
base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE 
with a


SIM
  

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation 
and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 



3.5Ghz does,
   

  

I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we 
rely


on
  

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for 
PtP or



  

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels 
allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

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 Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to
at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to
about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. 

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity,
is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you
will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000
homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 How do you figure?
 You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 
  Frankly,
 
  The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the 
  industry
  to
  really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is
  that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
small
  and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
deployments
  outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
 
 
 
 
  On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
  Form
  477s
  also
 
  The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
  flaunting
  the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
  argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys
that
  can't be taken seriously
 
  Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink 
  flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC
 
  -Charles
 
  ---
  CWLab
  Technology Architects
  http://www.cwlab.com
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 
  In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
  deployment
  which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know
of
  one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000
CPE.
 
 
 
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
  On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  said:
  Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to 
  test a single base station?
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
  Gino,
 
  Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial 
  service?
 
  jack
 
 
  Gino A. Villarini wrote:
 
  Towerstream anyone ?
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
  Jeffrey,
 
  I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of 
  anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a 
  licensed experimental system and using it for a commercial, 
  revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
 
  1. Someone with no business sense
  2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the 
  enforcement powers of the FCC
  3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
  4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable,
long-term
  WISP service.
 jack
 
 
 
  jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
 
  Patrick,
 
  It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited 
  deployments as a test but still charged for the access 
  service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside 
  for unlicensed anyways

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 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 Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service to
at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to
about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. 


When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above availablity,
is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you
will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000
homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 


How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


   


Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the 
industry

to
really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
 


small
 


and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
 


deployments
 


outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 

All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
Form

477s
also

The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
flaunting
the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys
   


that
 


can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink 
flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC


-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas

Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
deployment
which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know
   


of
 


one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000
   


CPE.
 




-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
   

Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to 
test a single base station?


Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial 
service?


jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 


Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of 
anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a 
licensed experimental system and using it for a commercial, 
revenue-generating purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):


1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the 
enforcement powers of the FCC

3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable,
   


long-term
 


WISP service.
  jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:


   


Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited

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 types -- I saw a WORKING DEMO of a MINI-PCI
WiMAX card for 3.5

Some interesting CPE makers (they all use this mini-pci WiMAX card inside)

http://www.ente.com.pl/default.aspx?docId=2555mId1=2509

http://www.winetworks.com/products_win2000.html

The Book CPE (IMO - quite nifty looking)
http://www.quadmaxsystems.se/products.php

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:00 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


All WiMAX vendors will have some version of this type of CPE since that is a
mandatory requirement for licensed band operators. Each will have their own
attempts at special sauce to differentiate their offering. It will get very
interesting come fall (which is not to say that these last 8 years have not
been interesting!)

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Patrick Leary wrote:
 A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment 
 yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.
 
 Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
factors
 are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
version
 of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the 
 base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE 
 with a
SIM
 card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation 
 and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.
 
 Patrick Leary
 AVP Marketing
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243

I don't know how much more we cn ask for, zero truck roll self install

How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are 
we talking here.

Please throw something out there for pricing.

Thanks

George

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp
Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer viruses.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 3.5Ghz does,

I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or 
mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
 service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

 3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by 
 clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works 
 indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

 When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above 
 availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. 
 At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the 
 ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

 -

 Jeff



 On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 How do you figure?
 You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


  Frankly,
 
  The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
  industry
  to
  really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
  is
  that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
  small
  and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
  deployments
  outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
 
 
 
 
  On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
  Form 477s also
 
  The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
  flaunting the rules -- namely the fact that you are just 
  reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just 
  creates a bunch of cowboys that
  can't be taken seriously
 
  Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
  flamingo
  suit when he represents the industry in DC
 
  -Charles
 
  ---
  CWLab
  Technology Architects
  http://www.cwlab.com
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On
  Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 
  In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier 
  deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is 
  a test. I know

  of
  one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 
  2000
  CPE.
 
 
 
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
  On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  said:
  Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to
  test
  a single base station?
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel

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 deploy your fancy schmancy 1024-FFT
OFDM/mimo/beam-forming/space-coded/blah blah system w/ it's superior
scheduled WiMAX MAC

The other 9 of em deploy FM modulated FSK based systems across town

What do you think is going to happen?

-Charles


---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


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 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 Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:02 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service 
to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by 
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works 
indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above 
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. 
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones 
in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment




Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
industry
to
really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
  

small
  

and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
  

deployments
  

outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their
Form
477s
also

The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
flaunting the rules -- namely the fact that you are just 
reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates 
a bunch of cowboys


that
  

can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier 
deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a 
test. I know


of
  

one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000


CPE.
  



-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:


Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to
test a single base station?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial
service?

jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:

  

Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto

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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


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 I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 3.5Ghz does,

I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or 
mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
 service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

 3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by 
 clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works 
 indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

 When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above 
 availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. 
 At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the 
 ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

 -

 Jeff



 On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 How do you figure?
 You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


  Frankly,
 
  The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
  industry
  to
  really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
  is
  that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
  small
  and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
  deployments
  outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
 
 
 
 
  On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
  Form 477s also
 
  The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
  flaunting the rules -- namely the fact that you are just 
  reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just 
  creates a bunch of cowboys that
  can't be taken seriously
 
  Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
  flamingo
  suit when he represents the industry in DC
 
  -Charles
 
  ---
  CWLab
  Technology Architects
  http://www.cwlab.com
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On
  Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM

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 terms of the end reality and utility
of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 


3.5Ghz does,
   



I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or 
mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.


Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 

The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.


5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by 
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works 
indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.


When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above 
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. 
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the 
ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.


-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
   


How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 


Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
industry
to
really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
small
and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
deployments

outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   

All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their 
Form 477s also


The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
flaunting the rules -- namely the fact that you are just 
reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just 
creates a bunch of cowboys that

can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
flamingo
suit when he represents the industry in DC

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas

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.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and
utility
of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

  

3.5Ghz does,



I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
on

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


  

The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by 
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works 
indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above 
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. 
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the 
ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:


How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


  

Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
industry
to
really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
small
and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale

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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.


-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:


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.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 


-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and
   


utility
 


of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
   


version
 


of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
   


SIM
 


card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



   


3.5Ghz does,
  

 


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
   


on
 


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or
   



 


mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment




   

The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed 
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.


5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by 
clearwire. Airspan

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 radio.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be 
interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive 
spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a 
WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service 
operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile 
service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). 
Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too 
services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures 
would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, 
but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

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.
Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something
like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the
entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case
the entire range should be usable.

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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 terms of the end reality and


utility
  

of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I
support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

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

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e


version
  

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a


SIM
  

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 



3.5Ghz does,
   

  

I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely


on
  

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP
or



  

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry 
to

really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small
and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments
outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 
477s

also

The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards 
flaunting

the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys that
can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo
suit when he represents the industry in DC

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier 
deployment

which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of
one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE.




-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

said:

Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to test
a single base station?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?

jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of
anyone
who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating
purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):

1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the
enforcement
powers of the FCC
3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term
WISP service.
   jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:



Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited
deployments as a test but still charged for the access service,
banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for
unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on
them is very low.

Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources
that is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:



Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be
breaking the law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band -
Clarifications


Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding
interference in congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband 
in

the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the 
details.



As
things currently stand, deploying a 3.65

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

2006-05-25 Thread Patrick Leary
No, I do not think so. The 5.47-5.725GHz issue is resolved. It is only a
matter of the FCC setting certification criteria. 3650MHz is still
unresolved, though the commission has begun work on it again. Once
resolution occurs, then they have to go through the steps of creating the
registration process for the light licensing and certification process. This
will not complete for sure this year.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Gino A. Villarini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 5:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

So Patrick, can we expect 3.65 be available at the same time as 5.4 ...
q3-q4 ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:18 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks
with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16,
or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language
not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were
looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have
an actual contention requirement in the rules itself.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

Will the 3650 be  WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to 
be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based.

Any updates?



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread Patrick Leary
For me, the statement old saying that comes to mind is, the definition of
character is what one does when no one else is looking.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: jeffrey thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:59 PM
To: WISPA General List; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 

Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
 congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
 rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
 (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
 in
 any other service.
 (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
 engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
 (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
 approval of such equipment.
 (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
 related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
 testing or calibration of equipment.
 (i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
 engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
 (j) Limited market studies.
 (k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
 paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
 demonstration of need
 
 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
 
 (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
 be
 issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
 radio
 waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a
 use
 of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in
 connection
 with research projects when existing communications facilities are
 inadequate.
 
 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements
 
 (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio
 Service
 must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in
 detail
 the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific
 objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of
 experimentation
 has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension,
 or
 expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread Patrick Leary
A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version
of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM
card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 3.5Ghz does,

I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on

900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or 
mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
 to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

 3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
 clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
 to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

 When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
 availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
 At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
 in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

 -

 Jeff



 On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 How do you figure?
 You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


  Frankly,
 
  The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the 
  industry
  to
  really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found 
  is
  that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be 
  small
  and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale 
  deployments
  outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
 
 
 
 
  On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
  477s
  also
 
  The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
  flaunting
  the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
  argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys 
  that
  can't be taken seriously
 
  Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink 
  flamingo
  suit when he represents the industry in DC
 
  -Charles
 
  ---
  CWLab
  Technology Architects
  http://www.cwlab.com
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On
  Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 
  In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
  deployment
  which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know

  of
  one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 
  CPE.
 
 
 
 
  -
 
  Jeff
 
  On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  said:
  Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to 
  test
  a single base station?
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
  Gino,
 
  Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
 
  jack
 
 
  Gino A. Villarini wrote:
 
  Towerstream anyone ?
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread George Rogato
To make it easier, maybe you can give what you believe to be an industry 
price. I realize you can't give a price of Alvarion at this point. But 
you can give us a hip shoot of what you think common pricing for ce and 
ap are.


Thanks

George

George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

Pretty exciting.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
version

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
SIM

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 Frankly,

 The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
 industry
 to
 really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found
 is
 that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
 small
 and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
 deployments
 outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

 -

 Jeff





 On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
 477s
 also

 The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
 flaunting
 the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
 argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys
 that
 can't be taken seriously

 Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
 flamingo
 suit when he represents the industry in DC

 -Charles

 ---
 CWLab
 Technology Architects
 http://www.cwlab.com



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
 Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
 deployment
 which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I 
 know



 of
 one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000
 CPE.




 -

 Jeff

 On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:
 Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to
 test
 a single base station?

 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 Gino,

 Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial 
 service?


 jack


 Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 Towerstream anyone ?

 Gino A. Villarini

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

Is Alvarion going to do the same for 5.8G unlicensed Wimax?
All though license and high power may not be there, the technical features 
could have a major positive impact.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
factors
are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
version

of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
SIM

card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


3.5Ghz does,


I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
or

mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment.
At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones
in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeffrey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 Frankly,

 The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the
 industry
 to
 really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found
 is
 that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be
 small
 and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale
 deployments
 outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

 -

 Jeff





 On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form
 477s
 also

 The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
 flaunting
 the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
 argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys
 that
 can't be taken seriously

 Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink
 flamingo
 suit when he represents the industry in DC

 -Charles

 ---
 CWLab
 Technology Architects
 http://www.cwlab.com



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On
 Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
 deployment
 which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I 
 know



 of
 one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000
 CPE.




 -

 Jeff

 On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:
 Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to
 test
 a single base station?

 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 Gino

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread Patrick Leary
All WiMAX vendors will have some version of this type of CPE since that is a
mandatory requirement for licensed band operators. Each will have their own
attempts at special sauce to differentiate their offering. It will get very
interesting come fall (which is not to say that these last 8 years have not
been interesting!)

Patrick 

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Patrick Leary wrote:
 A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
 much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.
 
 Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other
factors
 are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
version
 of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
 station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
SIM
 card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
 you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.
 
 Patrick Leary
 AVP Marketing
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243

I don't know how much more we cn ask for, zero truck roll self install

How well does it penetrate trees and what kind of bal park pricing are 
we talking here.

Please throw something out there for pricing.

Thanks

George

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-25 Thread Patrick Leary
Unfortunately, such CPE are not going to happen in 5.8GHz, WiMAX or not.
Neither the band physics or power limits allow for it.

There are a host of other major issues surrounding UL WiMAX that all work
against it appearing any time this year. These include at least the
following:
- the uncertainty over 3650MHz. This is a much better potential WiMAX UL
band than 5.8GHz for three reasons - power, physics, and less ambient
interference (no consumer devices).
- the WiMAX Forum profile for UL WiMAX only includes 5.8GHz, so it excludes
355MHz of band in 5GHz. 
- the 802.16 MAC is poorly suited as written for unlicensed bands since it
assumes no competition for the air and has no mechanism for battling
interference. Thus the formation by the IEEE of TG 802.16h, a task group we
chair that is trying to come up with some technology neutral method for
sharing bands, even among competing technologies like 802.11 and 802.16.
- lack of self-install limits the creation of a mass market
- existing UL equipment prices are already at thresholds for where WiMAX CPE
will be later this year and WiMAX base stations are much more expensive than
UL APs
- the only UL WIMAX profile covers only 802.16d-2004, known as fixed WiMAX.
The ratification of 802.16e-2005 largely will result in .e superseding .d
since .e can also be used for fixed, but provides soft migration path to
full mobile. For example, the North American versions of BreezeMAX we are
bringing will be 802.16e-2005, bypassing .d entirely. 

All these things stack the cards against UL WiMAX, at least in a 5.8GHz
variant. That is also why for UL in 5GHz we lead with BreezeACCESS VL and
will for some time. We believe it to be the UL 5GHz of record, especially
with upcoming firmware version 4.0, which, among other things brings 802.3
QinQ VLAN, automatic channel bandwidth scanning and selection, over 40,000
pps and with the new MAP (multimedia application prioritization) feature
allows for simultaneous VoIP calls per sector of as much as 280 WITH a MOS
score of 4.0, which is very high voice QoS. That is a 750% increase over
previous VoIP performance. I realize the average WISP thinks VL is just your
basic Atheros chipset in an outdoor case, but the reality is far different.
In our stuff, the chips are just the basic building block.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Is Alvarion going to do the same for 5.8G unlicensed Wimax?
All though license and high power may not be there, the technical features 
could have a major positive impact.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding
 much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

 Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other 
 factors
 are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e 
 version
 of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base
 station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a 
 SIM
 card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and
 you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

 Patrick Leary
 AVP Marketing
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
 -Original Message-
 From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

 3.5Ghz does,

 I find that hard to believe.  2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely 
 on

 900Mhz.

 What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

 With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP 
 or
 mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

 Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: jeffrey thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed service
 to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

 5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

 4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

 3.5Ghz does, to portable devices similar to the equipment used by
 clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors
 to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

 When you can

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

2006-05-24 Thread Patrick Leary
That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks
with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16,
or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language
not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were
looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have
an actual contention requirement in the rules itself.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

Will the 3650 be  WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to 
be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based.

Any updates?



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.







'Patrick Leary'.vcf
Description: Binary data
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

2006-05-24 Thread George Rogato
Thanks Patrick, I understood there was an issue there that needed to get 
resolved.


George

Patrick Leary wrote:

That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks
with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16,
or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language
not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were
looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have
an actual contention requirement in the rules itself.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

Will the 3650 be  WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to 
be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based.


Any updates?







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

2006-05-24 Thread Gino A. Villarini
So Patrick, can we expect 3.65 be available at the same time as 5.4 ...
q3-q4 ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:18 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

That is part of the reconsideration process. The FCC (per multiple talks
with the folks that wrote the rule) did not intent to exclude WiMAX, 802.16,
or 802.11 products from use in 3650MHz. They used the contention language
not in a specific way, but to describe in general terms what they were
looking for out of equipment in the band. In other words, they do not have
an actual contention requirement in the rules itself.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 3:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

Will the 3650 be  WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to 
be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based.

Any updates?



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.






-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-24 Thread Jeffrey Thomas
Frankly, 

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to
really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is
that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small
and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments
outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s
 also
 
 The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards flaunting
 the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
 argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys that
 can't be taken seriously
 
 Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo
 suit when he represents the industry in DC
 
 -Charles
 
 ---
 CWLab
 Technology Architects
 http://www.cwlab.com
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 
 In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier deployment
 which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of
 one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE.
 
 
 
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:
 Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to test
 a single base station?
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Gino,
 
 Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
 
 jack
 
 
 Gino A. Villarini wrote:
 
 Towerstream anyone ?
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Jeffrey,
 
 I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of
 anyone
 who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
 experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating
 purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
 
 1. Someone with no business sense
 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the
 enforcement
 powers of the FCC
 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term
 WISP service.
jack
 
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
 
 Patrick,
 
 It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited
 deployments as a test but still charged for the access service,
 banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for
 unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on
 them is very low.
 
 Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
 evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources
 that is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 
 
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be
 breaking the law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com;
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band -
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding
 interference in congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details.
 
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to
 be done strictly from a curiosity

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-24 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

Can you blame them?

Congress is now considering demanding that ALL ISP's log ALL data to and
from thier customers.

Seems like a few someones a while back thought that we needed more
government involvement in the ISP business.

Right now, I think more and more are thinking that thier ONLY chance of
survival is obscurity.

BTW, tell the FCC that when they stop issuing forms that only work with ONE
program from ONE vendor, they'll have more luck in getting them filled out.



North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:14 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s
 also

 The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
flaunting
 the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
 argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys that
 can't be taken seriously

 Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo
 suit when he represents the industry in DC

 -Charles

 ---
 CWLab
 Technology Architects
 http://www.cwlab.com



 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
deployment
 which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know of
 one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over 2000 CPE.




 -

 Jeff

 On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:
  Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to test
  a single base station?
 
  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
  Gino,
 
  Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
 
  jack
 
 
  Gino A. Villarini wrote:
 
   Towerstream anyone ?
  
   Gino A. Villarini
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
   tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   On Behalf Of Jack Unger
   Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
  
   Jeffrey,
  
   I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of
   anyone
   who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
   experimental system and using it for a commercial,
revenue-generating
   purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
  
   1. Someone with no business sense
   2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the
   enforcement
   powers of the FCC
   3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
   4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term
   WISP service.
  jack
  
  
  
   jeffrey thomas wrote:
  
  
  Patrick,
  
  It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited
  deployments as a test but still charged for the access service,
  banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for
  unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on
  them is very low.
  
  Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
  evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources
  that is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
  
  -
  
  Jeff
  
  On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  
  
  Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
  commercial services using 3650MHz.
  
  - Patrick
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
  
  Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be
  breaking the law w/ a 3650 deployment
  
  
  ---
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com;
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
  Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band -
  Clarifications
  
  
  Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
  turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding
  interference in congested

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-24 Thread Jeffrey Thomas


Comments inline.



 Even given the 5% of WISP operators who intentionally run too much
 power, I don't feel their lawlessness is as serious as someone who
 receives a experimental license under false pretenses and then
 unlawfully profits from their lawbreaking.

Considering the band with be a part-15 band, I don't see why its
Nearly as a big deal as someone taking a band that would have been
Auctioned off for thousands upon thousands of dollars.

 
 By the way, which company has twenty-eight 3.6 GHz special temporary
 authorizations (STAs)in 14 markets and is allegedly selling commercial
 service to 2000 subscribers?

I can't say due to non disclosure agreements. The funny thing about them
Is they got the STA's and have yet to really use them, so all the money
They spent on lawyers obtaining the STA's is going to waste anyways.


 
 jack
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
 Jack,
 
 The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate
 systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While
 it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved
 fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I
 encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally
 turns a blind eye until someone complains.
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:
 
 Jeffrey,
 
 I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone
 who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
 experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating
 purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
 
 1. Someone with no business sense
 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement
 powers of the FCC
 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term
 WISP service.
   jack
 
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
 
 Patrick,
 
 It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
 as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
 fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
 that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low.
 
 Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
 evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
 is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 
 
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band -
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
 congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details.
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
 rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
 (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
 in
 any other service.
 (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
 engaged in the business of selling

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-24 Thread Brad Belton
So, 3650MHz isn't going to fall under Part90 rules?

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



Comments inline.



 Even given the 5% of WISP operators who intentionally run too much
 power, I don't feel their lawlessness is as serious as someone who
 receives a experimental license under false pretenses and then
 unlawfully profits from their lawbreaking.

Considering the band with be a part-15 band, I don't see why its
Nearly as a big deal as someone taking a band that would have been
Auctioned off for thousands upon thousands of dollars.

 
 By the way, which company has twenty-eight 3.6 GHz special temporary
 authorizations (STAs)in 14 markets and is allegedly selling commercial
 service to 2000 subscribers?

I can't say due to non disclosure agreements. The funny thing about them
Is they got the STA's and have yet to really use them, so all the money
They spent on lawyers obtaining the STA's is going to waste anyways.


 
 jack
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
 Jack,
 
 The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate
 systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While
 it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved
 fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I
 encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally
 turns a blind eye until someone complains.
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 said:
 
 Jeffrey,
 
 I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone
 who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed
 experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating
 purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
 
 1. Someone with no business sense
 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement
 powers of the FCC
 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term
 WISP service.
   jack
 
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
 
 Patrick,
 
 It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
 as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
 fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
 that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low.
 
 Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
 evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
 is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 
 
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking
the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band -
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
 congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the
details.
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be
done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
 rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new
services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted
to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United
States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-24 Thread DB
The bill was killed off in committee, but don't think we have seen the last
of it. We must be forever vigilant, epically under our current government.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


Can you blame them?

Congress is now considering demanding that ALL ISP's log ALL data to and
from thier customers.

Seems like a few someones a while back thought that we needed more
government involvement in the ISP business.




-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-24 Thread John Scrivner
WISPA works to make sure that when government decides they will be 
taking a role in our industry that they do so without harming us. You 
cannot lobby anonymously. You CAN stand and be counted or hide and cower 
under a rock in obscurity. If you are one of the rock dwellers I am sure 
you are not alone. We'll see which group wins out in the end, those who 
stand up and fight for what is right or those who hide and cower in 
obscurity.

Scriv


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:


Can you blame them?

Congress is now considering demanding that ALL ISP's log ALL data to and
from thier customers.

Seems like a few someones a while back thought that we needed more
government involvement in the ISP business.

Right now, I think more and more are thinking that thier ONLY chance of
survival is obscurity.

BTW, tell the FCC that when they stop issuing forms that only work with ONE
program from ONE vendor, they'll have more luck in getting them filled out.



North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 6:14 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


 


All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their Form 477s
also

The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
   


flaunting
 


the rules -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC
argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of cowboys that
can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo
suit when he represents the industry in DC

-Charles

---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



   




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Charles Wu
Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications


Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details.  As
things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules
provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
conduct the following type of operations:
(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in
any other service.
(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
approval of such equipment.
(h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
testing or calibration of equipment.
(i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(j) Limited market studies.
(k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
demonstration of need

47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License

(a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be
issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio
waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use
of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection
with research projects when existing communications facilities are
inadequate.

47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements

(a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service
must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail
the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific
objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation
has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or
expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already
investigated.

For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a nice
online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html


---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
It's about dang time they got off the dime on this!  Shoot, the rules are 
already set.


Are you hearing anything about the impact of the petitions of 
reconsideration?


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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


No one. The allocation is not yet finalized. Any licenses being granted 
are

24 month STAs (special temporary authority). One cannot deploy fee-based
services using an STA as STA's are intended for testing purposes.

Sources within the FCC tell me though that the decision is coming to a 
head,

maybe as soon as this summer.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Who has FCC aproved 3650 equipment on the market, and is there any
balpark pricing?
Thanks

George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/







This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.












This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.













--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread George Rogato
I understood that the 3650 was not to be used in commercial links. I'm 
assuming money makes it commercial.
I would like to deploy a couple links for non paying situations, cameras 
for a city park. I'd also like to have the licenseand not be wasting 
my limited unlicensed spectrum.


Do you think this is a legit use for 3650?

George


Patrick Leary wrote:

Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications



Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details.  As
things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules
provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
conduct the following type of operations:
(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in
any other service.
(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
approval of such equipment.
(h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
testing or calibration of equipment.
(i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(j) Limited market studies.
(k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
demonstration of need

47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License

(a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be
issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio
waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use
of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection
with research projects when existing communications facilities are
inadequate.

47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements

(a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service
must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail
the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific
objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation
has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or
expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already
investigated.

For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a nice
online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html


---
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com 






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Patrick Leary
George,

I think there is a lot of this sort of thing happening and I think
intentions are good, but, no, I do not think this meets the requirement.

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

I understood that the 3650 was not to be used in commercial links. I'm 
assuming money makes it commercial.
I would like to deploy a couple links for non paying situations, cameras 
for a city park. I'd also like to have the licenseand not be wasting 
my limited unlicensed spectrum.

Do you think this is a legit use for 3650?

George


Patrick Leary wrote:
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details.
As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
 (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in
 any other service.
 (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
 engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
 (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
 approval of such equipment.
 (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
 related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
 testing or calibration of equipment.
 (i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
 engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
 (j) Limited market studies.
 (k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
 paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
 demonstration of need
 
 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
 
 (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
be
 issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
radio
 waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use
 of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in
connection
 with research projects when existing communications facilities are
 inadequate.
 
 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements
 
 (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio
Service
 must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in
detail
 the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific
 objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of
experimentation
 has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or
 expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already
 investigated.
 
 For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a
nice
 online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing:
 http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html
 
 
 ---
 CWLab
 Technology Architects
 http

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread jeffrey thomas
sure.


On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:58:34 -0700, George Rogato
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 I understood that the 3650 was not to be used in commercial links. I'm 
 assuming money makes it commercial.
 I would like to deploy a couple links for non paying situations, cameras 
 for a city park. I'd also like to have the licenseand not be wasting 
 my limited unlicensed spectrum.
 
 Do you think this is a legit use for 3650?
 
 George
 
 
 Patrick Leary wrote:
  Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
  commercial services using 3650MHz.
  
  - Patrick
  
  -Original Message-
  From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
  
  Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
  law w/ a 3650 deployment
  
  
  ---
  To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
  Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
  Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
  Clarifications
  
  
  Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising turn-key
  3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested
  license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules back
  in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in the
  3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
  deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
  manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details.  As
  things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
  Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
  
  Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
  strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
  network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
  technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules
  provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
  prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
  
  Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
  
  47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
  
  Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
  conduct the following type of operations:
  (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
  (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
  Government, or for export purposes.
  (c)Communications essential to a research project.
  (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
  (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization in
  any other service.
  (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
  engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
  (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
  approval of such equipment.
  (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
  related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
  testing or calibration of equipment.
  (i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
  engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
  (j) Limited market studies.
  (k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
  paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
  demonstration of need
  
  47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
  
  (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will be
  issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing radio
  waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use
  of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection
  with research projects when existing communications facilities are
  inadequate.
  
  47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements
  
  (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio Service
  must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in detail
  the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific
  objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation
  has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or
  expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already
  investigated.
  
  For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a nice
  online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing:
  http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html
  
  
  ---
  CWLab
  Technology Architects
  http://www.cwlab.com 
  
  
 
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread George Rogato

jeffrey thomas wrote:

sure.



Hi Jeff, so sure is your answer, and no is Patricks.

You got something different than Patrick that says a wisp can set up a 
link and put it into production 24/7?


George

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment, WIMAX?

2006-05-23 Thread George Rogato
Will the 3650 be  WIMAX'able. I understand that the 3650 is supposed to 
be contention based and WIMAX is not contention based.


Any updates?



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread jeffrey thomas
Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 

Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
 congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
 rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
 (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
 in
 any other service.
 (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
 engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
 (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
 approval of such equipment.
 (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
 related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
 testing or calibration of equipment.
 (i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
 engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
 (j) Limited market studies.
 (k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
 paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
 demonstration of need
 
 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
 
 (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
 be
 issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
 radio
 waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a
 use
 of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in
 connection
 with research projects when existing communications facilities are
 inadequate.
 
 47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements
 
 (a)Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio
 Service
 must enclose with the application a narrative statement describing in
 detail
 the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific
 objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of
 experimentation
 has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension,
 or
 expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not already
 investigated.
 
 For further information regarding experimental licensing, the FCC has a
 nice
 online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing:
 http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html
 
 
 ---
 CWLab
 Technology Architects
 http://www.cwlab.com 
 
 
 -- 
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Gino A. Villarini
Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):

1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
powers of the FCC
3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
WISP service.
   jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:

 Patrick,
 
 It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
 as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
 fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
 that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 
 
 Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
 evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
 is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 
Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications


Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
As
things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
rules
provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
conduct the following type of operations:
(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
in
any other service.
(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
approval of such equipment.
(h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
testing or calibration of equipment.
(i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(j) Limited market studies.
(k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
demonstration of need

47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License

(a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
be
issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
radio
waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a
use
of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in
connection
with research projects when existing communications facilities are
inadequate.

47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements

(a)Each applicant for an authorization

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Jack Unger

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?

jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):


1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
powers of the FCC

3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
WISP service.

   jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:



Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 


Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:



Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications



Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
As

things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
rules
provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
conduct the following type of operations:
(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
in
any other service.
(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
approval of such equipment.
(h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
testing or calibration of equipment.
(i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(j) Limited market studies.
(k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
demonstration of need

47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License

(a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
be
issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
radio
waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a
use
of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in
connection
with research projects when existing communications

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Gino A. Villarini
They currently hold 13 Experimental Licenses for 3.65 - 3.7 and 5.4-5.725

Check them out yourself and make you own conclusions

https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/els/reports/GenericSearchResult.cfm?Re
questTimeout=500

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?

jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 Towerstream anyone ?
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Jeffrey,
 
 I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
 who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
 experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
 purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
 
 1. Someone with no business sense
 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
 powers of the FCC
 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
 WISP service.
jack
 
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
 
Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 

Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:


Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications


Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
As
things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
rules
provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
conduct the following type of operations:
(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
in
any other service.
(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
approval of such equipment.
(h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
testing or calibration of equipment.
(i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(j) Limited market studies.
(k

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Jack Unger

Gino,

They may need that many to test the full throughput capabilities. So 
what are the details of what they are doing?


jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:


Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to test a
single base station?  


Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?

jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:



Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):


1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
powers of the FCC

3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
WISP service.

  jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:




Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 


Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:




Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications



Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
As

things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
rules
provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
conduct the following type of operations:
(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
in
any other service.
(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
approval of such equipment.
(h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
testing or calibration of equipment.
(i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(j) Limited market

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Gino A. Villarini
They don't even have 150 customers in some markets!

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

They may need that many to test the full throughput capabilities. So 
what are the details of what they are doing?

jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:

 Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to test a
 single base station?  
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Gino,
 
 Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
 
 jack
 
 
 Gino A. Villarini wrote:
 
 
Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):

1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
powers of the FCC
3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
WISP service.
   jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:



Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 

Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:



Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking
the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications


Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
As
things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be
done
strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
rules
provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new
services
prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted
to
conduct the following type of operations:
(a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United
States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
in
any other service.
(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread jeffrey thomas
Jack,

The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate 
systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While
it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved
fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I 
encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally
turns a blind eye until someone complains.

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
 Jeffrey,
 
 I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
 who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
 experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
 purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
 
 1. Someone with no business sense
 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
 powers of the FCC
 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
 WISP service.
jack
 
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
  Patrick,
  
  It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
  as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
  fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
  that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 
  
  Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
  evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
  is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
  
  -
  
  Jeff
  
  On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
 congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
 rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
 (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
 in
 any other service.
 (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
 engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
 (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
 approval of such equipment.
 (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
 related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
 testing or calibration of equipment.
 (i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
 engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
 (j) Limited market studies.
 (k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
 paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
 demonstration of need
 
 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
 
 (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
 be
 issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
 radio
 waves for scientific or technical operation

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread jeffrey thomas
Wow, I think I heard a bell ring somewhere.

-
Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:58:32 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 Towerstream anyone ?
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Jeffrey,
 
 I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
 who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
 experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
 purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
 
 1. Someone with no business sense
 2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
 powers of the FCC
 3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
 4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
 WISP service.
jack
 
 
 
 jeffrey thomas wrote:
 
  Patrick,
  
  It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
  as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
  fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
  that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 
  
  Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
  evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
  is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
  
  -
  
  Jeff
  
  On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
  
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
 congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
 rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
 (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
 in
 any other service.
 (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
 engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
 (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
 approval of such equipment.
 (h)Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data not
 related to an existing or proposed service, including field or factory
 testing or calibration of equipment.
 (i)  Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data or
 engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
 (j) Limited market studies.
 (k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
 paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon
 demonstration of need
 
 47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License
 
 (a)Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service will
 be
 issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation utilizing
 radio
 waves for scientific or technical operation data

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread jeffrey thomas
In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a
test. I know of one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets,
for over 2000 CPE.




-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to test a
 single base station?  
 
 Gino A. Villarini
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Jack Unger
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Gino,
 
 Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial service?
 
 jack
 
 
 Gino A. Villarini wrote:
 
  Towerstream anyone ?
  
  Gino A. Villarini
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
  tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
  
  Jeffrey,
  
  I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
  who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
  experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
  purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):
  
  1. Someone with no business sense
  2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
  powers of the FCC
  3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
  4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
  WISP service.
 jack
  
  
  
  jeffrey thomas wrote:
  
  
 Patrick,
 
 It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
 as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
 fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
 that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 
 
 Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
 evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
 is available today will be compliant. *shrug*
 
 -
 
 Jeff
 
 On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 
 
 Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
 commercial services using 3650MHz.
 
 - Patrick
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
 
 Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
 law w/ a 3650 deployment
 
 
 ---
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
 Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
 Clarifications
 
 
 Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
 turn-key
 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
 congested
 license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
 back
 in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
 the
 3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has delayed the
 deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
 manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the details. 
 As
 things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today falls under
 Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.
 
 Infrastructure Investment  Experimentation under Part 5 needs to be done
 strictly from a curiosity perspective rather than one of commercial
 network expansion.  Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or
 technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The
 rules
 provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services
 prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.
 
 Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing
 
 47CFR5.3: Scope of Service
 
 Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be permitted to
 conduct the following type of operations:
 (a)Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
 (b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United States
 Government, or for export purposes.
 (c)Communications essential to a research project.
 (d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
 (e)Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for authorization
 in
 any other service.
 (f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by persons
 engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
 (g)Testing of equipment in connection with production or regulatory
 approval of such equipment.
 (h)Development of radio

Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-23 Thread Jack Unger

Jeffrey,

I agree that WISPs should not exceed the 4-watt access point power 
limit. I think you're correct that out of the 5000 or so WISPs probably 
20% exceed the power limit. I'd estimate that of those 20% probably 75% 
of them don't know how to calculate the power limit and 5% exceed the 
limit intentionally. Is this lack of judgment ability on the part of a 
large number of WISPs; I'd say no. It's lack of judgment on the part of 
a small percentage of WISPs.


Probably the reason you haven't heard of anyone being fined is because 
the FCC has a limited budget and there has been pressure for years from 
broadcasters, large wireless companies, and certain entrenched political 
interest groups to abolish the FCC. Only a few years ago, the Progress 
and Freedom Foundation (a false-front astroturf group)


http://www.pff.org/

was lobbying on behalf of large telecommunications companies to abolish 
the FCC. Here's some links outing the Progress and Freedom Foundation.


http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwGb=1497699

Here's a long list of the big-money industries whose interests the 
Progress and Freedom Foundation lobbies for.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_and_Freedom_Foundation


The FCC never expected to have to budget for and go out and enforce the 
Part 15 rules. If enforcement had been budgeted for, we probably 
wouldn't have any license-free spectrum today; it would have cost too 
much to enforce the Part 15 rules.


It might be a good idea if the FCC did shut down a few overpowered 
network operators that cause problems for other nearby law-abiding Part 
15 operators. Setting an example of enforcement could go a long way 
towards motivating operators to learn and to obey the law. In addition, 
fining a few of the amplifier companies that sell high-powered amps to 
anyone who comes along would also have a positive effect on our industry.


Even given the 5% of WISP operators who intentionally run too much 
power, I don't feel their lawlessness is as serious as someone who 
receives a experimental license under false pretenses and then 
unlawfully profits from their lawbreaking.


By the way, which company has twenty-eight 3.6 GHz special temporary 
authorizations (STAs)in 14 markets and is allegedly selling commercial 
service to 2000 subscribers?


jack


jeffrey thomas wrote:


Jack,

The same would probably apply to the hundreds of WISP's who operate 
systems that break the part-15 rules regarding power output. While

it is illegal, I currently am unaware of any operators who have recieved
fines or anything of the sort for such behavior but it happens. Do I 
encourage this? no, but as Steve Stroh once told me, The FCC generally

turns a blind eye until someone complains.

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:56:03 -0700, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:


Jeffrey,

I have to question the judgement ability (or the lack of it) of anyone 
who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed 
experimental system and using it for a commercial, revenue-generating 
purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):


1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the enforcement 
powers of the FCC

3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term 
WISP service.

  jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:



Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched limited deployments
as a test but still charged for the access service, banking on the
fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and
that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low. 


Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will be
evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that
is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, Patrick Leary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:



Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch any
commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be breaking the
law w/ a 3650 deployment


---
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Cc: isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz Band - 
Clarifications



Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements promising
turn-key
3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in
congested
license-exempt ISM/UNII bands.  Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband in
the
3.65 GHz band, a minor contention-based requirement has

RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-22 Thread Patrick Leary
No one. The allocation is not yet finalized. Any licenses being granted are
24 month STAs (special temporary authority). One cannot deploy fee-based
services using an STA as STA's are intended for testing purposes. 

Sources within the FCC tell me though that the decision is coming to a head,
maybe as soon as this summer.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Who has FCC aproved 3650 equipment on the market, and is there any 
balpark pricing?
Thanks

George

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.








 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals  computer
viruses.







'Patrick Leary'.vcf
Description: Binary data
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

2006-05-22 Thread George Rogato
I thought someone said that Redline had a system out for testing? 
Actualy I thought Bullit said he had some deployed.

Does Alvarion have a system that they are testing?

George


Patrick Leary wrote:

No one. The allocation is not yet finalized. Any licenses being granted are
24 month STAs (special temporary authority). One cannot deploy fee-based
services using an STA as STA's are intended for testing purposes. 


Sources within the FCC tell me though that the decision is coming to a head,
maybe as soon as this summer.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-Original Message-
From: George Rogato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:12 PM

To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Who has FCC aproved 3650 equipment on the market, and is there any 
balpark pricing?

Thanks

George





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/