RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-08 Thread Chadd Thompson
Agreed..

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
 Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:19 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
 
 Well, either way, if it's an ap that talks to more than one client, it's
 max
 eirp is 4 watts.  36dB
 laters,
 marlon
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Chadd Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:00 PM
 Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces
 
 
  Sorry,
 
  The signal was in the -70's not right at -70. It was mid to upper -70's
  from
  what I figured up they were putting out around 43dBm EIRP. I could also
  see
  the SSID of the AP so I know what town it was located in and it was/is a
  sectorized POP that would be around 30dBm radio input to a 14-15dBi
  antenna
  or a 26dBm radio input to a 17-18dBi antenna.
 
  Thanks,
  Chadd
 
 
  That's 4 watts.  At 39 dB you'd be at 8 watts.  At 40 it would be
  around 10
  watts.
 
  Are you SURE that the remote tower you're seeing at -70 is really
  20 miles
  out?  To pick that up with a -70 rssi from a 9 dB antenna would
  require an
  amazing amount of power.
 
  It was very common for a long time to see Hyperlink and a couple of
 other
  amp manufacturers sell 1 watt amps (30 dB) and 15 dB omni antennas.
 Even
  with that config I show an rssi of -76.  I guess they could be
  running a 2
  watt amp and a 18 dB panel of some kind.  But I'd find that very
 unusual.
 
  --
  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/
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-07 Thread Mike Delp
Chadd,

I did some checking, and I found I have eight towers within 10 miles of your
north tower at your house, and five towers within 10 miles of your Carlyle
pop.  You are at the edge of our coverage area, and I haven't had the
opportunity to meet with you yet.  I would be interested in finding more
about this illegal AP in our mutual area.  I run all of my pops at 40db or
less, so I know it is not one of mine.  I have had suspicions about some of
our competitors, but I am not aware of any of them being active on the
lists.

Maybe we should get together for lunch sometime.  Call me anytime.

Call me at 618-206-4190
Or skype mike.delp

Mike


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chadd Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:50 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

In our area So IL/metro St.Louis there are some large guys who are in no
way shape or form legal, over power limits and the whole 9 yards. I can see
other WISP Omni POP's with signal levels in the -70's from over 20 miles
away using a 9dBi on my end, figure up what the EIRP on that is. The one in
this case is a well know respected WISP that visits the popular lists, I
always hope that he doesn't know that is going on and one of his guys is
responsible but I have never taken the time to call them up and talk to them
about it either.

I don't know of any WISP's in this area about 10 that I know of including
myself who are 100% legal when it comes to using only certified equipment.
Most I think stay within power limits and equivalent antennas

The other issue I see in our area is all the new start up WISP's who know
nothing about the industry, the rules, networking, and don't know squat
about RF. These guys are going to be our Achilles heal IMHO. There are too
many vendors selling stuff and they are not concerned in the least bit
whether the guys they are selling to know anything about Part15 rules. When
I started four years ago it seemed like there were not near as many
uncertified options as there are today so I came into the industry using
certified equipment and knew what the rules were. It's too easy to buy
802.xx equipment throw it up on a pole and sell internet to a few users,
more than likely they are not going to be successful but it still hurts
everyone of us.

I admit I am a glass half empty kind of guy, but I don't think there we are
going to have any usable spectrum within the next one to two years because
of stuff like this.

Chadd


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
 
 I agree that MOST wisps are likely compliant.
 Unfortuneately, it won't stay that way, if we let the industry slowly
 deteriorate and slide.
 I think compliance is a message that continually needs to be revisited,
 sorta like speed bumps. Its easy to not realize you are speeding, yet we
 all
 know where the speedometer is located.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 2/6/2007
5:52 PM
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-07 Thread Dylan Oliver

Am I missing something, or is 36 dBm EIRP our limit?

On 2/7/07, Mike Delp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Chadd,

I did some checking, and I found I have eight towers within 10 miles of
your
north tower at your house, and five towers within 10 miles of your Carlyle
pop.  You are at the edge of our coverage area, and I haven't had the
opportunity to meet with you yet.  I would be interested in finding more
about this illegal AP in our mutual area.  I run all of my pops at 40db
or
less, so I know it is not one of mine.  I have had suspicions about some
of
our competitors, but I am not aware of any of them being active on the
lists.

Maybe we should get together for lunch sometime.  Call me anytime.



--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-07 Thread Jack Unger

+ 36 dBm EIRP


Dylan Oliver wrote:

Am I missing something, or is 36 dBm EIRP our limit?

On 2/7/07, Mike Delp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Chadd,

I did some checking, and I found I have eight towers within 10 miles of
your
north tower at your house, and five towers within 10 miles of your 
Carlyle

pop.  You are at the edge of our coverage area, and I haven't had the
opportunity to meet with you yet.  I would be interested in finding more
about this illegal AP in our mutual area.  I run all of my pops at 40db
or
less, so I know it is not one of mine.  I have had suspicions about some
of
our competitors, but I am not aware of any of them being active on the
lists.

Maybe we should get together for lunch sometime.  Call me anytime.





--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-07 Thread Chadd Thompson
Yes 36 dBm.

Thanks,
Chadd

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Dylan Oliver
 Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:00 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
 
 Am I missing something, or is 36 dBm EIRP our limit?
 
 On 2/7/07, Mike Delp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Chadd,
 
  I did some checking, and I found I have eight towers within 10 miles of
  your
  north tower at your house, and five towers within 10 miles of your
 Carlyle
  pop.  You are at the edge of our coverage area, and I haven't had the
  opportunity to meet with you yet.  I would be interested in finding more
  about this illegal AP in our mutual area.  I run all of my pops at
 40db
  or
  less, so I know it is not one of mine.  I have had suspicions about some
  of
  our competitors, but I am not aware of any of them being active on the
  lists.
 
  Maybe we should get together for lunch sometime.  Call me anytime.
 
 
 --
 Dylan Oliver
 Primaverity, LLC
 --
 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] TV white spaces

2007-02-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
Not sure what post referring to. Yes, 36 dbi is our limit for standard PtMP 
APs.

But CPEs, and PTP links can go much higher in 2.4G and 5.8G.
Mimo (smart antenna) Systems also now are allowed an additional 8db in AP TX 
power.


Unfortuneately, the FCC defines PtP as a link that has 2 endpoints only, and 
not reference to a specifc antenna beamwidth.
From what I understand, although not confirmed, and not likely advisable, a 
PTP link could result in a radio link with an OMNI on each end, if 
configured to only allow 1 association (the other radio).  Doesn't mean FCC 
would Give an equipment certification for that. Could a single person, who 
wanted to install a personal private individual Mobile link/network for 
himself, run under PTP rules and an Omni, at the expense of the rest of the 
world?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces



Am I missing something, or is 36 dBm EIRP our limit?

On 2/7/07, Mike Delp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Chadd,

I did some checking, and I found I have eight towers within 10 miles of
your
north tower at your house, and five towers within 10 miles of your 
Carlyle

pop.  You are at the edge of our coverage area, and I haven't had the
opportunity to meet with you yet.  I would be interested in finding more
about this illegal AP in our mutual area.  I run all of my pops at 40db
or
less, so I know it is not one of mine.  I have had suspicions about some
of
our competitors, but I am not aware of any of them being active on the
lists.

Maybe we should get together for lunch sometime.  Call me anytime.



--
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
--
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] TV white spaces

2007-02-07 Thread Chadd Thompson
Sorry,

The signal was in the -70's not right at -70. It was mid to upper -70's from
what I figured up they were putting out around 43dBm EIRP. I could also see
the SSID of the AP so I know what town it was located in and it was/is a
sectorized POP that would be around 30dBm radio input to a 14-15dBi antenna
or a 26dBm radio input to a 17-18dBi antenna.

Thanks,
Chadd


 That's 4 watts.  At 39 dB you'd be at 8 watts.  At 40 it would be
 around 10
 watts.

 Are you SURE that the remote tower you're seeing at -70 is really
 20 miles
 out?  To pick that up with a -70 rssi from a 9 dB antenna would
 require an
 amazing amount of power.

 It was very common for a long time to see Hyperlink and a couple of other
 amp manufacturers sell 1 watt amps (30 dB) and 15 dB omni antennas.  Even
 with that config I show an rssi of -76.  I guess they could be
 running a 2
 watt amp and a 18 dB panel of some kind.  But I'd find that very unusual.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-07 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Well, either way, if it's an ap that talks to more than one client, it's max 
eirp is 4 watts.  36dB

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Chadd Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces



Sorry,

The signal was in the -70's not right at -70. It was mid to upper -70's 
from
what I figured up they were putting out around 43dBm EIRP. I could also 
see

the SSID of the AP so I know what town it was located in and it was/is a
sectorized POP that would be around 30dBm radio input to a 14-15dBi 
antenna

or a 26dBm radio input to a 17-18dBi antenna.

Thanks,
Chadd



That's 4 watts.  At 39 dB you'd be at 8 watts.  At 40 it would be
around 10
watts.

Are you SURE that the remote tower you're seeing at -70 is really
20 miles
out?  To pick that up with a -70 rssi from a 9 dB antenna would
require an
amazing amount of power.

It was very common for a long time to see Hyperlink and a couple of other
amp manufacturers sell 1 watt amps (30 dB) and 15 dB omni antennas.  Even
with that config I show an rssi of -76.  I guess they could be
running a 2
watt amp and a 18 dB panel of some kind.  But I'd find that very unusual.


--
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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 
 Jack:
 
 Consider...
 
 To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll

 stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
is 
 the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
 steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels 
 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels 
 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful 
 terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
 license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do

 the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
 are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much

 on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space

 may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
 sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
 decade or so).
 
 Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
 advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
 spectrum.
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Steve
 
 
 
 On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:
 
 Likelihood of unlicensed???

 My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
 broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
 space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
 effectively.

 -- 
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com
 
 
 
 ---
 
 Steve Stroh
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com
 
 
 
 

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



-- 
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(190).







 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(43).











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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look 
bad.

Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 


The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
   



 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
   

is 
 

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels 
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels 
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful 
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do
   



 

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much
   



 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
   



 

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

   


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com
 



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Mario Pommier

can you elaborate on HAD offers ...  please?
Thanks.

Mario

Steve Stroh wrote:


You've HAD offers that have been refused...


Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:10 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now.  
Independently and with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and 
I've recently had talks with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces standards 
group) folks.


As always, we need more bodies to go a better job.

laters,
marlon



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com




--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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for an 
illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?


laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll



stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner

is

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do



the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much



on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space



may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another
decade or so).

Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast
spectrum.


Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most
effectively.

--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com




---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com






--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
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(190).











This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(43

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
Feel free to complain all you like. It is advocating breaking the rules 
which will lead to problems. I do not like some rules either but you 
have to follow the rules or face losing your right to be in business.

Scriv



Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry 
look bad.

Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the


usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
  



 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
  


is  

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  
Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  
Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  
powerful terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with 
low-power  license-exempt usage, it's quite another for 
communications use to do
  



 

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears 
they  are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but 
very much
  



 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
  



 

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about 
as  advocates for license-exempt use of white space television 
broadcast  spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

  


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com




---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Mac Dearman
That is a very true statement Dawn and the reason why I wouldn't be against
paying something for the area or paying for using the spectrum. It would
make everyone accountable for what they do/how they maintain/adhere to the
agreement associated with the spectrum. This is the Golden Egg of wireless
and it is something (if it really happens) that all of us as ISPs should
police and protect. I wouldn't be against a HUGE fine for those who do not
utilize/abuse the spectrum as well.

Mac Dearman

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look 
bad.
Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:

I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. 

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
  

Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll



  

stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner


is 
  

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels 
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels 
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful 
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do



  

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much



  

on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space



  

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).

Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
spectrum.


Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:



Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com
  


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com







  


-- 
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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.

Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for an

illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:

 Jack:

 Consider...

 To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll

 stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
is
 the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been
 steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels
 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels
 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful
 terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power
 license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do

 the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they
 are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much

 on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space

 may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum
 sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another
 decade or so).

 Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as
 advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast
 spectrum.


 Thanks,

 Steve



 On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

 Likelihood of unlicensed???

 My guess is that the established communications carriers and the
 broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this
 space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most
 effectively.

 -- 
 Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
 Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
 True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
 Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
 Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



 ---

 Steve Stroh
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com





-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. 
The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 
other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 
to sling mud or FUD.

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.

Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for an


illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white

space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
   



 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
   


is
 


the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do
   



 


the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much
   



 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
   



 


may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another
decade or so).

Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast
spectrum.


Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

   


Likelihood

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Scriv,

The squeaky wheel gets the attention. Not the kind of attention this 
industry needs. Some seem so adamant about these rules you have to 
wonder if they are following them or not. Even if this is not the case, 
why add doubt?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

John Scrivner wrote:

Feel free to complain all you like. It is advocating breaking the 
rules which will lead to problems. I do not like some rules either but 
you have to follow the rules or face losing your right to be in business.

Scriv



Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry 
look bad.

Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules.

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Patrick Leary wrote:


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the



usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt 
white


space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.

jack


Steve Stroh wrote:
 


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll
  




 


stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner
  



is 

the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  
been steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  
Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  
Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  
powerful terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with 
low-power  license-exempt usage, it's quite another for 
communications use to do
  




 

the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears 
they  are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but 
very much
  




 


on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space
  




 

may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about 
as  advocates for license-exempt use of white space television 
broadcast  spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

 


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com





---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop.

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company?

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right

to sling mud or FUD.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:

I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need
to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.
 a
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an
ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for
an

illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own
wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.

The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628

RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Forbes Mercy
Patrick, 

Does your boss know you are taking on the industry you are trying to sell to?  
I agree with John, know when to back off and realize what a vendor is supposed 
to know buyer is right.   Not to speak for John but you taking on John again 
should really make him want to return equipment and it certainly has affected 
my desire to by Alvarion.   You came after me once and it certainly soured my 
desire to deal with your company as I admitted to Marlon.  I have learned the 
hard way that I can't force my opinion on people and hell I'm an owner not a 
supplier.  I've probably already said too much but I can just feel the same 
thought I had before when I was in your crosshairs and that was 'this is no way 
for a vendor to act'.

Forbes

John, 

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up 
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic. 

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's 
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the 
rules or does not. 

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal 
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is 
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with 
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs, 
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is 
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the 
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that. 

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your 
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then, 
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power. 
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one 
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from 
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the 
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it 
to stop? 

Patrick 

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of John Scrivner 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces 

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them? 

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. 

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company? 

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 

to sling mud or FUD. 
Scriv 


Patrick Leary wrote: 

I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need 
to 
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are 
there just as well. 
 a 
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay 
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an 
ace 
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it. 
 
Patrick Leary 
AVP WISP Markets 
Alvarion, Inc. 
o: 650.314.2628 
c: 760.580.0080 
Vonage: 650.641.1243 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces 
 
Yeah, for sure. 
 
However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How 
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for 
an 
 
illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC? 
 
laters, 
Marlon 
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales 
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 
42846865 (icq)And I run my own 
wisp! 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless 
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam 
 
 
 
- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM 
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV

RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Brad Belton
Somebody turn the flip'n moderation back on!

 

Patrick, let's be clear; you're motivation is driven only by pushing more
Alvarion boxes off the shelf.  Don't try to play the white knight here under
the guise of looking out for everyone.  You're a company man simply after
what puts food on your table.  Frankly there is nothing wrong with that, but
for everyone's stomach please just state it for what it really is.

 

John, I'm not sure where you are headed with your comments.  I'm sure the
B100 is a fine PtP radio set and will meet your requirements.  I agree with
Jack Unger's post.threatening to boycott product because of a sales rep's
comments?  

 

Best,

 

 

Brad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forbes Mercy
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

 

Patrick, 

Does your boss know you are taking on the industry you are trying to sell
to?  I agree with John, know when to back off and realize what a vendor is
supposed to know buyer is right.   Not to speak for John but you taking on
John again should really make him want to return equipment and it certainly
has affected my desire to by Alvarion.   You came after me once and it
certainly soured my desire to deal with your company as I admitted to
Marlon.  I have learned the hard way that I can't force my opinion on people
and hell I'm an owner not a supplier.  I've probably already said too much
but I can just feel the same thought I had before when I was in your
crosshairs and that was 'this is no way for a vendor to act'.

Forbes

John, 

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up 
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with 
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic. 

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's 
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the 
rules or does not. 

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal 
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is 
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with 
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs, 
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is 
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the 
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that. 

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your 
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then, 
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power. 
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one 
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from 
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the 
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it 
to stop? 

Patrick 

-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of John Scrivner 
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM 
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces 

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them? 

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. 

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company? 

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 

to sling mud or FUD. 
Scriv 

 

Patrick Leary wrote: 

I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need 
to 
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are 
there just as well. 
 a 
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay 
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an 
ace 
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it. 
 
Patrick Leary 
AVP WISP Markets 
Alvarion, Inc. 
o: 650.314.2628 
c: 760.580.0080 
Vonage: 650.641.1243 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 
-Original Message- 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread John Scrivner
I got my blood pressure up. I am sorry. Say whatever you like. One 
condition please. Make sure you have some basis in fact for saying 
many or most WISPs do anything illegal or we will have this battle 
another day.

Scriv



Patrick Leary wrote:


John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority 
of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop.


The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe 
I made a mistake buying from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need 
to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and


other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right


to sling mud or FUD.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:

 


I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need
   


to
 


police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.
a
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an
   


ace
 


in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many 
times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for
   


an
 


illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own
   


wisp!
 


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

Scriv and contributers to thread,

I think you are off base on your replies to Patrick.  Patrick made fair 
points. He made a generalized comment based, and did not make specific 
accusation to specific individual. I am personaly aware of many WISPs and 
vendors that bend the rules both intentially and unintentionally.  If there 
is on individual that can point fingers without risk of creating a double 
standard, its Patrick.  Alvarion is one of the few Manufacturers that 
clearly follow the rules.  One of the reasons I like Alvarion product, is 
that I know that if I use it, I don't have to think about the rules anymore, 
as they got it taken care of for me.  As WISPs we have been fighting for 
more leanient rules, but as the rules become more leanient, they become more 
confusing to understand and confirm compliance.  How many cards are spec'd 
at +/- 3db? How many WISPs plug in a Spectrum analyzer after installing a 
base station to confirm proper operation of an AP sector? The FCC has 
trusted us to police ourselves to stay legal. Sometimes WISPs do the things 
they need to do, because they need to do it, but that does not make it 
legal.  Two of the biggest examples are StarOS and Mikrotik, and OEM gear. 
This gear is great flexible gear, that WISPs have lobbied hard for, and 
can't ignore. But when is someone going to take the initiative to Legally 
certify combinations of the gear?  I can barely keep all the power stuff 
straight, and I'm a 6 year veteran. How is the average newbie going to keep 
it straight? With added flexibilty, it created the need for added caution 
and attention.  In general WISPA has promoted compliance and legality, but 
that does not mean everyone follows the direction, not that the industry 
won't slide off path, if we forget to keep on top of compliance.  I have to 
agree in full with Patrick. Maybe compliance may not happen as fast as 
technology and innovation, but at minimum we must be working in the 
direction of compliance.


As mentioned by one of you, its not only WISPs, its also Vendors. But 
protections were already in place to enforce vendor compliance. 
Self-enforcing WISP compliance, is what responsibility we were given.


I like to look at an analagee the FCC uses. For every complaint the FCC 
gets, they predict their are like 5000 others with the same problem that 
didn't. Or for every vote they get, they assume 5000 agree that didn;t vote. 
Something to that nature.  So maybe the same is inferred with compliance? 
For every person that was caught, how many went uncaught?


I'm in no way promoting a higher level of inforcement/policing from the FCC, 
but Its mandatory that we alway challenge ourselves and peers to be 
compliant the best we can.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority of 
BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? These are 
your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and the 
source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop. The 
majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the vendors 
who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the law. The last 
gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul link which is due 
in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if buying from a vendor 
who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe I made a mistake buying 
from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need to 
apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and 
other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right 
to sling mud or FUD.

Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:


I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need to
police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.

Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an ace
in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b for 
an


illegal network

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Tom DeReggi

I agree that MOST wisps are likely compliant.
Unfortuneately, it won't stay that way, if we let the industry slowly 
deteriorate and slide.
I think compliance is a message that continually needs to be revisited, 
sorta like speed bumps. Its easy to not realize you are speeding, yet we all 
know where the speedometer is located.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


I got my blood pressure up. I am sorry. Say whatever you like. One 
condition please. Make sure you have some basis in fact for saying many 
or most WISPs do anything illegal or we will have this battle another 
day.

Scriv



Patrick Leary wrote:


John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority of 
BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? These are 
your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?


Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and the 
source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to stop.


The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the law. 
The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul link which 
is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if buying from a 
vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe I made a mistake 
buying from your company?


By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need to 
apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9 and


other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on 
this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you the right


to sling mud or FUD.
Scriv


Patrick Leary wrote:



I understand and agree, but that's all the more reason why WISPs need


to


police themselves because the public impression and liabilities are
there just as well.
a
Sometimes I wonder if the FCC is not content to let WISPs sort of stay
partially self-destructing. It gives them and the major operators an


ace


in the hole against WISPs if and when they need it.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Yeah, for sure.

However, the FCC must take some credit for that problem Patrick.  How
many times have you been told that operator a has turned in operator b 
for



an


illegal network and never heard a peep out of the FCC?

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own


wisp!


[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



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

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49

RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Chadd Thompson
In our area So IL/metro St.Louis there are some large guys who are in no
way shape or form legal, over power limits and the whole 9 yards. I can see
other WISP Omni POP's with signal levels in the -70's from over 20 miles
away using a 9dBi on my end, figure up what the EIRP on that is. The one in
this case is a well know respected WISP that visits the popular lists, I
always hope that he doesn't know that is going on and one of his guys is
responsible but I have never taken the time to call them up and talk to them
about it either.

I don't know of any WISP's in this area about 10 that I know of including
myself who are 100% legal when it comes to using only certified equipment.
Most I think stay within power limits and equivalent antennas

The other issue I see in our area is all the new start up WISP's who know
nothing about the industry, the rules, networking, and don't know squat
about RF. These guys are going to be our Achilles heal IMHO. There are too
many vendors selling stuff and they are not concerned in the least bit
whether the guys they are selling to know anything about Part15 rules. When
I started four years ago it seemed like there were not near as many
uncertified options as there are today so I came into the industry using
certified equipment and knew what the rules were. It's too easy to buy
802.xx equipment throw it up on a pole and sell internet to a few users,
more than likely they are not going to be successful but it still hurts
everyone of us.

I admit I am a glass half empty kind of guy, but I don't think there we are
going to have any usable spectrum within the next one to two years because
of stuff like this.

Chadd


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:16 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
 
 I agree that MOST wisps are likely compliant.
 Unfortuneately, it won't stay that way, if we let the industry slowly
 deteriorate and slide.
 I think compliance is a message that continually needs to be revisited,
 sorta like speed bumps. Its easy to not realize you are speeding, yet we
 all
 know where the speedometer is located.
 
 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
 
 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
I never used the word most my friend, I said many and being on the
receiving side of these questions and monitoring about 8 lists total I
see them there as well. One makes a phenomenon, several a coincidence,
numerous examples I've personally encountered and from Clearwire-sized
WISPs to the smallest represent a trend that to me qualifies as many.

My posts are often intended to be provocative and to raise the
occasional hair and e-mail by nature is a bit of an amplifier in terms
of tone. I do come across far more strident in e-mail than in person
too. But, we all also know that it takes an awful lot of pushing to move
the WISP market in any one direction; that is doubly hard when pushing
into the wind.

Others are free to disparage and call into question my motives. That's
fine. But regardless of one's opinions about my motives, are the issues
on the table real or imagined? 

As for not buying because you don't like my opinions, that is an
unpleasant consequence, but for every one that has made that decision I
can assure you that there is likely at least two others for whom my
passion and dogged commitment to this market, its vitality, and its
external perception is a positive. 

I don't pick my or reject people as friends because they dare to
confront me or call me to the carpet. I want people to tell me I've got
a booger in my nose. I know the easy thing to do is to ignore the booger
(no one gets in trouble for not saying it). I also don't subscribe to
the philosophy that the customer is always right. I view a big part of
my role to be an educator, to provoke thought, to make my customers
better and more successful. Sometimes that means explaining when they
might be mistaken and why it matters.
 
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

I got my blood pressure up. I am sorry. Say whatever you like. One 
condition please. Make sure you have some basis in fact for saying 
many or most WISPs do anything illegal or we will have this battle 
another day.
Scriv



Patrick Leary wrote:

John,

I have railed against illegal vendors for years -- before you put up
your first link. I (in official corporate capacity) have met with
officials on the topic. I (in official corporate capacity) have met
with
lawyers on the topic. I have publicly spoken out at events on the
topic.

Who is stereotyping? I have said many and that's the truth and it's
not even a debate. What's trying to do right? One either follows the
rules or does not.

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and
deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

You want it to stop, John? Well, you have the power to censure your
list from those you disagree with. You will have to mute dissent then,
as I will not subdue my opinion on the topic because you wield power.
Has does one best use their power John? To silence rational opinion one
disagrees with? Must we all be sensitive or averse to differing from
your opinion? Should I watch my back and wait to be called into the
corner office for expressing my qualified opinion because you want it
to stop?

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

Patrick, what is Alvarion doing as a corporation to police the majority

of BWIA vendors who now pollute our industry with uncertified gear? 
These are your peers. Do you like being stereotyped with them?

Your stereotyping of WISP operators as being predominantly illegal and 
the source of the problem is not accurate or fair and I want it to
stop.

The majority of the WISPs out there are trying to do right. It is the 
vendors who are the real problem. The majority of vendors ignore the 
law. The last gear purchase I made was for an Alvarion B100 backhaul 
link which is due in here today. It is certified but now I wonder if 
buying from a vendor who stereotypes the industry is a good idea. Maybe

I made a mistake buying from your company?

By the way, the slam about 4.9 GHz is completely erroneous and you need

to apologize. The vast majority of WISPs stay the hell away from 4.9
and

other bands which we are not allowed in. You need to watch your tack on

this public list. Being a paid vendor member does not give you

Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread cw
I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC acts 
deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to the 
list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year the 
department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the center of 
our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy or 
not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).


They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each 
other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the narrow 
geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center, one 
can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When we 
called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to know 
why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.


WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile it 
higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw


Patrick Leary wrote:

No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.

- Original Message - 
I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that

the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.


From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the

usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Patrick Leary
All too true and I hate that for you -- as if your business is not tough
enough to manage. Surely the work of some trusted consultant. That's
why I cringe when I hear someone talks about cities or states going to
the historic consultants to get design, etc. help. The only qualified
consultants I have even met in this business are a select crop of
actual WISPs, a tiny smattering of VARs, and the vendors that live in
the space.

Patrick Leary

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of cw
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC
acts 
deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to
the 
list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year
the 
department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the
center of 
our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy
or 
not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).

They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each

other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the
narrow 
geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center,
one 
can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When
we 
called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to
know 
why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.

WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile
it 
higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw

Patrick Leary wrote:
 No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and
deal
 with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
 more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services
with
 wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
 large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
 that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
 competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand
that.
 
- Original Message - 
I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration
of
WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.

From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.

Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something
that
will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
discouraging the slippery slope.
-- 
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(190).







 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(42).











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] TV white spaces

2007-02-06 Thread Rich Comroe
DOT is ***supposed*** to switch to DSRC for this.  DSRC was allocated 75MHz at 
5.9Ghz just above the U-NII band based on roadway  highway needs such as this 
DOT application.  I participated in DSRC formulation enough to know that DOT 
had been experimenting with UL for years for highway signage applications in 
anticipation of DSRC.  I believe there's a good case to be made that they 
should migrate away from UL as soon as DSRC equipment is available ... but alas 
I don't think it's available yet.  This would be an appropriate topic for a 
wispa position.
  - Original Message - 
  From: cw 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


  I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC acts 
  deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to the 
  list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year the 
  department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the center of 
  our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy or 
  not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).

  They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each 
  other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the narrow 
  geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center, one 
  can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When we 
  called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to know 
  why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.

  WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile it 
  higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw

  Patrick Leary wrote:
   No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
   with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
   more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
   wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
   large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
   that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
   competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.
   
  - Original Message - 
  I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
  the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
  WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
  lines of Damn it, these things are not guidelines.
  
  From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
  usual, if you just stay within the power no one cares to now where
  people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
  to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.
  
  Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
  will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
  The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
  discouraging the slippery slope.
  -- 
  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] TV white spaces

2007-02-05 Thread Steve Stroh


You've HAD offers that have been refused...


Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:10 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now.   
Independently and with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and  
I've recently had talks with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces  
standards group) folks.


As always, we need more bodies to go a better job.

laters,
marlon



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-05 Thread Steve Stroh


Patrick is correct - Flarion was working on 802.20 (full mobility  
broadband) which, with the borging of Flarion by Qualcomm, has  
essentially terminated.


Mobile Broadband standards work now seems to have shifted fully over  
to 802.16e / Mobile WiMAX (which will be 100% licensed spectrum.)


I'll answer the last question on another post.


Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  10:12 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was  
geared for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the  
efforts are underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will  
be 802.22? Was there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards  
development that was spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely  
by surprise. Thanks for the info Steve and welcome back to writing  
for our industry. We missed your crystal ball.  :-)
Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you  
are writing these days?

Thanks,
Scriv



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-05 Thread Steve Stroh


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll  
stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner  
is the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  
been steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  
Channels 70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  
Channels 52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  
powerful terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do  
the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much  
on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space  
may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.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] TV white spaces

2007-02-05 Thread Jack Unger

Steve,

I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt white 
space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does.


jack


Steve Stroh wrote:


Jack:

Consider...

To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a we'll  
stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity manner  is 
the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has  been 
steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of  Channels 
70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of  Channels 
52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for  powerful 
terrestrial broadcasting to share spectrum with low-power  
license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do  
the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they  
are bending towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much  
on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space  
may serve to pollute the remaining television broadcast spectrum  
sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another  
decade or so).


Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as  
advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast  
spectrum.



Thanks,

Steve



On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:


Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the  
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this  
space. I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most  
effectively.


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com




---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com






--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Mario Pommier
Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before 
we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we 
can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz 
and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been 
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3 
years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything 
like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard. 
Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built 
which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these 
spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though.

Scriv


Mario Pommier wrote:

Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before 
we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before 
we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz 
and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will 
enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed 
wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no 
connectivity to broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread RickG

What kind of speed can be obtained on such low frequencies?
-RickG

On 1/24/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3
years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything
like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard.
Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built
which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these
spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though.
Scriv


Mario Pommier wrote:

 Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum
 becoming unlicensed?
 Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before
 we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before
 we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?
 Thanks.

 Mario

 Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 All,

 This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become
 unlicensed.
 As quoted from the press release;

   The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit
 license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz
 and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will
 enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed
 wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no
 connectivity to broadband Internet.

 Links below;
 http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro




--
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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Steve Stroh


John:

There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/



Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
lipped about it though.

Scriv


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Mac Dearman
This spectrum is the Goose's Golden egg for all of us in VERY rural areas.
It will absolutely revolutionize N. Louisiana as far as internet/intranet
access. We cover about ~12% of Louisiana, but cant reach but about 4 out 10
when we do site surveys.

 Steve - - you are always full of info and remain to be a WISPs #1
proponent!! Thanks for all you do.


Mac Dearman



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Stroh
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:45 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


John:

There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/


Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

 The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
 created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
 about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
 anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
 unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
 equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
 unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
 lipped about it though.
 Scriv

---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com




-- 
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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Jack Unger

Likelihood of unlicensed???

My guess is that the established communications carriers and the 
broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this space. I 
expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively.



Mario Pommier wrote:

Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before 
we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we 
can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz 
and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro







--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
It depends on the depth of modulation used and other factors. In a 6 meg 
TV channel space I am guessing you could easily see 15 to 20 megabit 
aggregate throughput over a good coverage area. (Maybe 3 miles radius?)


NOTE: The above are generalized best guesses on my part as I have never 
even seen one of these radios yet. DOCSIS standards provide some basis 
for conjecture of possible speeds within TV channel space. Google DOCSIS 
and most notably ARRIS DOCSIS for more thorough basis to estimate speeds 
and coverage areas for wireless data transmission within TV channel spaces.

Scriv


RickG wrote:


What kind of speed can be obtained on such low frequencies?
-RickG

On 1/24/07, John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through about 3
years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or anything
like that but the rules are as clear as any other unlicensed standard.
Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have equipment designed and built
which they say can be used to deliver unlicensed broadband in these
spaces today. They are being tight-lipped about it though.
Scriv


Mario Pommier wrote:

 Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum
 becoming unlicensed?
 Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before
 we see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before
 we can use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?
 Thanks.

 Mario

 Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 All,

 This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become
 unlicensed.
 As quoted from the press release;

   The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit
 license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz
 and 698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will
 enable entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed
 wireless broadband services in areas that otherwise have no
 connectivity to broadband Internet.

 Links below;
 http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
 http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

 Regards,
 Dawn DiPietro




--
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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread John Scrivner
I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared 
for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are 
underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was 
there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was 
spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the 
info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your 
crystal ball.  :-)  

Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are 
writing these days?

Thanks,
Scriv


Steve Stroh wrote:



John:

There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/



Thanks,

Steve


On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
lipped about it though.

Scriv



---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Patrick Leary
Flarion's (QCOM) IP was to be the basis for 802.20, not 802.22. The
effort by 802.22 has ALWAYS been rural-focused, and thus the sub 1 GHz
bands, specifically the white spaces/TV bands.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

I knew there was an 802.22 effort but I had no idea that it was geared 
for any particular spectrum until now. Glad to hear the efforts are 
underway. Isn't Flarion's IP based closely on what will be 802.22? Was 
there an earlier effort for 802.22 standards development that was 
spectrum agnostic? This caught me completely by surprise. Thanks for the

info Steve and welcome back to writing for our industry. We missed your 
crystal ball.  :-)  

Steve, could you send us a link(s) to where we can find what you are 
writing these days?
Thanks,
Scriv


Steve Stroh wrote:


 John:

 There IS an IEEE standard in the works for the TV whitespaces -  
 802.22 - http://www.ieee802.org/22/


 Thanks,

 Steve


 On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24  07:55 AM, John Scrivner wrote:

 The standard (as far as how gear can operate in the bands) has been  
 created through the NPRM known as 04-186 which has gone through  
 about 3 years of the FCC meat grinder. There is no IEEE standard or  
 anything like that but the rules are as clear as any other  
 unlicensed standard. Companies like Intel, Cisco, etc. have  
 equipment designed and built which they say can be used to deliver  
 unlicensed broadband in these spaces today. They are being tight- 
 lipped about it though.
 Scriv


 ---

 Steve Stroh
 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com




-- 
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(190).







 
 


This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals 
computer viruses(43).











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] TV white spaces

2007-01-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
WISPA has been working on this for a couple of years now.  Independently and 
with Cisco, New America, Media Access Project and I've recently had talks 
with the 802.22 (ieee white spaces standards group) folks.


As always, we need more bodies to go a better job.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Mario Pommier [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces


Any info through the grapevine about the likelihood of this spectrum 
becoming unlicensed?
Then, I suppose a standard will have to be drafted and approved before we 
see any gear.  So is that a couple of years if we're lucky before we can 
use sub-700Mhz to penetrate through trees in rural America?

Thanks.

Mario

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

This might clear up some confusion about which spectrum might become 
unlicensed.

As quoted from the press release;

  The WIN Act specifically requires the FCC to permit 
license-free use of the unassigned broadcast spectrum between 54MHz and 
698 MHz within 180 days of enactment. This legislation will enable 
entrepreneurs to provide affordable, competitive high-speed wireless 
broadband services in areas that otherwise have no connectivity to 
broadband Internet.


Links below;
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=267392
http://www.newamerica.net/programs/wireless_future

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro




--
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] tv white spaces update and a question for you guys

2006-09-13 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181



I think it should use carrier 
sensing.

Forget that gps anything crap.

Marlon(509) 
982-2181 
Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 
(Vonage) 
Consulting services42846865 
(icq) 
And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ron 
  Wallace 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:24 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] tv white spaces 
  update and a question for you guys
  
  Here is the relevant paragraph.
  
  "The Notice proposed to require that fixed 
  unlicensed devices incorporate a geo-location method such as GPS or be 
  professionally installed, and that they access a database to identify vacant 
  channels at their location. It proposed to require that portable 
  unlicensed devices operate only when they receive a control signal from a 
  source such as an FM or TV station that identifies the vacant TV channels in 
  that particular area. The Commission also sought comment on the use of 
  spectrum sensing to identify vacant TV channels, but did not propose any 
  specific technical requirements for devices that use spectrum 
  sensing."
  The GPS requirement does not seem to present a 
  problem, for Fixed Wireless, many GPs devices cna be incorporated into any 
  PC. As for a data base that exists and is available from Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] , 
  or could be accomodated to ID vacant channels at a given location. If 
  this is all that is required the information is already 
available.
  
  For "Portable Unlicensed devices" the 
  requirement is more difficult, I admit. But to runa test for fixed 
  unlicensed devices this should be much more straight forward.
  
  What do you guys think?
  Ron Wallace Hahnron, 
  Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 
  Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]-Original Message-From: 
  John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 
  2006 01:17 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] tv 
  white spaces update and a question for you guysI would think a 
  better approach would be to work with Intel or another company who is 
  already building prototypes to get a test system built and have WISPs 
  become the operations portion of a test for this type of technology. A 
  converted WiFi unit will not have any of the existing GPS or sniffing 
  capabilities required in the NPRM. If we are going to become part of 
  the solution then we need to have something capable of doing what is 
  being asked in the NPRM.ScrivMarlon K. Schafer 
  (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, 
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1813A1.doc 
  Looks like we're still TWO years away from being able to use the white 
   spaces. In a month we'll see the first draft rules from the 
  FCC. It looks like what they want to do is to get some 
  testing data. I'd  like to propose to them that we be allowed to 
  build a few test systems  using 2.4 ghz to tv band converters. 
  Similar to the 2.4 to 900mhz  converters. 
  I think it's important to have the support of WISPA on this, 
  officially. Thoughts? Marlon 
  (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting 
  services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 
  64.146.146.12 (net meeting) 
  www.odessaoffice.com/wireless 
  www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam-- 
  WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
  
  

  -- WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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] tv white spaces update and a question for you guys

2006-09-13 Thread John Scrivner
I do not know what you are asking. Marlon and I were debating what type 
of system we should try to get the FCC to allow us to use as a test bed 
system for experimentation with unused television channel space as a 
platform for broadband delivery. I think we are all talking about the 
same thing here but I am not sure what you are asking.

Scriv


Mario Pommier wrote:

if you want to test tv-band spectrum penetration in rural areas -- 
read, with lots of trees -- that's where testing needs to take place.
I'm sure there's a lot of us who operate in areas that qualify for 
this kind of signal obstruction.

what do you mean by wispa officially supports?

Mario

John Scrivner wrote:

I would think a better approach would be to work with Intel or 
another company who is already building prototypes to get a test 
system built and have WISPs become the operations portion of a test 
for this type of technology. A converted WiFi unit will not have any 
of the existing GPS or sniffing capabilities required in the NPRM. If 
we are going to become part of the solution then we need to have 
something capable of doing what is being asked in the NPRM.

Scriv


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


Hi All,

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1813A1.doc

Looks like we're still TWO years away from being able to use the 
white spaces.  In a month we'll see the first draft rules from the FCC.


It looks like what they want to do is to get some testing data.  I'd 
like to propose to them that we be allowed to build a few test 
systems using 2.4 ghz to tv band converters.  Similar to the 2.4 to 
900mhz converters.


I think it's important to have the support of WISPA on this, 
officially.


Thoughts?
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




---
[This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System]


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] tv white spaces update and a question for you guys

2006-09-13 Thread Jon Langeler
Marlon, I'm rather surprised that you would even mention 2.4GHz(wifi I 
assume) as a possible technology to use in these bands. Now that they 
have cellular technologies specifically designed for BWA purposes 
(Canopy and WIMAX are good examples) and given the possibility of a 
fresh start to using this spectrum, using an unarguably inferior 
technology for BWA like wifi just doesn't make sense. You end up with 
the craziness we have right now in the current bands. If testing data 
for equipment operation in that band is needed, you could probably 
obtain this information from a few companies off the top of my head like 
Qualcomm(Flash-OFDM), IPwireless(TD-CDMA) and Airspan(WIMAX and 
proprietary), that currently have experience w/ 700MHz.
IMO if they ever release a 'WISP band'(which I would be surprised), 
they need to have a GPS synchronized transmission cycle as a 
requirement... Here's an idea, make WIMAX as the accepted technology for 
that spectrum. Then all you need is the WISP(s) in the area to 
coordinate transmission cycles to minimize interference potential. That 
leads to a whole other subject, if a 'wisp-band' were opened up, the 
WISP industry could potentially be a whole new ball-game...think 
companies(AOL, Speakeasy, Covad, etc) spending 10s of millions to go 
regional/nation-wide that you would otherwise potentially not have to 
compete against. Now THAT would be interesting :-)


Jon Langeler
Michwave Tech.

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


Hi All,

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1813A1.doc

Looks like we're still TWO years away from being able to use the white 
spaces.  In a month we'll see the first draft rules from the FCC.


It looks like what they want to do is to get some testing data.  I'd 
like to propose to them that we be allowed to build a few test systems 
using 2.4 ghz to tv band converters.  Similar to the 2.4 to 900mhz 
converters.


I think it's important to have the support of WISPA on this, officially.

Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] tv white spaces update and a question for you guys

2006-09-12 Thread John Scrivner
I would think a better approach would be to work with Intel or another 
company who is already building prototypes to get a test system built 
and have WISPs become the operations portion of a test for this type of 
technology. A converted WiFi unit will not have any of the existing GPS 
or sniffing capabilities required in the NPRM. If we are going to become 
part of the solution then we need to have something capable of doing 
what is being asked in the NPRM.

Scriv


Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:


Hi All,

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1813A1.doc

Looks like we're still TWO years away from being able to use the white 
spaces.  In a month we'll see the first draft rules from the FCC.


It looks like what they want to do is to get some testing data.  I'd 
like to propose to them that we be allowed to build a few test systems 
using 2.4 ghz to tv band converters.  Similar to the 2.4 to 900mhz 
converters.


I think it's important to have the support of WISPA on this, officially.

Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] tv white spaces update and a question for you guys

2006-09-12 Thread Ron Wallace
Yea, Scriv you are right - forget my screwball ideas.
Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]-Original Message-From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 01:17 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] tv white spaces update and a question for you guysI would think a better approach would be to work with Intel or another company who is already building prototypes to get a test system built and have WISPs become the operations portion of a test for this type of technology. A converted WiFi unit will not have any of the existing GPS or sniffing capabilities required in the NPRM. If we are going to become part of the solution then we need to have something capable of doing what is being asked in the NPRM.ScrivMarlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1813A1.doc Looks like we're still TWO years away from being able to use the white  spaces. In a month we'll see the first draft rules from the FCC. It looks like what they want to do is to get some testing data. I'd  like to propose to them that we be allowed to build a few test systems  using 2.4 ghz to tv band converters. Similar to the 2.4 to 900mhz  converters. I think it's important to have the support of WISPA on this, officially. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 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] tv white spaces update and a question for you guys

2006-09-12 Thread Ron Wallace
Here is the relevant paragraph.

"The Notice proposed to require that fixed unlicensed devices incorporate a geo-location method such as GPS or be professionally installed, and that they access a database to identify vacant channels at their location. It proposed to require that portable unlicensed devices operate only when they receive a control signal from a source such as an FM or TV station that identifies the vacant TV channels in that particular area. The Commission also sought comment on the use of spectrum sensing to identify vacant TV channels, but did not propose any specific technical requirements for devices that use spectrum sensing."
The GPS requirement does not seem to present a problem, for Fixed Wireless, many GPs devices cna be incorporated into any PC. As for a data base that exists and is available from Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] , or could be accomodated to ID vacant channels at a given location. If this is all that is required the information is already available.

For "Portable Unlicensed devices" the requirement is more difficult, I admit. But to runa test for fixed unlicensed devices this should be much more straight forward.

What do you guys think?
Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]-Original Message-From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 01:17 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] tv white spaces update and a question for you guysI would think a better approach would be to work with Intel or another company who is already building prototypes to get a test system built and have WISPs become the operations portion of a test for this type of technology. A converted WiFi unit will not have any of the existing GPS or sniffing capabilities required in the NPRM. If we are going to become part of the solution then we need to have something capable of doing what is being asked in the NPRM.ScrivMarlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1813A1.doc Looks like we're still TWO years away from being able to use the white  spaces. In a month we'll see the first draft rules from the FCC. It looks like what they want to do is to get some testing data. I'd  like to propose to them that we be allowed to build a few test systems  using 2.4 ghz to tv band converters. Similar to the 2.4 to 900mhz  converters. I think it's important to have the support of WISPA on this, officially. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 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] tv white spaces update and a question for you guys

2006-09-12 Thread Brian Webster



Ron,
 Where did this relevant paragraph come from? I like the mention of 
me but I can't take credit for it. I use the information from the FCC data, just 
happen to be pretty good at mapping the information. Most people could do a 
simple search channel by channel in the FCC database and get maps. This 
requirement should be easy to meet. I have said before that we should also be 
able to use the methods yet to be approved for 5.4 GHz stuff. If it's good 
enough not to broadcast over radar it should work for TV stations too. The idea 
of some FM or TV station sending some control signal scares me. That's like 
leaving the mouse in charge of the cheese factory. Who gets a say in what they 
put on that control channel. Spectrum sensing should be a no brainer and would 
work fine. It still irks the crap out of me that they worry about this anyway. 
So few people receive signals off the air that they won't notice any low power 
spread spectrum signals. Politicsat least all these failed 
muni projects will force some spectrum policy though. It'll take a couple of 
years but it'll happen.

Thank You,
Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

  -Original Message-From: Ron Wallace 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 
  4:25 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] tv 
  white spaces update and a question for you guys
  Here is the relevant paragraph.
  
  "The Notice proposed to require that fixed 
  unlicensed devices incorporate a geo-location method such as GPS or be 
  professionally installed, and that they access a database to identify vacant 
  channels at their location. It proposed to require that portable 
  unlicensed devices operate only when they receive a control signal from a 
  source such as an FM or TV station that identifies the vacant TV channels in 
  that particular area. The Commission also sought comment on the use of 
  spectrum sensing to identify vacant TV channels, but did not propose any 
  specific technical requirements for devices that use spectrum 
  sensing."
  The GPS requirement does not seem to present a 
  problem, for Fixed Wireless, many GPs devices cna be incorporated into any 
  PC. As for a data base that exists and is available from Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] , 
  or could be accomodated to ID vacant channels at a given location. If 
  this is all that is required the information is already 
available.
  
  For "Portable Unlicensed devices" the 
  requirement is more difficult, I admit. But to runa test for fixed 
  unlicensed devices this should be much more straight forward.
  
  What do you guys think?
  Ron Wallace Hahnron, 
  Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 
  Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]-Original Message-From: 
  John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 
  2006 01:17 PMTo: 'WISPA General List'Subject: Re: [WISPA] tv 
  white spaces update and a question for you guysI would think a 
  better approach would be to work with Intel or another company who is 
  already building prototypes to get a test system built and have WISPs 
  become the operations portion of a test for this type of technology. A 
  converted WiFi unit will not have any of the existing GPS or sniffing 
  capabilities required in the NPRM. If we are going to become part of 
  the solution then we need to have something capable of doing what is 
  being asked in the NPRM.ScrivMarlon K. Schafer 
  (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, 
  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1813A1.doc 
  Looks like we're still TWO years away from being able to use the white 
   spaces. In a month we'll see the first draft rules from the 
  FCC. It looks like what they want to do is to get some 
  testing data. I'd  like to propose to them that we be allowed to 
  build a few test systems  using 2.4 ghz to tv band converters. 
  Similar to the 2.4 to 900mhz  converters. 
  I think it's important to have the support of WISPA on this, 
  officially. Thoughts? Marlon 
  (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting 
  services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 
  64.146.146.12 (net meeting) 
  www.odessaoffice.com/wireless 
  www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam-- 
  WISPA Wireless List: 
  wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: 
  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/