Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-25 Thread Tom DeReggi

You bring up an interesting point, comparing to GSM..
The problem is, in a democracy full of special interests, how does one 
determine fairly what that compatibilty standard should be?
One of the Reasons WiMax still is not deployed, while non-standards product 
are flourishing.
Is it better to get it done, or get it done right but while trying end up 
never getting it done?


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically 
American problem.  In America the courts broke up the Bell system thinking 
that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone companies 
competing with each other.  Only here in America does the FCC license any 
technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them competing with 
each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there are more towers 
of different technology that any given cellphone can't access compared to 
those it).  Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that to compete with the 
United States they needed to mandate compatible technologies that would 
insure interoperable services to users (things like GSM).


For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 
5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at 
minimum one that required all equipment to play nice.


Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, 
and as that investment increases, it gets harder.


Right.  Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed. 
But all new bands should require compatability rules.  I just don't see 
our FCC seeing things this way.  There are too many that believe a 
free-for-all in the market serves the public best.  I don't agree.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Steve,

In theory, I fully agree with your view.

The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 
years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk 
using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher 
power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting 
spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being 
used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)


The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the 
harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to 
through away the investment that they have made already, and as that 
investment increases, it gets harder.


The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it 
forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith 
togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos 
and Cable companies.  And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less 
competitive as an industry in the end.  This can not be a good thing for 
an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update




Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a 
mixed
environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that 
are

less robust, oh well.

But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability
will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be
acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services
based on that lower level of performance.

My Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless encompasses not just 
the

technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic
evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely more
survivable - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be
better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't 
get

bought.

We've seen what happens to systems that are survivable but don't 
evolve

their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and
Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive
performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to
newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often 
from

entirely new vendors.

The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be
EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the
relatively

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-25 Thread Rich Comroe
The problem is, in a democracy full of special interests, how does one 
determine fairly what that compatibilty standard should be?


You got it.  In a democracy full of special interests, who decides?
It depends on the charter of who is organizing the standard and who the 
participants are.


The 802.11 standard comes courtesy of ieee.  I don't know their rules.

Our Internet standards come from the IETF which is a democracy of volunteer 
technical individuals, companies and governments have little to no influence 
(this is good).


Consortia and industry organizations in the US (like TIA) tend to give 
over-consideration to manufacturer participants ... those that build the 
equipment.  I'd bet the WiMAX forum is in this category, where it likely 
only really represents the manufacturers and a collection of dominant 
carriers who have chosen to participate.


These are exactly the reasons some Industry associations of USERS host their 
own standard setting groups (like APCO and I believe CTIA) where basically 
they're issueing a statement of what they want Manufacturers to build.  Of 
course manufacturers participate, trying to steer the outcome to what they 
want to build, but users org standards groups tend to (by their own rules) 
give greater voice to volunteer users that choose to participate.  I've 
participated in innumerable standard setting groups, for manufacturer 
organizations and user organizations.  Chaired many of the groups, too. 
Fascinating when a group of participants attempt to come to a concensus on 
anything.  The output is only as important as the unity of voice with which 
the organization speaks (for example, few public safety agencies in this 
country choose to purchase and deploy any wireless system that does not have 
APCO's seal of compliance to APCO user issued standards).  In their market 
APCO speaks for the buying power of the public safety users (as I believe 
does CTIA).


Democracy, got'ta love it  hate it at the same time.
Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



You bring up an interesting point, comparing to GSM..
The problem is, in a democracy full of special interests, how does one 
determine fairly what that compatibilty standard should be?
One of the Reasons WiMax still is not deployed, while non-standards 
product are flourishing.
Is it better to get it done, or get it done right but while trying end up 
never getting it done?


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] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181

Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it.

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.


Pure Darwinism is bad in that it requires too much capital investment.

No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell 
system in essence was) is even worse.


The USA isn't quickly adapting broadband for several reasons.  One is that 
the consumer just doesn't value it enough.  If broadband was available at 
$75 per connection instead of $30 there would be much more of it out there. 
But people aren't willing (in large enough numbers) to pay more for 
broadband than for dialup or no internet at all.


In other countries they've typically had comparatively substandard networks. 
They are now building to catch up and naturally that building is with the 
latest gear.  Here we have cheap access to phones, cell phones, TV, etc. 
That's not always the case elsewhere.


It's funny.  I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband would 
help me sell more of it.  People would use it at work and want it at home 
too right?  Wrong.  They just do all of their stuff at work and sometimes 
cancel even the dialup!


Market forces are best left alone.  But steps do need to be taken to make 
sure that the playing field is level and that practical considerations (like 
roi) are not totally ignored.


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



- Original Message - 
From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically 
American problem.  In America the courts broke up the Bell system thinking 
that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone companies 
competing with each other.  Only here in America does the FCC license any 
technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them competing with 
each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there are more towers 
of different technology that any given cellphone can't access compared to 
those it).  Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that to compete with the 
United States they needed to mandate compatible technologies that would 
insure interoperable services to users (things like GSM).


For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 
5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at 
minimum one that required all equipment to play nice.


Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, 
and as that investment increases, it gets harder.


Right.  Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed. 
But all new bands should require compatability rules.  I just don't see 
our FCC seeing things this way.  There are too many that believe a 
free-for-all in the market serves the public best.  I don't agree.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Steve,

In theory, I fully agree with your view.

The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 
years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk 
using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher 
power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting 
spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being 
used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)


The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the 
harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to 
through away the investment that they have made already, and as that 
investment increases, it gets harder.


The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it 
forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith 
togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos 
and Cable companies.  And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less 
competitive as an industry in the end.  This can not be a good thing for 
an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update




Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Peter R.

Marlon K. wrote:

It's funny.  I thought that getting the local businesses on broadband 
would help me sell more of it.  People would use it at work and want 
it at home too right?  Wrong.  They just do all of their stuff at work 
and sometimes cancel even the dialup!




This is because people don't find enough value in broadband.
If you can check all your mail at home and then on your cellphone, what 
do you need broadband for?


That's the story you have to tell... What great things they can do with 
BB... connect to the community, watch video, download music at 
iTunes/Y!... etc.


You might have to create a niche in order to sell more.

Peter
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Rich Comroe

Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it.


I love debate.  I'll take that as a challenge  :-)

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.
No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell 
system in essence was) is even worse.


I agree with you that this is the prevailing wisdom here (and said so).  A 
lot of people really believe this in the United States.  That's despite the 
significant wireless market evidence to the contrary.  The FCC set ONE 
standard for original analog cellular (later knows as AMPS) 30 years ago. 
Did it stiffle anything new coming along?  No.  AMPS became the world 
cellular standard, and companies who invested in it were rewarded with world 
market.  But when digital cellular came along this new thinking had set 
in.  A US Digital Cellular standard was written (USDC) and almost 
immediately companies began crying to do differently (notably Qualcom and 
Motorola).  There was double-talk that if one standard is good, two 
standards must be better (nonsense ... if there is more than one standard 
there is in fact no standard).  The FCC went along with the US wireless 
industry's request for Darwinism (IMO because there was a new sense that 
technical flexibility in granting licenses would make them more valuable and 
Washington was getting an inkling of how much companies might be willing to 
pay for licenses in a bidding auction system).  Essentially we have pure 
Darwinism in US digital cellular today.  Does it serve the public best? 
Does it serve the carriers best?  No to both ... all it did was give-away 
the entire world digital cellular market to Europe's GSM which had no 
problem being judged a better choice compared to America's free-for-all. 
Oh, and your cellphone can't get coverage from 4 out of 5 towers that you 
pass by (because they're different technologies).



They are now building to catch up


No way.  Non-US manufacturers own the digital cellular market, and 
significant portions of the US infastructure is being replaced with European 
designed GSM  GPRS.  The US lost leadership in 2nd  3rd generation 
cellular.  A little test:  What brand cellphones are the market leaders in 
America, and where country are they from?


What about boadband wireless internet:

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.


There is a middle ground.  When Europe set aside the RLAN band (for 
hyperlan) they didn't mandate that systems had to be hyperlan to get the 
European equivalent of FCC type acceptance.  They picked 2 technical 
elements of playing nice and made them mandatory requirements for type 
acceptance (TPC  DFS).  Systems had to support Transmit Power Control and 
Dynamic Frequency Selection to be considered for compliance.  Europe set 
this up in the late 90's I think.  Oh how I wish US license exempt bands 
required part-15, *and* TPC  DFS.  How would it have impacted wisps that 
employ 802.11 technologies?  Well, 802.11h (I believe it's the h suffix) 
has both these attributes (I presume the h suffix version was designed to 
make 802.11 saleable into European RLAN markets ... can anyone comment on 
this?).  So if this had been a US requirement, equipment for the WISP market 
would today all support the .h version and it wouldn't have impacted your 
system ... BUT it would have prevented destructive interference between your 
system and some other manufacturer choosing to market equipment that didn't 
play nice.  I think it would have been better for all wisps.  No?



Market forces are best left alone.


Standards are a fascinating field into themselves.  It's a little politics, 
public relations, technology, business, and government all rolled up 
together.  Laisse-fare turned out NOT to be in the best interests of the 
United States manufacturers, carriers, or citizens.  It's a world market and 
citizens expect their government to do what's best for their citizens, their 
providers, and their manufacturers.  History showed us that let the market 
work itself out was not the best answer.  A good case study is VHS vs BETA. 
What did VHS lead in the US market for 20 years even though BETA was better? 
Better standards strategy!  Sony learned their lessons well and did a 
complete 180 on the standards strategy for 8mm.  A well thought out standard 
helps everyone.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Rich, with all due respect, your idea has a REALLY big flaw in it.

Once government sets a standard, it's going to be a very long time before 
anything new comes along.


Pure Darwinism is bad in that it requires too much capital investment.

No Darwinism (government standards, really that's what the old Ma Bell 
system in essence

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-24 Thread Rich Comroe
Marlon, I think I can appreciate most everything you've said.  I can only 
add to each of your points, while accepting your input, why I think that 
your (and my) life would be better if we had some more constructive 
requirements in the wisp market than anything that fits the transmit mask.


It's interesting that you should bring up a 30 YEAR old technology as a 
good example for an equipment life standards discussion.  hehehehehe


It was just an example of how FATALLY flawed the change to let the market 
decide between generation I cellular (analog) and generation II cellular 
(first generation digital cellular) was, and we've all paid dearly for it 
(whether most people know it or not).  It was the blanket assertion that 
No-Darwinism is necessarily worse than Darwinism and to be rejected 
out-of-hand.


US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want!  It's working 
perfectly.


I think you meant carriers or providers in the above.  Where GSM rules 
apply (that's most of the world) service is seamless ... it's the best world 
for the customers.  Since wisps business as service providing is mostly 
fixed, I'll grant you that seamless is not a meaningful advantage.  But 
consider this.  As a service provider in the GSM world all brands of GSM 
equipment are interchangable.  From a service provider perspective you can 
get the best equipment prices (because there's more choices of suppiers). 
From the manufacturer, they can sell the same equipment world-wide, so they 
build in higher volume.  From a manufacturer perspective I know this 
inherently, but service providers should all know that the volume a 
manufacturer produces has a higher impact than anything else on 
manufacturing cost (and thus selling price).  Equipment manufacturers  
providers who build  deploy GSM enjoy significantly lower equipment cost. 
So let's try this again:


US manufacturers are free to choose who and what they want!  It's working 
perfectly.


If working perfectly means you don't care that the equipment costs more 
because of the free-for-all and you've no protection from destructive 
interworking, then I accept it's working perfectly!



We'll see.  That's what the FCC just did with 3650.


Agreed.  I'm hopeful that this was a good move.

And lets be real here eh?  No matter how good something we do is, much of 
Europe will do it differently just because we did it first.


Not quite the point.  I don't care what Europe does either.  More countries 
on this planet now choose to establish rules compatible with ETSI than with 
the US FCC (that's another big part of what the cellular free-for-all here 
cost us).  THAT was my point.  Look at the manufacturers that you buy your 
wisp equipment from.  They are charging you for equipment that they can only 
build for US markets and the few countries left on the planet that accept US 
FCC wireless rules (not too many).  Imagine how much less it might cost you 
if they could manufacturer in the greater volume to sell to all markets.


As for having ALL devices be wifi?  No thanks!  There are good things 
coming out of the proprietary market.


I agree, wasn't implying all devices have to be wifi.  Consider this 
example:  One of the middle bands at 5GHz is being opened for ANY 
technology, as long as they have a US DOT approved DFS (as I understand it). 
Could be 802.11, could be Canopy, could be anything ... as long as they all 
support the DFS so that they don't talk on the US military radar.  This is 
what I understood ETSI to have set for the 5GHz RLAN bands (in most 
countries on the planet) ... doesn't have to be hyperlan2, as long as they 
all support TPC  DFS.  Where do you think 5.4 Canopy has been shipping for 
some time already?  A couple organizing standard requirements doesn't mean 
everybody has to deploy the exact same technology, but it could make 
everybody's life a whole lot better.  This is what I suggested under the 
term middle ground ... in your terms somewhere costructively between 
Pure-Darwinism and No-Darwinism as you put it.


What made beta better than VHS? Certainly part of what made VHS better was 
the availability.


Sony designed Beta, but intended to be the only supplier (Proprietary).  VHS 
was successful because of the availability, because of the consortium of 
companies who all agreed to support a common design.  VHS won precisely 
because of the standard (the availability as you put it).  When Sony came 
out with their next format (8mm) they made sure they offered the design to 
a consortium of companies who would agree to support a compatible design, 
which is why 8mm was succesful ... a 180 from their previous (Beta) 
position.  Japanese learned fast.  World 3rd generation cellular standards 
are a battleground between Japan and Europe (US design is not even a 
contender, but US manufacturers try to feed their inputs to both Japan and 
Europe standards bodies ... but we're the outsiders in both venues).


Technically?  Maybe Beta 

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-21 Thread Mark Koskenmaki

Steve, I see a lot of discussion about 3650, but at the moment, it appears
either difficult, impossible, or unpredictable, to get licensed for that
spectrum.

What I've been able to see, is that only 'experimental' deployments can get
licensed on that band, and so... only a small amount of experimenting is
going on.Whenever the FCC finally makes it truly available for any/all
of us WISP's to get on board, I think we'll see it get used in quite a wide
array of interesting ways.

It appears you believe that 3650 has been sort of a failure of some kind up
to now... from my point of view, it hasn't even been possible to use yet.
It's a future opportunity, not a present one.



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

-
- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



 Patrick:

 I posit that the LACK of any significant consensus from the industry on
 3650, when there WAS a clearly indicated desire on the part of the FCC to
 try out some form of mandated sharing, bolsters the case that the
 simplicity of Part 15 / UNII rules makes for more innovation.

 See... the we ought to be able to do better mentality is a bit of a
 trap. Better by WHOSE definition? Community Wireless activists?
 Experimenters? Neighborhoods? Carriers? Deep pocketed entrepreneurs?
 Individual entrepreneurs with a good idea? Rural? Urban? Suburban?
 Equipment vendors?  WISPs? BWIA Service Providers?  Communities?
 Enterprises? Point-to-point? Point-to-multipoint? Mesh?  Mobile? Fixed?
 Nomadic? For profit? Not-for-profit? If you make it favorable for any
 particular group, another group (who has an equally legitimate claim to
 use that spectrum) is disadvantaged.

 If there's to be any hope for better, a consensus needs to emerge. It
 hasn't, and I doubt it will. So... right now 3650 is looking like a failed
 experiment in licensed-light much like Unlicensed PCS was. If you need
 an example of failed better... Unlicensed PCS is a chilling example. Why
 in the world do we have cordless phones on 2.4 and 5.8 GHz instead of
 Unlicensed PCS (1.9 GHz)? Because the rules there were not nearly as
 favorable as the we'll build good systems, make 'em cheap, and take our
 chances  2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands.

 I'm not trying to say that the rules are sacrosanct, nor that were they
 designed to have the very positive outcome they've produced (such as the
 entire WISP industry), or that we couldn't theoretically do better. But we
 HAVEN'T figured out how to do it better yet, despite having opportunities
 like 3650 to do so. However it happened, we're seeing incredible
 innovation in the license-exempt bands under the current rules. So for
 now, let's NOT tinker with what's DEMONSTRATABLY working in those very
 small portions of spectrum where innovation is allowed to occur unfettered
 by the Mother, May I? paradigm that has been applied across the rest of
 the RF portions of the electromagnetic spectrum in the US.

 If you want certainty in the use of RF, mandated cooperation / play
 nice... there's AMPLE licensed spectrum going completely unused. That
 particular groups cannot make use of that vacant spectrum... THAT is a
 real problem that has yet to be effectively addressed.


 Thanks,

 Steve


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-21 Thread Tom DeReggi


PAtrick,


[I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a
system that might be considered spectrally abusive so that it itself
survives, all while conforming perfectly within the regulations, may be
considered to be an entirely sound, even smart, competitive strategy --  
the

rules do not require me to play well with others, so I'm going to do
everything I can to make sure I do not, within the rules of course.


We are on the same page here.  However, I'd like to point out, this is not 
just an offensive situation where a WISP has poor ethics by saying, rules 
don't require me to play well with others, so I'm going to make sure I do 
everything to make sure I do not..  The problem also exists, for ethical 
WISPs, where they have no choice but to chose rules don't require others to 
play nice with me, so I must use the most survivable product to make sure 
that I have the best chance to survive the abusers, even if its at the cost 
of innovation. I have a responsibilty to my subscribers to protect their 
longevity of service.


There aren't many that play nice with their neighbors more than I, but I am 
one that had to make the choice to choose less efficient prodcut to enhance 
survivabilty. I don't do it because its what I desire, but because there is 
no strategic chocie to do otherwise. I wish there were rules that protected 
those that most supported efficiency and innovation, because then I'd be 
able to use more efficient and innovative equipment without fear.



My input regarded changing the rules to allow for some type of sliding
higher power rules based on better efficiency, and that efficiency could
come any number of ways, through better and more narrow, high quality 
(good

emitters, without lots of spurious noise) antennas, higher sensitivity and
intelligence, better capacity per MHz (especially better packet per second
type efficiency), etc. The better one performed, the higher power allowed.

To do this, in my head I was thinking that a base line point of 
measurement
would be some type of low performing product connected to an omni. Put 
that
same radio on sector, you get more power. Put a more efficient radio on 
that
omni, you get more power. Put a really efficient radio on a 
well-performing
on a well-performing, narrow beam antenna and gets lots of power. Etc. 
Etc.


I am sure smart people can come up some type of algorithm that 
incorporates
most of the variables that and make something efficient, while leaving 
room
for the formula to advance to accept new techniques that create 
efficiency.
Such a rule would give operators incentive to employ the best systems 
since

such would require the least number of cells and such. And suppliers would
be continually encouraged to invest and innovate, because we'd know that 
the

market would be encouraged to support new technology for the rewards in
power and performance to be gained.

Another great thing about these proposed rules was that they are 
technology
neutral (the FCC does not like to specify technology these days). The 
rules
simply would have been some type of math formula where the answer was 
always

a reference to allowed power output (EIRP).


Agreed. So why didn;t the suggestions fly? Again, they partially did with 
the recent Smart Antenna rules for 2.4G,5.8G that allowed higher power for 
Vivato and SkyPilots of the world.  Why did they not embrace the idea of 
doing the same with more efficient modulations?



I also wanted a registration rule, very similar to what the FCC called out
for 3650MHz. I wanted it low fee (but enough to provides monies for rules
enforcement), non-exclusive, and open, with only registration (not
licensing) of infrastructure nodes and their locations.



At the time, I really do not think most in the room or at the Commission
fully grasped what I was getting at. Maybe I did not articulate it well
enough (though it was all captured on video and remains archived on the 
FCC

web site). But, I still think that such rules have the best chance of
bringing about a positive revolution in UL BWA.


I fully agree. And will do my best to encourage such change, when I can.

If the FCC ever excepts such suggestions, maybe I'll have investment dollars 
by then, and will be able to use the gear :-)


Tom DeReggi


Regards,

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

Patrick,

Forgive the Me to, but Patrick, GREAT POST on UL WIMAX!

Your post did not only address Wimax, but also addressed several of the 
big

delimna's for WISPs and the FCC.
How to coexist.  This industry has grown to the point that MANY
WISPs/Players have significant amounts invested in theior strategies. 
There


becomes a big conflict of, does a Operator/Provider support what 
protect's
their investment or what is best for the industry?.  If the Provider has 
an


Ego, they could

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-21 Thread Tom DeReggi

Steve,

In theory, I fully agree with your view.

The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 
years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk 
using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher 
power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting 
spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being 
used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)


The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the 
harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to through 
away the investment that they have made already, and as that investment 
increases, it gets harder.


The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it 
forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith 
togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos and 
Cable companies.  And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less competitive 
as an industry in the end.  This can not be a good thing for an industry, 
allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update




Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed
environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that are
less robust, oh well.

But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability
will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be
acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services
based on that lower level of performance.

My Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless encompasses not just the
technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic
evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely more
survivable - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be
better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get
bought.

We've seen what happens to systems that are survivable but don't evolve
their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and
Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive
performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to
newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often from
entirely new vendors.

The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be
EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the
relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian
Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone
wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks
aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative -
little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the
licenses.

Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be
high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar
investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means
that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more than
balances out the seeming lack of investment from the largest players. For
example, though Alvarion deigns to participate in the municipal mesh Wi-Fi
business, that doesn't seem to be hurting that business as that leaves
lots of room for smaller players - Tropos, SkyPilot Networks, BelAir
Networks, etc., all offering ample innovation and good performance in
providing a service that the conventional wisdom says that wasn't
possible.


Thanks,

Steve


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:


Tom,

You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival 
of

the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all
types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The
problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and
inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest RD to come 
up

with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward
for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable 
to

interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real
investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market
developing and tinkering that goes on, but rather the multi-millions of
serious RD investment such as that seen on the licensed side.

As well, the logical extension of this problem is that WISP operators
themselves are not rewarded in a spectrum sense by using the most 
efficient

systems.

[I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a
system

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-21 Thread Tom DeReggi

PAtrick,
Agreed, 3650 was proof that the FCC sees the points at hand. I thought they 
took great risk and great support to make the 3650 rules as they did. The 
fear is that if nobody takes advantage of the space, they are not likely to 
go out on a limb again.  Someone has got to make some contention based 3650 
gear, and use that spectrum!


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



A secondary flaw is that you read into the spirit of the rules that
efficiency is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the
license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or
encourages efficiency. It's simply not there.

...exactly my point, it is not there. But that does not mean that it 
should

not be, nor does it mean that the FCC is not interested in efficient use.

Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct,
there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In
3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might 
not

accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to
speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they
looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate.

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

-Original Message-
From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


Patrick:

Yup - agree to disagree, and remaining civil in the discussion.

The basic flaw in your perspective is that the current US license-exempt
bands are intended for communications use. They're not- their PRIMARY
allocation...  WAY back, is for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical use,
so license-exempt communications users of the band are subject to all
manner of interference, only SOME of which may be caused from other
license-exempt communications users of the band. Not to mention that
license-exempt users of the band are distinctly secondary to licensed
communications users of those bands, and must accept interference from
licensed users without in turn causing harmful interference back to
licensed users.

A secondary flaw is that you read into the spirit of the rules that
efficiency is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the
license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or
encourages efficiency. It's simply not there.

The FCC made a portion of spectrum available that was originally intended
for other uses, with licensed services having priority layered on top of
the ISM uses, and says to would-be license-exempt communications users IF
you can LIVE WITHIN THESE MINIMAL RULES, have at it.

So... technically adhering to the letter of the rule is ALL that matters
in the end as far as the FCC is concerned. If you adhere to their rules,
you're doing EVERYTHING that's required.

I'm certainly not positing that this is an optimum way of doing things -
it's fraught with peril. But in my mind, the Darwinian Effect, flawed
though it is, is providing us with new and innovative services and
products, FAR faster, that cost FAR less, than what is happening in
licensed spectrum.

What's really beautiful about US license-exempt spectrum, and what's SO
incredibly frustrating about it to the incumbent telecom industry is that
it pretty much cannot be gamed - unlike every other communications
channel, license-exempt spectrum is open to all who want to TRY to make
use of it - no one can say NO, you cannot operate your system here! (as
long as you are adhering to the letter of the FCC rules).

The rules, such as they are right now, have served us VERY well, and
tinkering at the margins to fix things may well result in causing
permanent damage one of the most vibrant sectors of what's left of the
telecom industry.

If INDUSTRY wants to correct things, there's no end of opportunity to do
so. 3650 is a fantastic opportunity in that the FCC said SHOW us what
YOU, industry, want to do with a contention protocol for
almost-license-exempt band. All industry wanted to do was complain that
they couldn't figure out how to cooperate to come up with one. Absent the
resources of the industry being able to come up with something... how
could the FCC possibly come up with a better scheme? At least they wisely
decided to do no harm and mandate a particular scheme for 3650.

As for Alvarion's investments, or lack of them, given the issues in
license-exempt spectrum... it used to matter, and years ago Alvarion's
systems were critical in proving to investors, larger companies, and
regulatory officials that using license-exempt spectrum WASN'T
incompatible with reliable operations. That was huge - back then. But the
industry has moved past

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-21 Thread Rich Comroe
It's quite unfortunate IMO but I've concluded that this is a typically 
American problem.  In America the courts broke up the Bell system thinking 
that it'd be better for the average American to have local phone companies 
competing with each other.  Only here in America does the FCC license any 
technology the carriers wishes to deploy, resulting in them competing with 
each other (whatever technology cellphone you carry, there are more towers 
of different technology that any given cellphone can't access compared to 
those it).  Europe learned almost 2 decades ago that to compete with the 
United States they needed to mandate compatible technologies that would 
insure interoperable services to users (things like GSM).


For the benefit of all, I wish the FCC would open any/all new bands (3.6, 
5.4 thru 5.7, etc) mandating a compatible technical solution, or at minimum 
one that required all equipment to play nice.


Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, 
and as that investment increases, it gets harder.


Right.  Too much of a hardship to change rules in bands once deployed.  But 
all new bands should require compatability rules.  I just don't see our FCC 
seeing things this way.  There are too many that believe a free-for-all in 
the market serves the public best.  I don't agree.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Steve,

In theory, I fully agree with your view.

The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 
years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk 
using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher 
power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting 
spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being 
used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)


The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the 
harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to 
through away the investment that they have made already, and as that 
investment increases, it gets harder.


The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it 
forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith 
togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos 
and Cable companies.  And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less 
competitive as an industry in the end.  This can not be a good thing for 
an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Steve Stroh [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update




Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a 
mixed

environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that are
less robust, oh well.

But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability
will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be
acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services
based on that lower level of performance.

My Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless encompasses not just the
technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic
evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely more
survivable - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be
better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get
bought.

We've seen what happens to systems that are survivable but don't evolve
their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and
Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive
performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to
newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often 
from

entirely new vendors.

The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be
EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the
relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian
Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone
wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks
aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative -
little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the
licenses.

Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be
high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar
investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means
that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more 
than

balances

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-20 Thread Patrick Leary
Tom,

You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival of
the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all
types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The
problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and
inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest RD to come up
with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward
for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable to
interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real
investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market
developing and tinkering that goes on, but rather the multi-millions of
serious RD investment such as that seen on the licensed side. 

As well, the logical extension of this problem is that WISP operators
themselves are not rewarded in a spectrum sense by using the most efficient
systems. 

[I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a
system that might be considered spectrally abusive so that it itself
survives, all while conforming perfectly within the regulations, may be
considered to be an entirely sound, even smart, competitive strategy -- the
rules do not require me to play well with others, so I'm going to do
everything I can to make sure I do not, within the rules of course. However,
markets are not fond of investing in RD to get around artificial problems,
i.e. problems created by easily manipulated regulations.]

Back in 2002 I was one a few panelists representing the UL BWA market (Steve
Stroh was there too on another panel) on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task
Force. The panel I was on was to recommend and debate the evolution of the
UL bands. Most were up there thinking WLAN, not WMAN, and they did not even
understand the implication of their proposals in the outdoor, metro scale
world of wireless. A few were up there saying we needed more power for
rural. 

My input regarded changing the rules to allow for some type of sliding
higher power rules based on better efficiency, and that efficiency could
come any number of ways, through better and more narrow, high quality (good
emitters, without lots of spurious noise) antennas, higher sensitivity and
intelligence, better capacity per MHz (especially better packet per second
type efficiency), etc. The better one performed, the higher power allowed. 

To do this, in my head I was thinking that a base line point of measurement
would be some type of low performing product connected to an omni. Put that
same radio on sector, you get more power. Put a more efficient radio on that
omni, you get more power. Put a really efficient radio on a well-performing
on a well-performing, narrow beam antenna and gets lots of power. Etc. Etc.

I am sure smart people can come up some type of algorithm that incorporates
most of the variables that and make something efficient, while leaving room
for the formula to advance to accept new techniques that create efficiency.
Such a rule would give operators incentive to employ the best systems since
such would require the least number of cells and such. And suppliers would
be continually encouraged to invest and innovate, because we'd know that the
market would be encouraged to support new technology for the rewards in
power and performance to be gained.

Another great thing about these proposed rules was that they are technology
neutral (the FCC does not like to specify technology these days). The rules
simply would have been some type of math formula where the answer was always
a reference to allowed power output (EIRP).

I also wanted a registration rule, very similar to what the FCC called out
for 3650MHz. I wanted it low fee (but enough to provides monies for rules
enforcement), non-exclusive, and open, with only registration (not
licensing) of infrastructure nodes and their locations.

At the time, I really do not think most in the room or at the Commission
fully grasped what I was getting at. Maybe I did not articulate it well
enough (though it was all captured on video and remains archived on the FCC
web site). But, I still think that such rules have the best chance of
bringing about a positive revolution in UL BWA.

Regards,

Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:06 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

Patrick,

Forgive the Me to, but Patrick, GREAT POST on UL WIMAX!

Your post did not only address Wimax, but also addressed several of the big 
delimna's for WISPs and the FCC.
How to coexist.  This industry has grown to the point that MANY 
WISPs/Players have significant amounts invested in theior strategies.  There

becomes a big conflict of, does a Operator/Provider support what protect's 
their investment or what is best for the industry?.  If the Provider has an

Ego, they could argue that the survival of their own company could

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-20 Thread Steve Stroh

Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the 
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed 
environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that are 
less robust, oh well.

But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability 
will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be 
acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services 
based on that lower level of performance.

My Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless encompasses not just the
technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic
evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely more
survivable - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be
better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get
bought.

We've seen what happens to systems that are survivable but don't evolve 
their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and 
Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive 
performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to 
newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often from 
entirely new vendors.

The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be
EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the
relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian
Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone
wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks
aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative - 
little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the 
licenses.

Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be
high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar
investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means
that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more than
balances out the seeming lack of investment from the largest players. For
example, though Alvarion deigns to participate in the municipal mesh Wi-Fi
business, that doesn't seem to be hurting that business as that leaves
lots of room for smaller players - Tropos, SkyPilot Networks, BelAir
Networks, etc., all offering ample innovation and good performance in 
providing a service that the conventional wisdom says that wasn't 
possible.


Thanks,

Steve


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

 Tom,
 
 You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival of
 the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all
 types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The
 problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and
 inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest RD to come up
 with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward
 for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable to
 interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real
 investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market
 developing and tinkering that goes on, but rather the multi-millions of
 serious RD investment such as that seen on the licensed side. 
 
 As well, the logical extension of this problem is that WISP operators
 themselves are not rewarded in a spectrum sense by using the most efficient
 systems. 
 
 [I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a
 system that might be considered spectrally abusive so that it itself
 survives, all while conforming perfectly within the regulations, may be
 considered to be an entirely sound, even smart, competitive strategy -- the
 rules do not require me to play well with others, so I'm going to do
 everything I can to make sure I do not, within the rules of course. However,
 markets are not fond of investing in RD to get around artificial problems,
 i.e. problems created by easily manipulated regulations.]
 
 Back in 2002 I was one a few panelists representing the UL BWA market (Steve
 Stroh was there too on another panel) on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task
 Force. The panel I was on was to recommend and debate the evolution of the
 UL bands. Most were up there thinking WLAN, not WMAN, and they did not even
 understand the implication of their proposals in the outdoor, metro scale
 world of wireless. A few were up there saying we needed more power for
 rural. 
 
 My input regarded changing the rules to allow for some type of sliding
 higher power rules based on better efficiency, and that efficiency could
 come any number of ways, through better and more narrow, high quality (good
 emitters, without lots of spurious noise) antennas, higher sensitivity and
 intelligence, better capacity per MHz (especially better packet per second
 type efficiency), etc. The better one performed, the higher 

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-20 Thread Patrick Leary
I absolutely agree with the oh well part in the sense of hard-nosed, fair
game competition. But, in your definition, being robust is simply about
clobbering other systems to make room for your own. That is a bit like
saying a bobtail big rig (or at least one not hauling anything much) is more
robust than the other vehicles running along the road because it is able to
force them off the road. Now, nothing in the rules prohibits that action,
but I do not think that that is robust in the intended definition of the
word, nor do I think it follows the spirit of the rule, though maybe it does
technically adhere to the letter of the rule.

As you know Steve, we agree that we disagree! :)  I am exceedingly familiar
with the developments within the mesh space, but again, my point is that
these are investments to work within and around a flawed regulatory regime.
I do not fault the FCC -- folks like Dr. Marcus invented these rules without
knowing really what might become of them. However, these rules are not
natural imperatives and there is no reason why they cannot be evolved in a
method that will advance the simple goal of using the spectrum as
efficiently as possibly in service of the public interest (being UL
spectrum, decisions should be made with interests of the public at heart
first, not necessarily in the interest of commercial operators or
suppliers).

Imagine what these same new entrants might be able to do with their
technology with better rules.

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

-Original Message-
From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


Patrick:

I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding survival of the 
nastiest - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed 
environment. If that behavior is perceived as nasty by systems that are 
less robust, oh well.

But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability 
will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be 
acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services 
based on that lower level of performance.

My Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless encompasses not just the
technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic
evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely more
survivable - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be
better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get
bought.

We've seen what happens to systems that are survivable but don't evolve 
their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and 
Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive 
performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to 
newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often from 
entirely new vendors.

The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be
EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the
relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian
Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone
wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks
aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative - 
little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the 
licenses.

Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be
high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar
investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means
that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more than
balances out the seeming lack of investment from the largest players. For
example, though Alvarion deigns to participate in the municipal mesh Wi-Fi
business, that doesn't seem to be hurting that business as that leaves
lots of room for smaller players - Tropos, SkyPilot Networks, BelAir
Networks, etc., all offering ample innovation and good performance in 
providing a service that the conventional wisdom says that wasn't 
possible.


Thanks,

Steve


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

 Tom,
 
 You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival
of
 the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all
 types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The
 problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and
 inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest RD to come
up
 with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward
 for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable
to
 interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real
 investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market
 developing and tinkering that goes

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-20 Thread Steve Stroh

Patrick:

Yup - agree to disagree, and remaining civil in the discussion.

The basic flaw in your perspective is that the current US license-exempt
bands are intended for communications use. They're not- their PRIMARY
allocation...  WAY back, is for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical use,
so license-exempt communications users of the band are subject to all
manner of interference, only SOME of which may be caused from other
license-exempt communications users of the band. Not to mention that
license-exempt users of the band are distinctly secondary to licensed
communications users of those bands, and must accept interference from
licensed users without in turn causing harmful interference back to
licensed users.

A secondary flaw is that you read into the spirit of the rules that
efficiency is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the
license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or
encourages efficiency. It's simply not there.

The FCC made a portion of spectrum available that was originally intended
for other uses, with licensed services having priority layered on top of
the ISM uses, and says to would-be license-exempt communications users IF
you can LIVE WITHIN THESE MINIMAL RULES, have at it.

So... technically adhering to the letter of the rule is ALL that matters
in the end as far as the FCC is concerned. If you adhere to their rules,
you're doing EVERYTHING that's required.

I'm certainly not positing that this is an optimum way of doing things -
it's fraught with peril. But in my mind, the Darwinian Effect, flawed
though it is, is providing us with new and innovative services and
products, FAR faster, that cost FAR less, than what is happening in
licensed spectrum.

What's really beautiful about US license-exempt spectrum, and what's SO 
incredibly frustrating about it to the incumbent telecom industry is that 
it pretty much cannot be gamed - unlike every other communications 
channel, license-exempt spectrum is open to all who want to TRY to make 
use of it - no one can say NO, you cannot operate your system here! (as 
long as you are adhering to the letter of the FCC rules).

The rules, such as they are right now, have served us VERY well, and 
tinkering at the margins to fix things may well result in causing 
permanent damage one of the most vibrant sectors of what's left of the 
telecom industry.

If INDUSTRY wants to correct things, there's no end of opportunity to do 
so. 3650 is a fantastic opportunity in that the FCC said SHOW us what 
YOU, industry, want to do with a contention protocol for 
almost-license-exempt band. All industry wanted to do was complain that 
they couldn't figure out how to cooperate to come up with one. Absent the 
resources of the industry being able to come up with something... how 
could the FCC possibly come up with a better scheme? At least they wisely 
decided to do no harm and mandate a particular scheme for 3650.

As for Alvarion's investments, or lack of them, given the issues in
license-exempt spectrum... it used to matter, and years ago Alvarion's
systems were critical in proving to investors, larger companies, and
regulatory officials that using license-exempt spectrum WASN'T
incompatible with reliable operations. That was huge - back then. But the
industry has moved past the does it really work? stage and it's now very
robust and diverse. Alvarion's prime responsibility is to it's
stockholders, and as such it has to invest its resources safely, which
probably means that it can't place bets as it once was more free to do.  
But again, that just leaves more room for new entrants or other companies
and technologies.


Thanks,

Steve


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

 I absolutely agree with the oh well part in the sense of hard-nosed, fair
 game competition. But, in your definition, being robust is simply about
 clobbering other systems to make room for your own. That is a bit like
 saying a bobtail big rig (or at least one not hauling anything much) is more
 robust than the other vehicles running along the road because it is able to
 force them off the road. Now, nothing in the rules prohibits that action,
 but I do not think that that is robust in the intended definition of the
 word, nor do I think it follows the spirit of the rule, though maybe it does
 technically adhere to the letter of the rule.
 
 As you know Steve, we agree that we disagree! :)  I am exceedingly familiar
 with the developments within the mesh space, but again, my point is that
 these are investments to work within and around a flawed regulatory regime.
 I do not fault the FCC -- folks like Dr. Marcus invented these rules without
 knowing really what might become of them. However, these rules are not
 natural imperatives and there is no reason why they cannot be evolved in a
 method that will advance the simple goal of using the spectrum as
 efficiently as possibly in service of the public interest (being UL
 spectrum, decisions should be 

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-20 Thread Patrick Leary
A secondary flaw is that you read into the spirit of the rules that
efficiency is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the
license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or
encourages efficiency. It's simply not there.

...exactly my point, it is not there. But that does not mean that it should
not be, nor does it mean that the FCC is not interested in efficient use.

Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct,
there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In
3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not
accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to
speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they
looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate.

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

-Original Message-
From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


Patrick:

Yup - agree to disagree, and remaining civil in the discussion.

The basic flaw in your perspective is that the current US license-exempt
bands are intended for communications use. They're not- their PRIMARY
allocation...  WAY back, is for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical use,
so license-exempt communications users of the band are subject to all
manner of interference, only SOME of which may be caused from other
license-exempt communications users of the band. Not to mention that
license-exempt users of the band are distinctly secondary to licensed
communications users of those bands, and must accept interference from
licensed users without in turn causing harmful interference back to
licensed users.

A secondary flaw is that you read into the spirit of the rules that
efficiency is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the
license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or
encourages efficiency. It's simply not there.

The FCC made a portion of spectrum available that was originally intended
for other uses, with licensed services having priority layered on top of
the ISM uses, and says to would-be license-exempt communications users IF
you can LIVE WITHIN THESE MINIMAL RULES, have at it.

So... technically adhering to the letter of the rule is ALL that matters
in the end as far as the FCC is concerned. If you adhere to their rules,
you're doing EVERYTHING that's required.

I'm certainly not positing that this is an optimum way of doing things -
it's fraught with peril. But in my mind, the Darwinian Effect, flawed
though it is, is providing us with new and innovative services and
products, FAR faster, that cost FAR less, than what is happening in
licensed spectrum.

What's really beautiful about US license-exempt spectrum, and what's SO 
incredibly frustrating about it to the incumbent telecom industry is that 
it pretty much cannot be gamed - unlike every other communications 
channel, license-exempt spectrum is open to all who want to TRY to make 
use of it - no one can say NO, you cannot operate your system here! (as 
long as you are adhering to the letter of the FCC rules).

The rules, such as they are right now, have served us VERY well, and 
tinkering at the margins to fix things may well result in causing 
permanent damage one of the most vibrant sectors of what's left of the 
telecom industry.

If INDUSTRY wants to correct things, there's no end of opportunity to do 
so. 3650 is a fantastic opportunity in that the FCC said SHOW us what 
YOU, industry, want to do with a contention protocol for 
almost-license-exempt band. All industry wanted to do was complain that 
they couldn't figure out how to cooperate to come up with one. Absent the 
resources of the industry being able to come up with something... how 
could the FCC possibly come up with a better scheme? At least they wisely 
decided to do no harm and mandate a particular scheme for 3650.

As for Alvarion's investments, or lack of them, given the issues in
license-exempt spectrum... it used to matter, and years ago Alvarion's
systems were critical in proving to investors, larger companies, and
regulatory officials that using license-exempt spectrum WASN'T
incompatible with reliable operations. That was huge - back then. But the
industry has moved past the does it really work? stage and it's now very
robust and diverse. Alvarion's prime responsibility is to it's
stockholders, and as such it has to invest its resources safely, which
probably means that it can't place bets as it once was more free to do.  
But again, that just leaves more room for new entrants or other companies
and technologies.


Thanks,

Steve


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

 I absolutely agree with the oh well part in the sense of hard-nosed,
fair
 game competition. But, in your definition, being robust is simply about
 clobbering other systems to make room for your

3650 update (was Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update)

2006-04-20 Thread Matt Liotta

Patrick Leary wrote:


Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct,
there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In
3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not
accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to
speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they
looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate.

 


Any chance for a 3650 update along the same lines as your WiMAX email?

-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-19 Thread Patrick Leary
The first profiles the WiMAX Forum will establish for mobile WiMAX
(802.16e-2005) will be for 2.3GHz (WCS bands) and 2.5GHz (2.5-2.696GHz BRS 
EBS bands). Commercial products confirming to the STANDARD will begin to hit
the market over the next few months, and these will take the form factor of
fixed products, but especially portable and nomadic, indoor only
self-install CPE. Later this year and early next year, this will likely be
bridged by PCMCIA versions by vendors until such time as the mass devices
makers begin to role out devices. 

The first e-2005 WiMAX Certifications are not scheduled though to occur
until late this year. Officially, this certification is called Wave III.
There will also be a fourth wave that tests for full mobility (i.e. includes
things like controllers and home agents).

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-Original Message-
From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

That was a great answer Patrick.
You should post more often. This is the information all wisps crave.

What frequency is the mobile WIMAX?
And what is the expected release dates.

Thanks again

George


Patrick Leary wrote:
 Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your
 question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. 
 
 First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally
see
 lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line
first,
 so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as
 other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I
 would.UL 
 
 Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around
 it:
 
 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz:
 Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled
BWA
 deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power
allowances,
 and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is
 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that
 profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most
 likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz
 WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support
3650MHz.
 
 2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only:
 The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That
 is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who
 wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs
 to be broadened.
 
 3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed:
 The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed
 LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was
 amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same
 MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly
 efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only
 interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot
 comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum.
In
 the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler
results
 in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air.
 
 The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9
 months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to
 come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems
 using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of
 technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16
 device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this
TG.
 It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint
 TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse
to
 joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick
 technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in
 the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be.
 
 Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release
UL
 WiMAX as it exists today.
 
 4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile
access:
 Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the
channelization
 options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize
 that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current
 efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per
 megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes
 delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last
mile
 centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You
quickly
 begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-19 Thread George

So these are just the licensed frequencies that will get mobile WIMAX.

There will be no unlicensed WIMAX mobile or fixed any time in 2006, is 
that correct?


One of the reasons I ask this is there is a group that claims they will 
be rolling out unlicensed mobile WIMAX here along the Oregon Coast 
sometime in the near future.

Considering that my terrain looks like this:

http://www.oregonfast.net/~gofast/Aerials/AERIAL2.JPG

Would you agree that maybe mobile WIMAX licensed or unlicensed would 
have many challenges?


George




Patrick Leary wrote:

The first profiles the WiMAX Forum will establish for mobile WiMAX
(802.16e-2005) will be for 2.3GHz (WCS bands) and 2.5GHz (2.5-2.696GHz BRS 
EBS bands). Commercial products confirming to the STANDARD will begin to hit
the market over the next few months, and these will take the form factor of
fixed products, but especially portable and nomadic, indoor only
self-install CPE. Later this year and early next year, this will likely be
bridged by PCMCIA versions by vendors until such time as the mass devices
makers begin to role out devices. 


The first e-2005 WiMAX Certifications are not scheduled though to occur
until late this year. Officially, this certification is called Wave III.
There will also be a fourth wave that tests for full mobility (i.e. includes
things like controllers and home agents).

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

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-19 Thread Patrick Leary
George,

At this point, there are no mobile frequency profiles planned for UL at all.
This could change, but it won't likely change with respect to 5GHz; the
profile there will only be for 802.16-2004 (all fixed, all the time).

There may be some UL fixed WiMAX that gets certified this year, but be
appropriately cautious of any early UL WiMAX in terms of its ability to live
in an interfered environment. I suspect many existing products will handle
interference much better, at least until or unless some standardized or
proprietary mechanisms are added. And the addition of a proprietary
technique is a perfectly acceptable product strategy, so long as it is in
addition to, and not in replace of, the standard. That sort of technique is
a key way for vendors to differentiate products.

In terms of the people making the claims out your way, they are surely
overstating what they are doing, either intentionally or out of ignorance.
Both happen. In all likelihood, it is perhaps something like a Navini 2.4GHz
system (which is actually CDMA, not WiMAX) using Navini's PC card, or they
are using the term mobile, when it is actually just portable or nomadic.
It might also simply be some mesh system, such as Motorola's (wherein their
marketing they work hard to confuse and otherwise borrow off the hype value
of WiMAX). 

One thing is for sure, mobile WiMAX and unlicensed are for now and the
foreseeable future are entirely mutually exclusive of the other.

As to whether licensed mobile WiMAX would have challenges in your area based
on terrain, the answer is no more or less than whether licensed cellular has
challenges. Every area presents a challenge, but all are easily overcome
depending on frequency and then the network architecture (e.g cell density
and frequency re-use)...and of course a workable business model and the
CAPEX to support it!

 - Patrick

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

-Original Message-
From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

So these are just the licensed frequencies that will get mobile WIMAX.

There will be no unlicensed WIMAX mobile or fixed any time in 2006, is 
that correct?

One of the reasons I ask this is there is a group that claims they will 
be rolling out unlicensed mobile WIMAX here along the Oregon Coast 
sometime in the near future.
Considering that my terrain looks like this:

http://www.oregonfast.net/~gofast/Aerials/AERIAL2.JPG

Would you agree that maybe mobile WIMAX licensed or unlicensed would 
have many challenges?

George




Patrick Leary wrote:
 The first profiles the WiMAX Forum will establish for mobile WiMAX
 (802.16e-2005) will be for 2.3GHz (WCS bands) and 2.5GHz (2.5-2.696GHz BRS

 EBS bands). Commercial products confirming to the STANDARD will begin to
hit
 the market over the next few months, and these will take the form factor
of
 fixed products, but especially portable and nomadic, indoor only
 self-install CPE. Later this year and early next year, this will likely be
 bridged by PCMCIA versions by vendors until such time as the mass devices
 makers begin to role out devices. 
 
 The first e-2005 WiMAX Certifications are not scheduled though to occur
 until late this year. Officially, this certification is called Wave III.
 There will also be a fourth wave that tests for full mobility (i.e.
includes
 things like controllers and home agents).
 
 Patrick Leary
 AVP Marketing
 Alvarion, Inc.
 o: 650.314.2628
 c: 760.580.0080
 Vonage: 650.641.1243
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 
 

 



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

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

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


Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-19 Thread Tom DeReggi

Patrick,

Forgive the Me to, but Patrick, GREAT POST on UL WIMAX!

Your post did not only address Wimax, but also addressed several of the big 
delimna's for WISPs and the FCC.
How to coexist.  This industry has grown to the point that MANY 
WISPs/Players have significant amounts invested in theior strategies.  There 
becomes a big conflict of, does a Operator/Provider support what protect's 
their investment or what is best for the industry?.  If the Provider has an 
Ego, they could argue that the survival of their own company could be the 
best thing for the industry, and therefore favor rules that protect himself 
(the existing provider).  What I'm getting at is technology that protects 
and preserves spectrum or technology that allows last man standing.  The 
problem is that 5.8Ghz has the most to offer UL WiMax, but supporting it 
means wiping out all the existing player's investments in infrastructure. 
In order to support it, the providers must be in a possition to 
afford/finance/re-invest in it themselves.  WiMax probab would have Thrived 
in 3650, jsut because the technology could be deployed without interfering 
with any one elses investment in infrastructure or clientel that need to 
stay up reliably. One of the big problems is that new advanced modulations 
and technologies that allow super fast speeds, such as QAM64, also require 
much higher SNRs.  Signals that can easilly be squashed by DSSS technologies 
which operate at much closer SNRs.  One of the problems for the industry is 
that users of the less efficient systems, are rewarded, allowing them to be 
more survivable.  It actually puts the small player in control.  The guy 
that would rather stay at 10 mbps than risks unsurvivable service at 30 
mbps.  I think one of the things that would really help the industry is new 
rules, that would allows the more efficient systems to operate at higher 
power levels, so that they could survive the less efficient systems that 
operate on closer SNRs.  The FCC started to tackle this mentality by adding 
new rules allowing smart antennas (more directional base antennas) to 
broadcast at 7db higher output.  But I'd argue that possibly the same should 
be allowed for high modulation gear, so the faster gear could survive the 
slower.  However, there is a catch-22 with that, allowing higher power 
causes more interference between the neighbor cells of same technology.  The 
point I'm making is that the success of WiMax and efficient radios very well 
may depend on the availabilty of a band, that is protected from DSSS type 
gear that has better SNR or pre-existing rules that may compromise its 
efficient use.  The example you used of WiMax Scheduled MAC being designed 
for License, also applies potentially to gear that requires large SNR to 
survive, where it may not have been adequately designed to survive the 
typical noise of pre-existing technologies in the spectrum of Unlicensed. 
In order for PMP high capacity backhaul to effectively work (as market 
demand and wareness grows), it should also have predictable consistent 
capacity. That is a principle that is the opposite of Contention based.  I 
guess the point I'm really saying is that it is somewhat a no win situation. 
Can the conflict be resolved (contenstion vs scheduled vs customers' need )? 
I believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, and the FCC as well has 
always showed support for technologies that showed innovation and better use 
as technology adapts. The idea is as smarter technology gets designed, it 
will evolve to take the place of the lesser product that market pressure 
will phase out. The problem is, is that how it will really play out? Maybe 
the gear that is the most resilent (even if it delays innovation and 
progress) will survive apposed to the technology that is more efficient, 
faster, and honorable to edicate? At what point should the FCC step in and 
say, lets make rules that protect spectrum for a specific purpose or 
technology, apposed to licensing it to an individual or leaving it as a free 
for all and evolution's rule?


It will be interesting to see what the UL WiMax TG or 802.16h TG come up 
with.  Its alway better, if the problem can be solved with engenuity and 
inteligence instead of legislation.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


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

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your
question? I'd prefer to give you the full story.

First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally 
see
lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line 
first,

so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as
other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I
would.UL

Second, WiMAX

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-18 Thread Patrick Leary
Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your
question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. 

First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see
lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first,
so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as
other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I
would.UL 

Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around
it:

1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz:
Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA
deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances,
and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is
5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that
profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most
likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz
WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 3650MHz.

2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only:
The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That
is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who
wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs
to be broadened.

3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed:
The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed
LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was
amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same
MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly
efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only
interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot
comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. In
the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler results
in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air.

The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9
months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to
come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems
using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of
technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16
device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this TG.
It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint
TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse to
joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick
technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in
the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be.

Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release UL
WiMAX as it exists today.

4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile access:
Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the channelization
options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize
that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current
efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per
megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes
delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last mile
centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You quickly
begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things
like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging.

What does this mean? This means that the market is scrambling to build
residential CPE for UL WiMAX. Instead, the CPE will be that you would expect
at the remote end of an enterprise bridge or backhaul. In other words, we
are not talking about sub-$200 devices.

5. There will be no indoor only, self-install UL WiMAX CPE:
Unlike licensed WiMAX, for which the power and bands are suitable to support
a no-truck-roll CPE, we have no such luck in 5GHz. This leaves us with the
same installation paradigm we live under today in the UL world.

6. UL WiMAX profile in only supported in the fixed WiMAX standard of
802.16-2004. There is no profile for 802.16e-2005:
While we and a handful of others remain excited about fixed WiMAX, most of
the large telecom suppliers are bypassing it entirely and going straight to
802.16e-2005. Now, and this is key, while the -2005 standard is about
mobile, IT CAN be used also for fixed and it WILL be the basis of nomadic
and portable (semi fixed, self-install) CPE. So that is where all the big
RD money is at now and vendors planning to participate in the main WiMAX
market (the 802.16e-2005 world) have to invest to stay ahead. This makes
802.16-2004, and all the profiles that go along with it, including the UL
profiles, a lesser priority, at 

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-18 Thread Patrick Leary
Sorry, I meant to say NOT scrambling to build residential UL WiMAX CPE.

- Patrick

-Original Message-
From: Patrick Leary 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:50 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your
question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. 

First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see
lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first,
so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as
other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I
would.UL 

Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around
it:

1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz:
Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA
deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances,
and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is
5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that
profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most
likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz
WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 3650MHz.

2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only:
The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That
is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who
wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs
to be broadened.

3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed:
The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed
LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was
amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same
MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly
efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only
interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot
comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. In
the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler results
in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air.

The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9
months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to
come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems
using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of
technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16
device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this TG.
It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint
TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse to
joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick
technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in
the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be.

Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release UL
WiMAX as it exists today.

4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile access:
Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the channelization
options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize
that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current
efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per
megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes
delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last mile
centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You quickly
begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things
like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging.

What does this mean? This means that the market is scrambling to build
residential CPE for UL WiMAX. Instead, the CPE will be that you would expect
at the remote end of an enterprise bridge or backhaul. In other words, we
are not talking about sub-$200 devices.

5. There will be no indoor only, self-install UL WiMAX CPE:
Unlike licensed WiMAX, for which the power and bands are suitable to support
a no-truck-roll CPE, we have no such luck in 5GHz. This leaves us with the
same installation paradigm we live under today in the UL world.

6. UL WiMAX profile in only supported in the fixed WiMAX standard of
802.16-2004. There is no profile for 802.16e-2005:
While we and a handful of others remain excited about fixed WiMAX, most of
the large telecom suppliers are bypassing it entirely and going straight to
802.16e-2005. Now, and this is key, while the -2005 standard is about
mobile, IT CAN be used also for fixed and it WILL be the basis of nomadic
and portable (semi fixed, self-install) CPE. So that is where all the big
RD money is at now

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-18 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
GREAT post Patrick!  Thank you so very much for it.  This is one of the 
reasons why I'm so proud of WISPA.  We're attracting the cream of the WISP 
crop.  As operators and distributors and manufacturers.


I really hope we continue to grow in these well thought out, honest 
directions.


Having said that, it looks to me like you are saying that there's a WiMAX 
group that's taking on the contention based issue put forth by the FCC in 
the 3650 report and order.  Please tell me I DO get to have my cake and eat 
it too!  (Contention based requirements SHOULD give us quite a bit of 
interference protection vs. current rule sets AND the cost basis of 
unlicensed bands.)


Enquiring minds want to know!

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



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

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update



Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your
question? I'd prefer to give you the full story.

First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally 
see
lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line 
first,

so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as
other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I
would.UL

Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around
it:

1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz:
Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled 
BWA
deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power 
allowances,

and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is
5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that
profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most
likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz
WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 
3650MHz.


2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only:
The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That
is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who
wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs
to be broadened.

3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed:
The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed
LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was
amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same
MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly
efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only
interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot
comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. 
In
the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler 
results

in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air.

The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9
months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to
come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems
using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of
technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16
device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this 
TG.

It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint
TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse 
to

joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick
technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in
the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be.

Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release 
UL

WiMAX as it exists today.

4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile 
access:
Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the 
channelization

options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize
that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current
efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per
megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes
delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last 
mile
centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You 
quickly

begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things
like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging.

What does this mean? This means

Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-18 Thread Dylan Oliver
Patrick:

Wow - this is by far the most enlightening piece I've ever read on the WiMax market. Thanks a lot!

So who really cares about WiMax for backhaul? So what if I can build
links with ends from different vendors? Won't proprietary protocols win
(technically) if they aren't limited by requirements to operate
within a standard?

Time to look into licensing for mobile!

Best,-- Dylan OliverPrimaverity, 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] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-18 Thread Patrick Leary
Hi Marlon,

Shouldn't you be planting wheat or something right about now or otherwise
doing donuts with that combine of yours? :)

Actually, I do not know of any group specifically doing that at the Forum.
That said, there is a regulatory working group (led by Intel's Margaret
LaBrecque) at the Forum. I do interface with them from time to time as you
may suspect.

Also, and we have discussed this quite a bit, the Commission did not intend
to mandate specifically a contention-based protocol. They used the
contention word because it best described what they were trying to get at,
which is essentially some type of mechanism that enabled equipment to,
without human intervention, get along in the contentious environment of UL.

I know this as a matter of fact because I sat in the room with the folks
that wrote the rules shortly after they published them and asked them the
question point blank. By way of support of my insight, you might note that
they Order also discusses WiMAX as something they supported (though not and
never exclusively). In other words, the FCC tried to be accepting and
neutral as it relates to either 802.11 or 802.16 or anything else. As you
know, technical neutrality is something they are fond of these days.

In general, people at the Commission will tell you that they were frustrated
and felt left hanging as it relates to 3650MHz. They believe that the market
did not give them enough guidance and they were taken aback by the storm of
controversy that ensued from the published RO. In fact, they did not know
that they were asking for things that were 180 degrees out of phase with
each other (e.g. supporting some contention-like mechanism while also
encouraging WiMAX).

And today we have a new Commission under Chairman Martin. Much has changed.
While Julie and Lauren are still there, guys like Muleta, Pepper, and Marcus
have gone. I had Bryan Tramont, former FCC Chief of Staff under Powell,
present to a group of folks recently (Scriv was there) and he said that the
FCC is no closer now than last year in terms of resolving 3650MHz. 

In short, don't look for resolution anytime this year, except
maybe...maybe...the end of the year at best.

I also realize that many WISPs and others have been getting 24-month STAs.
But folks need to know that those carry some risks in the sense that the
testing done cannot be revenue generating services and nothing prevents
the investment from being fully wasted if the FCC rules in some way the
makes certain geographies licensed or certain parts of the allocation
licensed.

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

-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

GREAT post Patrick!  Thank you so very much for it.  This is one of the 
reasons why I'm so proud of WISPA.  We're attracting the cream of the WISP 
crop.  As operators and distributors and manufacturers.

I really hope we continue to grow in these well thought out, honest 
directions.

Having said that, it looks to me like you are saying that there's a WiMAX 
group that's taking on the contention based issue put forth by the FCC in 
the 3650 report and order.  Please tell me I DO get to have my cake and eat 
it too!  (Contention based requirements SHOULD give us quite a bit of 
interference protection vs. current rule sets AND the cost basis of 
unlicensed bands.)

Enquiring minds want to know!

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



- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update


 Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your
 question? I'd prefer to give you the full story.

 First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally 
 see
 lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line 
 first,
 so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as
 other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I
 would.UL

 Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around
 it:

 1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz:
 Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled 
 BWA
 deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power 
 allowances,
 and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is
 5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that
 profile while 3650MHz is up in the air

RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-18 Thread Patrick Leary








You are likely correct to a large extent
Dylan, and Redline, Orthogon (now owened by Moto), Ceragon, Stratex, ex-Western
Multiplex, etc. ad nauseum made good business off that very thing. However, I
expect that in certain segments of the market, WiMAX will hold sway as
backhaul. Backhaul of what is the question. And the answer in my view is
backhaul of things like security cameras, traffic systems, SCADA, mesh, etc.,
in other words, fixed devices at the edges and especially in the muni
environment. The muni space lives off RFPs. RFPs are driven by consultants. Consultants
don't like risks and tend not to be bleeding edge knowledgeableconsultant
like standards. Ergo, most muni RFPs at some point will begin to specify WiMAX
for the PMP backhaul.



As well, I believe we will all see
enterprise embracing WiMAX PMP to connect buildings, replacing those 5-8 years
old 802.11b bridges that in place connecting remote sites in gazillions of
places. They will embrace WiMAX because it is a standard, like they did Wi-Fi,
and because it is designed for long range outdoor, unlike Wi-Fi, and because it
is better for IP-rich environments emerging doing VoIP and video across the
enterprise.



The proprietary stuff will continue to be
used at the backhaul heavily by carriers and WISPs - especially for their
redundant licensed ring structures (for which they are so well suited).





Patrick Leary

AVP Marketing

Alvarion, Inc.

o: 650.314.2628

c: 760.580.0080

Vonage: 650.641.1243











From: Dylan Oliver
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006
11:19 AM
To: WISPA
 General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX
update





Patrick:

Wow - this is by far the most enlightening piece I've ever read on the WiMax
market. Thanks a lot!

So who really cares about WiMax for backhaul? So what if I can build links with
ends from different vendors? Won't proprietary protocols win (technically) if
they aren't limited by requirements to operate within a standard?

Time to look into licensing for mobile!

Best,
-- 
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] UL WiMAX update

2006-04-18 Thread George

That was a great answer Patrick.
You should post more often. This is the information all wisps crave.

What frequency is the mobile WIMAX?
And what is the expected release dates.

Thanks again

George


Patrick Leary wrote:

Well George, ready for long answer that may not actually answer your
question? I'd prefer to give you the full story. 


First,...so, is Alvarion building UL WiMAX? Of course, and I personally see
lots of potential for it. When will it come? A few things are in line first,
so there is no firm date but we'll have it roughly around the same time as
other main suppliers. If I could give a better and more useful date, I
would.UL 


Second, WiMAX is not a simple story. Here are the issues revolving around
it:

1. 3650MHz is a better UL band for WiMAX than 5.8GHz:
Vendors and operators know that this band is more favorable for a scaled BWA
deployment than 5.8GHz for both reasons of physics, higher power allowances,
and less interference. So far, the only UL profile for WiMAX is
5.725-5.850GHz. But most vendors are not eager to invest too much in that
profile while 3650MHz is up in the air. If 3650MHz goes UL, as it most
likely will, at least in part, then that would take the wind out of 5.8GHz
WiMAX's sales and a new profile will have to be created to support 3650MHz.

2. The UL profile is limited to upper 5GHz only:
The UL WiMAX profile excludes 5.25-5.35GHz, as well as 5.47-5.725GHz. That
is 355MHz of spectrum that the WiMAX Forum so far does not support. Who
wants to build a UL WiMAX network that only uses 5.8GHz? The profile needs
to be broadened.

3. The scheduled MAC of 802.16 is designed for licensed:
The reality is that the 802.16 MAC was originally developed for licensed
LMDS bands. In order to push through a standard quickly, when 802.16 was
amended to be applicable to sub-11GHz frequencies, they co-opted that same
MAC. Now it's a great MAC...for licensed. Scheduled MAC's are highly
efficient, but they are intended to be used in licensed where the only
interference risks are self-inflicted. With a scheduler, when your slot
comes to talk, you talk, regardless of what is happening in the spectrum. In
the UL world where there is contention for the spectrum, a scheduler results
in lost packets AND hurts the other systems already in the air.

The IEEE knows this is a problem, so they formed a new task group about 9
months ago called 802.16h, or TG H. The charter of this task group is to
come up with a mechanism that somehow enables UL co-existence of systems
using shared (UL) spectrum. The idea of the TG is to find some type of
technology neutral soft patch that can be overlaid atop not just any .16
device, but any 802.11, or even proprietary system. Alvarion chairs this TG.
It is a tough nut, because we and the IEEE are trying to make this a joint
TG with the 802.11 crowd, but so far the 802.11 groups in the IEEE refuse to
joint. The challenge is that the TG can come with some super slick
technique, maybe some time sharing mechanism, but unless other systems in
the air adopt it, it will not be as effective as it would otherwise be.

Suppliers are aware of all this and it adds to the reluctance to release UL
WiMAX as it exists today.

4. The UL WiMAX profile was designed for PMP backhaul, NOT last mile access:
Most may not be aware of this, but if you take note that the channelization
options in the 5.8GHz UL profile are 10MHz and 20MHz, you come to realize
that the intention is to make big pipes. Consider that the current
efficiency of WiMAX is a bit better than 3.5Mbps NET usable throughput per
megahertz used and you'll see that in UL WiMAX you can create pipes
delivering over 70Mbps NET in a 20MHz channel. Then note that the last mile
centric licensed profiles deal in 3.5MHz and 7MHz wide channels. You quickly
begin to realize that UL WIMAX is intended for backhaul only, for things
like mesh clouds, hotspots, and outdoor PMP enterprise bridging.

What does this mean? This means that the market is scrambling to build
residential CPE for UL WiMAX. Instead, the CPE will be that you would expect
at the remote end of an enterprise bridge or backhaul. In other words, we
are not talking about sub-$200 devices.

5. There will be no indoor only, self-install UL WiMAX CPE:
Unlike licensed WiMAX, for which the power and bands are suitable to support
a no-truck-roll CPE, we have no such luck in 5GHz. This leaves us with the
same installation paradigm we live under today in the UL world.

6. UL WiMAX profile in only supported in the fixed WiMAX standard of
802.16-2004. There is no profile for 802.16e-2005:
While we and a handful of others remain excited about fixed WiMAX, most of
the large telecom suppliers are bypassing it entirely and going straight to
802.16e-2005. Now, and this is key, while the -2005 standard is about
mobile, IT CAN be used also for fixed and it WILL be the basis of nomadic
and portable (semi fixed, self-install) CPE. So that is where all the big
RD money is at now and