Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-03 Thread Dawn DiPietro

YAY Rich got it.



John Scrivner wrote:

Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do 
they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something 
they even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to 
also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they 
smoking here?


What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder 
why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added 
later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the 
language which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would 
want to do about commenting to the FCC.


Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you 
think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought 
this was outside our existing bands and you never replied.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:


Howdy,

I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating 
committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001).  This is all familiar stuff, 
and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.


John wrote:

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing 
frequencies we use for our networks.




Yes, and no.  Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the 
existing UNII band, true enough.  But DSRC is intended to be 
populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order).  
In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE 
the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by 
dual-band units ... which the commission has apparently rejected for 
the moment according to this order.


Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:

yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands 
but makes

926 and above useless.   See ... ?




Yeah, that is a valid concern.  They're contemplating a lot of 
outdoor units (like one in every American car).  FYI, when I left the 
activity ASTM was recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant 
with limited power, and road-side units of limited height.  They're 
not trying to do multiple miles. When DSRC applications are broken 
into short-medium-&-long range, they're talking about 10-30 feet 
(short, like electronic toll collection and pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 
feet (medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet (long, for emergency 
traffic light control).


So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, 
proximity to a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi 
channels.  However, the intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi 
outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via dual-band usage may be more 
troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC band usage.


Rich

- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing 
frequencies we use for our networks.

Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:


potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

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

Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like 
to know
your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this 
for me

some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:



All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED 
SHORT-RANGE COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND 
(5.9 GHZ BAND), AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S 
RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into 
this in further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread John Scrivner
Thanks for the thoughtful and informative post. It sounds like you have 
a "rich" background in this particular proceeding!:-)

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:


What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich?



I personally advocated DSRC be a different technology than wifi, and 
that this was desirable to keep usage separate.  What can I say?  I 
worked for Motorola at the time, and we proposed Canopy!  I left the 
activity when the committee went 802.11a, as my company wasn't 
prepared to support DSRC products to that standard.  I actually had 
initial success selling the Moto concept, but it became clear after 
the Atheros 802.11a chips arrived to committee for testing that 
Motorola had no integrated chip solution planned for Canopy.  802.11 
manufacturers (Atheros, Intersil, etc.) advocated the common 
technology to promote lower cost through volume.  They were obviously 
trying to sell their solutions as we were trying to sell ours.  Many 
users, however, saw value to commonality with wifi as a "bridge".  
This needs further explaining.


For the safety of the driving public, there's lots of things that 
become possible were vehicles able to talk to other vehicles as well 
as road-side units.  But it's a chicken and egg situation.  If 
transmitters are there every 500 feet along every roadway and highway, 
people will want DSRC trasceivers for their cars.  Likewise if the 
cars all had DSRC transceivers, one can imagine public funding for 
adding all the roadway and highway transceivers.  What comes first?



Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose?



As drivers add transceivers to their car visors for automatic toll 
collection, paying for gas, purchasing at McDonalds (all things that 
were beginning to appear around 2000), adopting a wifi-common 
technology that might grow privately financed commercial mobile 
wifi-usage in UNII in a common OBU (OnBoardUnit) that can also operate 
DSRC was considered attractive.


To be clear, DSRC is not contemplated overlapping in the UNII band.  
Mobile based UNII band applications in the UNII band in a device that 
is hardware common with DSRC applications is what's contemplated.  
They contemplate every Burger King wanting to add a 5.8GHz wifi AP for 
their drive-thru line But that definitely contemplates a growth in 
outdoor mobile usage of the 5.8 UNII band.  But usage of the UNII band 
is not within the DSRC standard ... the UNII band rules already exist 
(and permits just about anything within mask and power limits) ... 
just the operation on DSRC channels "above" the UNII band is the focus 
of the DSRC standard.  DSRC functions are public safety specific ... 
UNII usage on DSRC channels is not allowed.  It wouldn't make any 
sense to do high priority DSRC functions on UNII channels.  But it's 
the commonality of a combination unit that spans upper UNII and DSRC 
that some hope will entice every motorist into wanting an OBU (DOT 
hates trying to mandate equipment for all new vehicles, something that 
the public will "want on their own" is much preferred).  Hope that 
makes sense.


Rich

- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do 
they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this 
something they even considered? Why give them their own band if the 
intent is to also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack 
are they smoking here?


What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I 
wonder why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap 
added later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the 
language which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would 
want to do about commenting to the FCC.


Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why 
you think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I 
thought this was outside our existing bands and you never replied.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:


Howdy,

I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating 
committee for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001).  This is all familiar 
stuff, and I appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has 
proceeded.


John wrote:

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing 
frequencies we use for our networks.




Yes, and no.  Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the 
existing UNII band, true enough.  But DSRC is intended to be 
populated by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order).  
In fact, one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to 
SAVE the DSRC band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by 
dua

Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rich Comroe

What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich?


I personally advocated DSRC be a different technology than wifi, and that 
this was desirable to keep usage separate.  What can I say?  I worked for 
Motorola at the time, and we proposed Canopy!  I left the activity when the 
committee went 802.11a, as my company wasn't prepared to support DSRC 
products to that standard.  I actually had initial success selling the Moto 
concept, but it became clear after the Atheros 802.11a chips arrived to 
committee for testing that Motorola had no integrated chip solution planned 
for Canopy.  802.11 manufacturers (Atheros, Intersil, etc.) advocated the 
common technology to promote lower cost through volume.  They were obviously 
trying to sell their solutions as we were trying to sell ours.  Many users, 
however, saw value to commonality with wifi as a "bridge".  This needs 
further explaining.


For the safety of the driving public, there's lots of things that become 
possible were vehicles able to talk to other vehicles as well as road-side 
units.  But it's a chicken and egg situation.  If transmitters are there 
every 500 feet along every roadway and highway, people will want DSRC 
trasceivers for their cars.  Likewise if the cars all had DSRC transceivers, 
one can imagine public funding for adding all the roadway and highway 
transceivers.  What comes first?



Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose?


As drivers add transceivers to their car visors for automatic toll 
collection, paying for gas, purchasing at McDonalds (all things that were 
beginning to appear around 2000), adopting a wifi-common technology that 
might grow privately financed commercial mobile wifi-usage in UNII in a 
common OBU (OnBoardUnit) that can also operate DSRC was considered 
attractive.


To be clear, DSRC is not contemplated overlapping in the UNII band.  Mobile 
based UNII band applications in the UNII band in a device that is hardware 
common with DSRC applications is what's contemplated.  They contemplate 
every Burger King wanting to add a 5.8GHz wifi AP for their drive-thru line 
But that definitely contemplates a growth in outdoor mobile usage of the 5.8 
UNII band.  But usage of the UNII band is not within the DSRC standard ... 
the UNII band rules already exist (and permits just about anything within 
mask and power limits) ... just the operation on DSRC channels "above" the 
UNII band is the focus of the DSRC standard.  DSRC functions are public 
safety specific ... UNII usage on DSRC channels is not allowed.  It wouldn't 
make any sense to do high priority DSRC functions on UNII channels.  But 
it's the commonality of a combination unit that spans upper UNII and DSRC 
that some hope will entice every motorist into wanting an OBU (DOT hates 
trying to mandate equipment for all new vehicles, something that the public 
will "want on their own" is much preferred).  Hope that makes sense.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do they 
want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something they 
even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to also 
overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they smoking here?


What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder why 
Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added later? I 
think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language which 
discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do about 
commenting to the FCC.


Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you 
think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this 
was outside our existing bands and you never replied.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:


Howdy,

I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee 
for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001).  This is all familiar stuff, and I 
appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.


John wrote:

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies 
we use for our networks.



Yes, and no.  Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the 
existing UNII band, true enough.  But DSRC is intended to be populated by 
DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order).  In fact, one of 
the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from 
being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the 
commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this 
order.


Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread John Scrivner
Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do 
they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something 
they even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to 
also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they 
smoking here?


What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder 
why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added 
later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language 
which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do 
about commenting to the FCC.


Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you 
think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this 
was outside our existing bands and you never replied.

Scriv


Rich Comroe wrote:


Howdy,

I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee 
for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001).  This is all familiar stuff, and I 
appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.


John wrote:

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing 
frequencies we use for our networks.



Yes, and no.  Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the 
existing UNII band, true enough.  But DSRC is intended to be populated 
by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order).  In fact, 
one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC 
band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units 
... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment 
according to this order.


Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:

yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but 
makes

926 and above useless.   See ... ?



Yeah, that is a valid concern.  They're contemplating a lot of outdoor 
units (like one in every American car).  FYI, when I left the activity 
ASTM was recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with 
limited power, and road-side units of limited height.  They're not 
trying to do multiple miles. When DSRC applications are broken into 
short-medium-&-long range, they're talking about 10-30 feet (short, 
like electronic toll collection and pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet 
(medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet (long, for emergency 
traffic light control).


So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, 
proximity to a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi 
channels.  However, the intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi 
outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via dual-band usage may be more 
troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC band usage.


Rich

- Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing 
frequencies we use for our networks.

Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:


potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like 
to know
your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this 
for me

some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:



All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into 
this in further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rich Comroe

John wrote:
In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands 
together with the existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but 
that is not an option currently.


Got that right (that it's not an option currently).  DSRC may be using a 
wifi variant (narrowed 802.11a), but the DSRC usage is not intended to be 
the same traffic as "consumer wireless internet" that wifi typically 
carries.  DSRC has a variety of functions, mostly related to highway traffic 
"for the safety of the public".  As such, DSRC traffic requires various 
priorities, the most stringent demanding lower latency than could be 
achievable unless the channels are dedicated to DSRC functionality. 
Unlicensed functions for "any" purpose are contemplated to take place on 
UNII channels as they are designated for today,  and the DSRC channel access 
layer for safety functions may be totally different than 802.11 MAC.  We 
were headed that way when I left that committee's work (it was one of the 
few things that I'd contributed to their effort that stuck) and from my 
reading of the FCC order, I think it's still that way (discussion of control 
channels).   As such there's a sensitivity of DSRC members that dual-band 
units not be able to operate using standard 802.11 MAC on the DSRC channels 
which could put the dedicated DSRC safety functions at risk.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Actually I am able to use the entire 900 MHz band here. Selectivity of 
tuners has never been an issue the FCC seems very willing to consider when 
adjacent uses are being suggested. As I understand it the systems being 
proposed are low power vehicle communications. I am not trying to say I am 
all for them having more spectrum. In fact I think that vehicles and WISPs 
should be able to add those bands together with the existing UNII bands 
and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an option currently. The 
proposal, as I remember it, was for vehicles to be allowed to use this 
space for low power vehicle communications. Our attorney, Kris Twomey, 
told us it is of little to no concern to WISPs. I could not find anything 
regarding this that was terribly important to WISPs. If I am wrong then 
please tell me how I am wrong and why it is important for WISPs to take a 
stand of any kind in this proceeding and then we will consider it. I 
promise I have not made my mind up yet on this and I would be glad to take 
a stand if one is needed. I welcome others feedback.

Thanks,
Scriv

Rick Smith wrote:

yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but 
makes

926 and above useless.   See ... ?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. 
I

was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our
networks.
Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:



potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of John Scrivner

Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs 
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to 
know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this 
for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you 
see something he did not though please forward it along.

Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:




All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this 
in further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http:

Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rich Comroe

Howdy,

I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee for 
roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001).  This is all familiar stuff, and I appreciate 
seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.


John wrote:
Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. 
I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our 
networks.


Yes, and no.  Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the existing 
UNII band, true enough.  But DSRC is intended to be populated by DUAL-BAND 
units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order).  In fact, one of the issues 
petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC band from being 
destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units ... which the 
commission has apparently rejected for the moment according to this order.


Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:

yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes
926 and above useless.   See ... ?


Yeah, that is a valid concern.  They're contemplating a lot of outdoor units 
(like one in every American car).  FYI, when I left the activity ASTM was 
recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with limited power, and 
road-side units of limited height.  They're not trying to do multiple miles. 
When DSRC applications are broken into short-medium-&-long range, they're 
talking about 10-30 feet (short, like electronic toll collection and 
pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet (medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet 
(long, for emergency traffic light control).


So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band, proximity to 
a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi channels.  However, the 
intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via 
dual-band usage may be more troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC 
band usage.


Rich

- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)


Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. 
I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our 
networks.

Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:


potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to 
know

your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me
some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:



All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this in 
further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread John Scrivner
Actually I am able to use the entire 900 MHz band here. Selectivity of 
tuners has never been an issue the FCC seems very willing to consider 
when adjacent uses are being suggested. As I understand it the systems 
being proposed are low power vehicle communications. I am not trying to 
say I am all for them having more spectrum. In fact I think that 
vehicles and WISPs should be able to add those bands together with the 
existing UNII bands and anyone make use of all of it but that is not an 
option currently. The proposal, as I remember it, was for vehicles to be 
allowed to use this space for low power vehicle communications. Our 
attorney, Kris Twomey, told us it is of little to no concern to WISPs. I 
could not find anything regarding this that was terribly important to 
WISPs. If I am wrong then please tell me how I am wrong and why it is 
important for WISPs to take a stand of any kind in this proceeding and 
then we will consider it. I promise I have not made my mind up yet on 
this and I would be glad to take a stand if one is needed. I welcome 
others feedback.

Thanks,
Scriv

Rick Smith wrote:


yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes
926 and above useless.   See ... ?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I
was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our
networks.
Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:

 


potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of John Scrivner

Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs 
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to 
know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into 
this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. 
If you see something he did not though please forward it along.

Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:



   


All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this 
in further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
  

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



   


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rick Smith
yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but makes
926 and above useless.   See ... ?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band frequencies. I
was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies we use for our
networks.
Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:

>potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>Behalf Of John Scrivner
>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
>
>Dawn,
>Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs 
>involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to 
>know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into 
>this for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. 
>If you see something he did not though please forward it along.
>Thank you,
>Scriv
>
>
>Dawn DiPietro wrote:
>
>  
>
>>All,
>>
>>Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.
>>
>>WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
>>AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
>>COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
>>AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE
>>5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE
>>
>>And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this 
>>in further detail.
>>http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dawn DiPietro
>>
>>
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>  
>
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread John Scrivner
Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band 
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing frequencies 
we use for our networks.

Scriv


Rick Smith wrote:


potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know
your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me
some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

 


All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE

5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE

And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this 
in further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
   



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


RE: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread Rick Smith
potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to know
your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this for me
some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

> All,
>
> Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.
>
> WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
> AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
> COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
> AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE
> 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE
>
> And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this 
> in further detail.
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf
>
> Regards,
> Dawn DiPietro

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)

2006-11-02 Thread John Scrivner

Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs 
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like to 
know your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this 
for me some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you 
see something he did not though please forward it along.

Thank you,
Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.

WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE 
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND), 
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE 
5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE


And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into this 
in further detail.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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