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