John, I feel I have contributed with past posts. Google search 802.16h and
you'll see what the Wimax group is working on. QOS in the unlicensed bands
with a Wimax brand. The FCC also mentioned Wimax in the same breath as
contention based so my guess is they want the industry to figure it out
which is why we are having this dialog. My point all along is that many may
ask for something that only a few will build which means you'll have more of
the same products you have today.
I don't think it's a secret to why the FCC wanted a contention based system.
They didn't want any one vendor's radio monopolizing the band such as you
know who. So if the Wimax Group is working on a solution for proper sharing
of the spectrum with QOS in mind, why wouldn't you want it (of course
leaving price aside for the moment)?
My issue below is that some in the Wifi camp don't want you to look under
the Wimax hood and they seem to be spreading snakehead analogies with other
half truths and that is indeed sad. Brad
From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
Why don't you contribute some constructive information WISPA could use
to develop a response that gives us a reason to favor your position and
helps us in our efforts to make use of this band. If contention based
systems will not work then why did the FCC stipulate this in their
proposed ruling? Scriv
Brad Larson wrote:
"While I confess I am not an engineer, I am informed by those that are that
while theoretically true, the practical effect will
be to make contention-based technology impossible and to limit the utility
of the band to licensee using WiMax and using 3650- 3700 MHz as a
"spillover" band to lower their costs."
"Why must every available frequency be made "WiMax friendly" anymore than
every available frequency should be "broadcast friendly" or "PCS
I'm sure Harold means well but this is the kind of thing that is totally
ridiculous. If he would have looked under the hood (and his informed
engineers) he would have seen that the Wimax Forum IS working on a solution
to "always on" license free technology. Google search 802.16h. What stops
the wifi crowd from participating? Kind of blows away his aurgument (and
in-the-know engineers). And if the Wimax Forum really wanted to "limit the
utility of the band to a licensee" I believe there response to the R&O
have read quite differently.
Personally I like Harold and have followed a bunch of his editorials
including some on the Wireless Phila project but I really think he could
have thought through this one some more. Just my several cents. Brad
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 3:55 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Cc: 'FCC Discussion'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
To help things out a bit...we did summarize this "contention-based" debate
in our latest newsletter...
Basically...positions are as follows:
The 3650 "Contention-Based" Debate
Point: MAP Goes on the Offensive
WiMAX is something like the Northern Snakehead. The snakehead is a
perfectly fine species in its home waters, has enormous flexibility and
durability for a fish, and is reported to be quite tasty. But let it loose
in the Potomac (in this case, the 3650 Band) and it will quickly drive off
or kill many of the native species (WiFi, Mesh, Other Technologies)...
A "Contended" Rebuttal
Counterpoint from the WiMAX "Posse"
In the end, unless our (the WiMAX forums) recommendations are adopted, the
3650 rules will end up creating a sort of limbo of a Mexican stand-off,
ensuring that decent use of the band doesn't happen for a long time (like
what's happening in 5.4 GHz)...
Full summary/story is in our newsletter: Page 5
WISPNOG Park City, UT
August 15-17, 2005
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FCC Discussion
Subject: [WISPA] 3650 due next week
All this talk about antennas and maps is cool stuff. But I've still not
gotten current direction from the paid membership and if we're going to
against the stuff that Motorola etc. is asking the FCC to do I need to get
it done asap.
Do you guys remember the issues or do I need to dig out the old posts?
All opinions wanted, but only the paid members count :-)
(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
126.96.36.199 (net meeting)