>From Lonnie :

<snip>You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if
you continually need more bands.<snip/>

Maybe this is where that impression came from Lonnie ? :)

JohnnyO

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 5:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule


Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. 
Sadly I cannot find that statement.

I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we
should be given any more.  When someone is not responsible with their
spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things to
be fixed by getting more.  We already have an incredible amount of
bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people.

Lonnie


On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marlon and Lonnie,
> 
> First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not 
> suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do 
> poor designs.
> 
> However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially 
> in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access 
> to every ounce of spectrum that we can.
> 
> I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way

> to have 6 Ghz more usable for us.  It is factual that the 6 foot 
> antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the

> band cost effectively.  I personally am effected by this and could 
> have need for the band.  However doing away with the large antenna
rule all togeather I think
> would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous.
I'd
> suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it 
> usable for us.  For example, what if the min antenna size requirement 
> was reduced down to a 3 ft dish?  Thats still down to around 5 
> degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish.
> 
> Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market 
> today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we 
> are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that

> doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about 
> unlicenced redline or Trango :-)
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General 
> List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
> 
> 
> >I think you guys are wrong on this.  This is still a ptp band and 
> >it's licensed.  So interference issues can be dealt with.
> >
> > As for links that are not correctly aimed.  Why in the world would 
> > we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just 
> > because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely 
> > screw up?
> >
> > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could

> > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig.  It's not 
> > all that much of a leap.  But today MANY of you couldn't use that 
> > gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas.  Or because 
> > it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed.
> >
> > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes.  A man once 
> > told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with 
> > our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely

> > enough to happen that it'll matter.  Or we can take steps now to 
> > deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference 
> > isn't really an issue.  You have protection against that.
> >
> > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 
> > 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands.  Even the 
> > big boy toys won't work well anymore.  Even ptp links.  He's getting

> > by but it's getting much harder all of the time.  He needs the 6 gig

> > band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the

> > antenna size issue.
> >
> > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix.  6' antennas are

> > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome.  That's for a 
> > good Radio Waves unit, but still.
> >
> > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near 
> > the potential upside.  I see a few that don't think it's a good 
> > thing.  Do the rest of you agree with that?  I happen to think that 
> > anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad 
> > people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do.
> >
> > 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: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
> >
> >
> > APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the
distance
> > is excessive for the antenna gain.  These conditions will cause the
> > transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your
> > lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere.
> >
> > I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes.  That simple
> > rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of
> > polluting it for close in shots.
> >
> > You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if
you
> > continually need more bands.  The growing trend to higher power and
> > wide beam antennas has to stop.  We are now doing a shot with 3 foot
> > antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just
> > over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day),
> > yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high
power
> > cards.
> >
> > In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take
> > the easy way.  I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas
> > if the rules get changed as you are proposing.
> >
> > I say that is a mistake.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lonnie
> >
> >
> > On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only.
It's a
> >> pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very
long
> >> distances.
> >>
> >> For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often
kills
> >> the
> >> deal because of size limits on what towers can handle.  Or the
building
> >> owner doesn't want such large antennas etc.
> >>
> >> Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the
road it's
> >> a
> >> tough rule to deal with.
> >>
> >> I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of
the
> >> person
> >> at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change.
> >>
> >> I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna
rule
> >> for
> >> the 6 gig band.  If people are worried about undue interference in
the
> >> band
> >> due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic
power
> >> control) requirement to use smaller antennas.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >> Marlon
> >> (509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
> >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
> >> 42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own
wisp!
> >> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
> >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lonnie Nunweiler
> > Valemount Networks Corporation
> > http://www.star-os.com/
> > --
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> > --
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date:
8/4/2005
> >
> >
> 
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 


-- 
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Reply via email to