The next headline: Desperate Telco DSL partners look to wireless as salvation.
Telcos clean up stealing ISP DSL customers.
Spectrum Auction Prices Jump in Value as DSL 1 year transition period ends

So yes, WISPs will be the remaining alternative to DSL / Cable in 12 months, cause you ain't going to get the FCC or any Anti-trust legislation, Telcos don't want to share 'their' copper infrastructure, (which the wrote off many years ago through tax breaks)

The opportunity here is for the Covad's of the world to join forces with the WISPs to create low cost national alternatives to DSL and Cable.

Will the FCC recognize WISPs and WISPA as a driving force?
Will the FCC give the public back more spectrum? Since we all own it to begin with. Will WISPs be able to compete and innovate in the every tightening political environment which is Telco and large company centric?

I think, only if WISPA wins.

JNA wrote:

We need more spectrum that is *our* spectrum not just spectrum to have
spectrum. Sure we have what we have but we are sharing it with devices other
than what we use that help trash it.


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.


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
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
ounce of spectrum that we can.

I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way
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
band.  However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I
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
for us.  For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was
down to a 3 ft dish?  Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty
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
about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean
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
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
to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because
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
that much of a leap.  But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear
you'd never be able to mount the antennas.  Or because it's licensed
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
that it'll matter.  Or we can take steps now to deal with those
Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue.  You
protection against that.

I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or
He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands.  Even the big boy
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
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
rest of you agree with that?  I happen to think that anything that
us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad
is a good thing to try to do.

(509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own
wisp! (net meeting)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <>
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

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.


On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi All,

For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only.  It's
pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very

For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often
deal because of size limits on what towers can handle.  Or the
owner doesn't want such large antennas etc.

Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road
tough rule to deal with.

I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the
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
the 6 gig band.  If people are worried about undue interference in
due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic
control) requirement to use smaller antennas.

(509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own
wisp! (net meeting)

WISPA Wireless List:



Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date:
WISPA Wireless List:



Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to