Mark, Well said. I agree with about everything you said. You're on the
Keep in mind the telco's don't have 6 month ROI's either. Some are better
than others but past three years for them seems to be the norm. Obviously
they have the deeper pockets.
The whole reason I brought the word "efficient" up was because many WISP's
believed wifi based 3650 was a great idea where others including me see it
as more of the same (waste of valuable spectrum). Therefore, Marlon like
others, say 50 mhz isn't enough. I'm saying with the right technology that
will do 14-18 meg's in a 5 Mhz channel 50 Mhz is breath of fresh air!
not waste it or look foolish...... like Steve Stroh said, "So, stating
"only" 50 MHz at 3.65 GHz may well not evoke much "empathy" at the FCC."
From: Mark Koskenmaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 3:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -
I don't think any of us are opposed to "more efficient", and frankly, it
seems that more efficient is coming down the pike. The evolution of data
vs spectrum use in terms of efficiency has made quantum leaps in a
relatively short period of time.
I've discussed this for as long as I've been on these lists... Ubiquitous
last mile acceptance (not deployment) does not revolve around spectrum
efficiency or even all that much on specific technology, as much is it
revolves around it being at a price consumers will pay.
How many wireless networks have been built that don't reach a single
residence, but instead, operate at prices that exclude widespread
We're ALL "deployers" with the notion of "build it, and they will come" to
larger or smaller degree. Some of us don't build until "they come", but
all cases, consumer ACCEPTANCE of the cost and a willingness to pay it,
the the single determining factor when it comes to success as ubiquitous
broadband. Years ago, Patrick Leary and I debated the notion of
residental broadband. I said that residental broadband is the key to
success. Patrick used to say that ubiquitous wireless broadband was not
even to be considered. That until and or unless the cost our services is
such it becomes nothing more than an incidental to daily life, broadband
WISP's is just a tiny market without a serious future, has been my
contention. It remains so.
The telcos understood this, and built upon the notion that the consumer's
end cost barrier to start had to be minimal. They bought CPE by the
millions and they're priced at less what it costs to get a nice pair of
shoes. Even they understood the notion of cost barrier to acceptance.
Which brings us full circle. How does a WISP deploy with ACCPTANCE rates
that qualify it to be 'ubiquitous', without commodity prices to the
consumer? Many answer this by using low-cost gear at the consumer end.
Which, of course, brings us to the chicken and egg debate... How do we
advanced technnologically, spectrum-efficient, multiple capability gear
which can be deployed at cost points that win the acceptance war?
It seems it's slowly happening because of WISP growth previous to this
point. I am convinced that in 10 years, we're going to be offering
today's wired speeds to our customers, for purposes we haven't even
considered feasible yet. But only, and ONLY if we figure out how to
sufficiently large numbers of acceptance to be 'ubiquitous'.
This is NOT going to happen with $400 CPE at a residence. Nor at $300.
Nolt at $200. Maybe not at $150. At least not without some very
interesting funding that's not interested in a return...
So how do we make that leap? I don't have the answer. But I have
certainly had the conversation with people who've decided what thier
strategy is. For some, it's do whatever it takes to get the customer,
if it means "trash" end gear. Others (including me) have gone for a bit
higher road. Others, seek the deep pockets funding first. Each has
varying levels of success, but at least some of every approach have
Frankly, I don't know how we're going to get such great technology at
Walmart prices... But I do know that if we don't, we're not going to be
around in the future, because at least the cable and telco industries
already have demonstrated they can get good "acceptance" at thier prices.
Frankly, I don't know how the FCC views this. Thier attitude toward 3650
seemed to indicate a realization of what I've stated above. Maybe not.
Heck, I don't even know if the majority of us even have this idea in mind
the first place.
Are we prepared for 60 to 70% acceptance rates in our defined areas of
deployment? Can we actually install that fast? If we can, can we
actually finance it? DSL turning up in a town means that they're
for 20 to 40% acceptance. Often within less than a year.
Those, I believe, are the factors for ubiquitous deployment - the kind the
FCC, at least, seems to have in mind.
I think laying out this roadmap, this realization, to them, would be not
only wise, but mandatory. They need to understand the tools of the
middle, and last mile of connectivity from our standpoint. I'm sure that
the c able and telco operators have done this. We've certainly done some
it, but as fuzzy as many of us are on the concept of ubiquitous
vs ubiquitous deployment, I have to wonder if our message is confused.
heck, my own thinking changes regularly enough for me to feel fatigued at
I read the comments about how we should not talk about "only" 50 mhz. I
agree, technically. A tremendous amount can be done in 50mhz. But can
be done with the funding provided by an acceptable to the point of
"ubiquitous" service? Cellular took... errmmm, what? 15 years? TV..
is what, on only it's 2nd generation in over 50 years? Thus, I disagree,
philosophically. We need either the chicken or the egg. I'll take
one. But whatever it is, it has to be useable, at ubiquitous acceptance
price points, by anyone. So, is that cheap technology that is spectrally
efficient, with small slices of protected spectrum? Or is it broad
spectrum, so cheap technology can take advantage of it to build acceptance
and critical mass of purchasing and manufact uring scale to achieve the
cheap, GOOD technology?
Thus, deploying gear that costs $200 / end for backhual/ distribution in
3650 is the key to rapid acceptance. And that rapid acceptance will bring
about the technological generations that bring the 3, 5, and 7 mhz wide
efficient uses. If use is restricted until that becomes available, I
predict it never will, and we will have failed to gain sufficient mass,
our industry does a pratfall, become relegated to solely niche markets.
I've hedged all my bets. I chose a niche market, and seek price levels
which will bring ubiquitous acceptance. What can I say, it's only how
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [Board] Television Whitespaces Position Paper -
A typical BTA for a MMDS or ITFS build may only be 24 Mhz. Half of what
you're saying isn't enough (50 Mhz). Some projects I'm working on have a
whopping total of 10 mhz.
I remember Patrick disagreeing with the contention based protocal in 3650
not the amount of spectrum.
Like I said before, the alternative is for more efficient radio systems
not gear that takes up a 20 mhz channel to get you 6-10 meg's like most
systems being deployed today in the name of cheap, interference
or whatever other name you put on the product. I would aurgue the point
the FCC wants more efficient use of our unlicensed bands now and in the
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com
WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org