Patrick:

Yup - agree to disagree, and remaining civil in the discussion.

The basic flaw in your perspective is that the current US license-exempt
bands are intended for communications use. They're not- their PRIMARY
allocation...  WAY back, is for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical use,
so license-exempt communications users of the band are subject to all
manner of interference, only SOME of which may be caused from other
license-exempt communications users of the band. Not to mention that
license-exempt users of the band are distinctly secondary to licensed
communications users of those bands, and must accept interference from
licensed users without in turn causing harmful interference back to
licensed users.

A secondary flaw is that you read into the "spirit" of the rules that
"efficiency" is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the
license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or
encourages efficiency. It's simply not there.

The FCC made a portion of spectrum available that was originally intended
for other uses, with licensed services having priority layered on top of
the ISM uses, and says to would-be license-exempt communications users "IF
you can LIVE WITHIN THESE MINIMAL RULES, have at it."

So... "technically adhering to the letter of the rule" is ALL that matters
in the end as far as the FCC is concerned. If you adhere to their rules,
you're doing EVERYTHING that's required.

I'm certainly not positing that this is an optimum way of doing things -
it's fraught with peril. But in my mind, the Darwinian Effect, flawed
though it is, is providing us with new and innovative services and
products, FAR faster, that cost FAR less, than what is happening in
licensed spectrum.

What's really beautiful about US license-exempt spectrum, and what's SO 
incredibly frustrating about it to the incumbent telecom industry is that 
it pretty much cannot be "gamed" - unlike every other communications 
channel, license-exempt spectrum is open to all who want to TRY to make 
use of it - no one can say "NO, you cannot operate your system here!" (as 
long as you are adhering to the letter of the FCC rules).

The rules, such as they are right now, have served us VERY well, and 
tinkering at the margins to "fix" things may well result in causing 
permanent damage one of the most vibrant sectors of what's left of the 
telecom industry.

If INDUSTRY wants to correct things, there's no end of opportunity to do 
so. 3650 is a fantastic opportunity in that the FCC said "SHOW us what 
YOU, industry, want to do with a contention protocol for 
"almost-license-exempt" band. All industry wanted to do was complain that 
they couldn't figure out how to cooperate to come up with one. Absent the 
resources of the industry being able to come up with something... how 
could the FCC possibly come up with a better scheme? At least they wisely 
decided to "do no harm" and mandate a particular scheme for 3650.

As for Alvarion's investments, or lack of them, given the issues in
license-exempt spectrum... it used to matter, and years ago Alvarion's
systems were critical in proving to investors, larger companies, and
regulatory officials that using license-exempt spectrum WASN'T
incompatible with reliable operations. That was huge - back then. But the
industry has moved past the "does it really work?" stage and it's now very
robust and diverse. Alvarion's prime responsibility is to it's
stockholders, and as such it has to invest its resources "safely", which
probably means that it can't "place bets" as it once was more free to do.  
But again, that just leaves more room for new entrants or other companies
and technologies.


Thanks,

Steve


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:

> I absolutely agree with the "oh well" part in the sense of hard-nosed, fair
> game competition. But, in your definition, being "robust" is simply about
> clobbering other systems to make room for your own. That is a bit like
> saying a bobtail big rig (or at least one not hauling anything much) is more
> robust than the other vehicles running along the road because it is able to
> force them off the road. Now, nothing in the rules prohibits that action,
> but I do not think that that is robust in the intended definition of the
> word, nor do I think it follows the spirit of the rule, though maybe it does
> technically adhere to the letter of the rule.
> 
> As you know Steve, we agree that we disagree! :)  I am exceedingly familiar
> with the developments within the mesh space, but again, my point is that
> these are investments to work within and around a flawed regulatory regime.
> I do not fault the FCC -- folks like Dr. Marcus invented these rules without
> knowing really what might become of them. However, these rules are not
> natural imperatives and there is no reason why they cannot be evolved in a
> method that will advance the simple goal of using the spectrum as
> efficiently as possibly in service of the public interest (being UL
> spectrum, decisions should be made with interests of the public at heart
> first, not necessarily in the interest of commercial operators or
> suppliers).
> 
> Imagine what these same new entrants might be able to do with their
> technology with better rules.
> 
> Patrick Leary
> AVP Marketing
> Alvarion, Inc.
> o: 650.314.2628
> c: 760.580.0080
> Vonage: 650.641.1243


---

Steve Stroh
425-939-0076 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.stevestroh.com


-- 
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