Steve, I see a lot of discussion about 3650, but at the moment, it appears either difficult, impossible, or unpredictable, to get licensed for that spectrum.
What I've been able to see, is that only 'experimental' deployments can get licensed on that band, and so... only a small amount of experimenting is going on. Whenever the FCC finally makes it truly available for any/all of us WISP's to get on board, I think we'll see it get used in quite a wide array of interesting ways. It appears you believe that 3650 has been sort of a failure of some kind up to now... from my point of view, it hasn't even been possible to use yet. It's a future opportunity, not a present one. 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: "Steve Stroh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:54 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update > > Patrick: > > I posit that the LACK of any significant consensus from the industry on > 3650, when there WAS a clearly indicated desire on the part of the FCC to > try out some form of mandated sharing, bolsters the case that the > simplicity of Part 15 / UNII rules makes for more innovation. > > See... the "we ought to be able to do better" mentality is a bit of a > trap. "Better" by WHOSE definition? Community Wireless activists? > Experimenters? Neighborhoods? Carriers? Deep pocketed entrepreneurs? > Individual entrepreneurs with a good idea? Rural? Urban? Suburban? > Equipment vendors? WISPs? BWIA Service Providers? Communities? > Enterprises? Point-to-point? Point-to-multipoint? Mesh? Mobile? Fixed? > Nomadic? For profit? Not-for-profit? If you make it favorable for any > particular group, another group (who has an equally legitimate "claim" to > use that spectrum) is disadvantaged. > > If there's to be any hope for "better", a consensus needs to emerge. It > hasn't, and I doubt it will. So... right now 3650 is looking like a failed > experiment in "licensed-light" much like Unlicensed PCS was. If you need > an example of failed "better"... Unlicensed PCS is a chilling example. Why > in the world do we have cordless phones on 2.4 and 5.8 GHz instead of > Unlicensed PCS (1.9 GHz)? Because the rules there were not nearly as > favorable as the "we'll build good systems, make 'em cheap, and take our > chances" 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands. > > I'm not trying to say that the rules are sacrosanct, nor that were they > designed to have the very positive outcome they've produced (such as the > entire WISP industry), or that we couldn't theoretically do better. But we > HAVEN'T figured out how to do it better yet, despite having opportunities > like 3650 to do so. However it happened, we're seeing incredible > innovation in the license-exempt bands under the current rules. So for > now, let's NOT tinker with what's DEMONSTRATABLY working in those very > small portions of spectrum where innovation is allowed to occur unfettered > by the "Mother, May I?" paradigm that has been applied across the rest of > the RF portions of the electromagnetic spectrum in the US. > > If you want "certainty" in the use of RF, mandated cooperation / "play > nice"... there's AMPLE licensed spectrum going completely unused. That > particular groups cannot make use of that vacant spectrum... THAT is a > real problem that has yet to be effectively addressed. > > > Thanks, > > Steve > -- WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/