Steve, In theory, I fully agree with your view.
The problem is that theory does not always play out in the real world. 5 years later, I still have 10 mbps gear, and very few places that can risk using faster gear. (although we are finding ways, such as getting higher power with PtP to use faster gear reliably, of course we are also wasting spectrum because channels used up with only some of the bandwdith being used, not being able to average its use over PtMP.)
The problem is that the longer the FCC waits to impose better rules, the harder it gets for the industry to accept the rules. Nobody wants to through away the investment that they have made already, and as that investment increases, it gets harder.
The problem with the rules as they are now, true Darwinism, is that it forces WISPs to be in competition with WISPs, instead of WISPs bandwdith togeather to be in competitions with other industry segments like Telcos and Cable companies. And the inner struggle forces WISPS to be less competitive as an industry in the end. This can not be a good thing for an industry, allthough it may be most ethical for evolutionists.
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Stroh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Patrick: I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding "survival of the nastiest" - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed environment. If that behavior is perceived as "nasty" by systems that are less robust, oh well. But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services based on that lower level of performance. My "Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless" encompasses not just the technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely "more survivable" - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get bought. We've seen what happens to systems that are "survivable" but don't evolve their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often from entirely new vendors. The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative - little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the licenses. Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more than balances out the seeming lack of investment from the largest players. For example, though Alvarion deigns to participate in the municipal mesh Wi-Fi business, that doesn't seem to be hurting that business as that leaves lots of room for smaller players - Tropos, SkyPilot Networks, BelAir Networks, etc., all offering ample innovation and good performance in providing a service that the conventional wisdom says that wasn't possible. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote:Tom,You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival ofthe nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb andinefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest R&D to come upwith more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no rewardfor high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable tointerference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market developing and tinkering that goes on, but rather the multi-millions of serious R&D investment such as that seen on the licensed side. As well, the logical extension of this problem is that WISP operatorsthemselves are not rewarded in a spectrum sense by using the most efficientsystems. [I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a system that might be considered spectrally abusive so that it itself survives, all while conforming perfectly within the regulations, may beconsidered to be an entirely sound, even smart, competitive strategy -- therules do not require me to play well with others, so I'm going to doeverything I can to make sure I do not, within the rules of course. However, markets are not fond of investing in R&D to get around artificial problems,i.e. problems created by easily manipulated regulations.]Back in 2002 I was one a few panelists representing the UL BWA market (SteveStroh was there too on another panel) on the FCC's Spectrum Policy TaskForce. The panel I was on was to recommend and debate the evolution of the UL bands. Most were up there thinking WLAN, not WMAN, and they did not evenunderstand the implication of their proposals in the outdoor, metro scale world of wireless. A few were up there saying we needed more power for rural. My input regarded changing the rules to allow for some type of sliding higher power rules based on better efficiency, and that efficiency couldcome any number of ways, through better and more narrow, high quality (good emitters, without lots of spurious noise) antennas, higher sensitivity and intelligence, better capacity per MHz (especially better packet per second type efficiency), etc. The better one performed, the higher power allowed.To do this, in my head I was thinking that a base line point of measurement would be some type of low performing product connected to an omni. Put that same radio on sector, you get more power. Put a more efficient radio on that omni, you get more power. Put a really efficient radio on a well-performing on a well-performing, narrow beam antenna and gets lots of power. Etc. Etc.I am sure smart people can come up some type of algorithm that incorporates most of the variables that and make something efficient, while leaving room for the formula to advance to accept new techniques that create efficiency. Such a rule would give operators incentive to employ the best systems since such would require the least number of cells and such. And suppliers would be continually encouraged to invest and innovate, because we'd know that themarket would be encouraged to support new technology for the rewards in power and performance to be gained.Another great thing about these proposed rules was that they are technology neutral (the FCC does not like to specify technology these days). The rules simply would have been some type of math formula where the answer was alwaysa reference to allowed power output (EIRP).I also wanted a registration rule, very similar to what the FCC called outfor 3650MHz. I wanted it low fee (but enough to provides monies for rules enforcement), non-exclusive, and open, with only registration (not licensing) of infrastructure nodes and their locations. At the time, I really do not think most in the room or at the Commission fully grasped what I was getting at. Maybe I did not articulate it wellenough (though it was all captured on video and remains archived on the FCCweb site). But, I still think that such rules have the best chance of bringing about a positive revolution in UL BWA. Regards, Patrick--- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/