I certainly understand SNR and how it effects licensed gear as well. If you want to operate a network of any size you are going to need at least 3 channels. Further, even with 3 channels you will need to operate more than one sector on the same channel at a base station, which is certainly going to lower your SNR. We see this today we 5.8Ghz where self-interference is the only kind of interference we run into most of the time.

-Matt

Charles Wu wrote:

Hi Matt,

You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost
impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR
In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed
bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel

-Charles

-------------------------------------------
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:

Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services.

I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free.

-Matt

Patrick Leary wrote:



You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am
in


complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and
utility


of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Hi Patrick,

But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch & dinner =(

-Charles

-------------------------------------------
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain.

Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e
version


of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a
SIM


card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna.

Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment



3.5Ghz does,
I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely
on


900Mhz.

What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task?

With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or


mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed.

Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


----- Original Message -----
From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment




The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed
service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors.

5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors

4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors

3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by
clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO.

When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above
availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced.

-

Jeff



On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
How do you figure?
You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


Frankly,

The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the industry to really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found is that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be small and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale deployments
outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators.

-

Jeff





On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their
Form 477s also

The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards
"flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just creates a bunch of "cowboys" that
can't be taken seriously

Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink flamingo suit when he represents the industry in DC

-Charles

-------------------------------------------
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of jeffrey thomas
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment


In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier
deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is a test. I know
of
one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over
2000
CPE.




-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to "test" a single base station?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Gino,

Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial
service?

jack


Gino A. Villarini wrote:

Towerstream anyone ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Jeffrey,

I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it)
of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial,
revenue-generating
purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO):

1. Someone with no business sense
2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the
enforcement powers of the FCC
3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy
4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, long-term
WISP service.
            jack



jeffrey thomas wrote:


Patrick,

It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited"
deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC cracking down on them is very low.

Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will
be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug*

-

Jeff

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:


Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch
any commercial services using 3650MHz.

- Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment

Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be
"breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment


---------------------------
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Cc: <isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz
Band -
Clarifications


Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements
promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules
back
in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless broadband
in
the
3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has delayed the deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as equipment
manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the
details.
As
things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today
falls
under
Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules.

Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs
to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules.

Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing

47CFR5.3: Scope of Service

Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be
permitted to conduct the following type of operations:
(a)    Experimentations in scientific or technical radio research
(b)   Experimentations under contractual agreement with the United
States
Government, or for export purposes.
(c)    Communications essential to a research project.
(d)   Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques.
(e)    Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for
authorization
in
any other service.
(f)     Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by
persons
engaged in the business of selling radio equipment.
(g)    Testing of equipment in connection with production or
regulatory
approval of such equipment.
(h) Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering data
not
related to an existing or proposed service, including field or
factory testing or calibration of equipment.
(i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational data
or
engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio service.
(j)     Limited market studies.
(k)   Types of experiments that are not specifically covered under
paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered upon demonstration of need

47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License

(a) Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio Service
will
be
issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation
utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation data directly related to a use of radio not provided by existing rules; or for communications in connection
with research projects when existing communications facilities are
inadequate.

47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements

(a) Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental Radio
Service
must enclose with the application a narrative statement
describing in detail the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation
has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development,
extension,
or
expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines not
already
investigated.

For further information regarding experimental licensing, the
FCC has a nice online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on experimental licensing: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html


-------------------------------------------
CWLab
Technology Architects
http://www.cwlab.com


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






*******************************************************************


******
*
**

********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been
scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
***


*
**

********









*******************************************************************


******
*
**

********
This footnote confirms that this email message has been
scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
***


*
**

********


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
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