In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.
Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or
cooperate to attempt to co-exist.
And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are
located, and how to contact them.
It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to
operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability
for more providers to cooexist. And quite honestly, I think its an
experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could
help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy.
One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments
suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The
reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their
available spectrum range channels. Narrowing channel selection down to the
point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just
repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the
spectrum range. I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5
Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is
also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin.
However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any
requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz.
This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I
also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it
all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose.
I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits
is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude
competiton and possible innovators. The whole point in 3650 was to attempt
to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced.
I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to
Alvarion's reputation. Its not only important to incourage innovation and
more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient
Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would
anyone fight that?
The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention
based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in
engineering phase designed for the spectrum range. Its was innovative rules
prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused.
There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the
manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the
balls to make gear to meet the specification.
I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP
link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using
higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to
escape the noise and improve SNR. When the whole band is allowed for PTP,
it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio
can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell site, and totally
destroy it without anywhere for the existing provider to temporarilly move
to, until resolved.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Matt,
I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light
licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing
(registration)
compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of,
there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply
for
get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of
licenses is infinite.
Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can
their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two
companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to
miss the market.
-Matt
Patrick Leary wrote:
Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp
type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed,
but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you
wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a
PTP radio.
Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 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/
****************************************************************************
********
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/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
