Why on earth do they want to overlap UNII bands for this purpose? Do
they want both UNII and this new system to fail? Why is this something
they even considered? Why give them their own band if the intent is to
also overlap another unlicensed band? What sort of crack are they
smoking here?
What part did you play in setting up this new standard, Rich? I wonder
why Kris Twomey missed this earlier? Was the upper 5.8 overlap added
later? I think it would be a good idea for someone to find the language
which discusses this overlap so we can discuss what we would want to do
about commenting to the FCC.
Hey Ken or Dawn DiPietro, next time why don't you just tell us why you
think WISPA needs to be involved? I told you before that I thought this
was outside our existing bands and you never replied.
Scriv
Rich Comroe wrote:
Howdy,
I was an active member of the ASTM DSRC sandards formulating committee
for roughly 2 yrs (2000-2001). This is all familiar stuff, and I
appreciate seeing the URL to see how the effort has proceeded.
John wrote:
Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing
frequencies we use for our networks.
Yes, and no. Most of the DSRC rules deal with the band above the
existing UNII band, true enough. But DSRC is intended to be populated
by DUAL-BAND units (spoken to briefly in this FCC order). In fact,
one of the issues petitioned was to recommend action to SAVE the DSRC
band from being destroyed by malicious wifi usage by dual-band units
... which the commission has apparently rejected for the moment
according to this order.
Rick Smith raises the concern for usage in the neighboring DSRC band:
yep, just like paging's "Just above" the 900 mhz unlicensed bands but
makes
926 and above useless. See ... ?
Yeah, that is a valid concern. They're contemplating a lot of outdoor
units (like one in every American car). FYI, when I left the activity
ASTM was recommending DSRC use a 10MHz wide 802.11a variant with
limited power, and road-side units of limited height. They're not
trying to do multiple miles. When DSRC applications are broken into
short-medium-&-long range, they're talking about 10-30 feet (short,
like electronic toll collection and pay-at-the-pump), 300-600 feet
(medium, like road signage), and 1000 feet (long, for emergency
traffic light control).
So, just as sufficient wifi energy can impact an adjacent band,
proximity to a busy roadway can potentially impact the high wifi
channels. However, the intent of DSRC to promote unlicensed wifi
outdoors in the 5.8 UNII band via dual-band usage may be more
troubling to wisps than bleed-over from DSRC band usage.
Rich
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Actually I was told that this is above the existing UNII band
frequencies. I was told this has nothing to do with existing
frequencies we use for our networks.
Scriv
Rick Smith wrote:
potential horrendous MOBILE interference to 5805 channels...
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
Dawn,
Could you tell us what interest you believe there should be for WISPs
involving this proceeding? I am doubting it as much as I would like
to know
your personal thoughts on the subject. Kris Twomey looked into this
for me
some time back and told me it is of no concern for WISPs. If you see
something he did not though please forward it along.
Thank you,
Scriv
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
All,
Below is something WISPA should be paying attention to.
WTB Orders (FCC-06-110)
AMENDMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES REGARDING DEDICATED SHORT-RANGE
COMMUNICATION SERVICES IN THE 5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND (5.9 GHZ BAND),
AMENDMENT OF PARTS 2 AND 90 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES TO ALLOCATE THE
5.850-5.925 GHZ BAND TO THE MOBILE SERVICE
And here is the link for those of you who would like to look into
this in further detail.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-110A1.pdf
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
--
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/
