DOT is ***supposed*** to switch to DSRC for this.  DSRC was allocated 75MHz at 
5.9Ghz just above the U-NII band based on roadway & highway needs such as this 
DOT application.  I participated in DSRC formulation enough to know that DOT 
had been experimenting with UL for years for highway signage applications in 
anticipation of DSRC.  I believe there's a good case to be made that they 
should migrate away from UL as soon as DSRC equipment is available ... but alas 
I don't think it's available yet.  This would be an appropriate topic for a 
wispa position.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: cw 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces

  I don't know how you expect the industry to police itself when the FCC acts 
  deaf. Next time you encounter a damnit remark, add state government to the 
  list of not playing nice. Our footprint is the Florida Keys. Last year the 
  department of transportation decided to erect giant poles down the center of 
  our one highway to put up signs to tell us whether our highway was busy or 
  not and suggest no alternate route when it was (it's our only road).

  They used 5.8GHz DSSS and 2.4GHz DSSS both for the poles to talk to each 
  other. Grid antennas polluted the spectrum even more. Because of the narrow 
  geographic nature of the islands and the highway being in the center, one 
  can't even use a 5.8GHz cordless phone inside their home anymore. When we 
  called Tallahassee to complain, the head of the DoT IT dept wanted to know 
  why we weren't using 4.9GHz for the buoy link the signs killed.

  WISPs aren't the only ones shitting in their nests. Every day they pile it 
  higher and one just has to figure out another way around the edges. - cw

  Patrick Leary wrote:
  > No FUD being slung here. On the 4.9 issue I filed that question and deal
  > with that assumption quite a bit. I suspect your definition of WISP is
  > more narrow than mine. Mine includes ANY entity providing services with
  > wireless broadband gear. There are utility-based WISPs, telco WISPs,
  > large funded WISPs, Mom and Pop WISPs, rural WISPs, etc. The fact is
  > that the public is not able and does not differentiate between all the
  > competing groups of WISPs and groups like WISPA should understand that.
  >>----- Original Message ----- 
  >>I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that
  >>the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of
  >>WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the
  >>lines of "Damn it, these things are not guidelines."
  >>>From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the
  >>usual, "if you just stay within the power no one cares" to now where
  >>people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access
  >>to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.
  >>Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that
  >>will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected.
  >>The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
  >>discouraging the slippery slope.
  WISPA Wireless List:


WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to