>Some wireless business phone systems have been built, but it is all but >impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products.
Search for a different name: "PHS". It was fascinating to walk the streets of Tokyo and see crowded areas where hundreds of people would be talking on their 1880-1930MHz PHS phones (Personal Handyphone System). It became a public CRAZE to take your digital cordless home-phones with you, and thousands of mating digital cordless phone base units poped up everywhere on every street corner and shopping area. >Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused >tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures >for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't >know that they're right or wrong. It seems only natural that the FCC set a protocol standard, as it could never work if every manufacturer's model were non-compatible one another (just like WiFi). Roaming and interoperability are essential if you want your cordless phone to work when in range of any base unit. While wildly popular in Japan, it never caught on in other places. England tried it with their CT2 (called TelePoint) and it flopped (the dogs wouldn't eat it, and there were more base units than handsets when it was cancelled). According to wikipedia its popularity in Japan eventually faded as well, while it's enjoying a resurgence in other Asian markets. Unfortunately it looks like the US allocation didn't match the Japanese allocation exactly or you could just purchase Japanese product (there seemed like hundreds of different models for sale on the streets of Akihabara). However, back then it was often INTENTIONAL to NOT set the US rules the same as in other countries as a way of preventing existing foreign products from being imported. Who lobbies for the protocol and procedure rules the FCC adopted? Likely US manufacturers who would never have had a chance to get started were US band rules set the same as Japans. Problem is, if US manufacturers choose not to step-up, no product becomes available. Unfortunately I am personally aware of examples where manufacturers intentionally lobbied for rules that would make existing foreign radios noncompatible even though they had no intention of building. It happens. You likely never heard of a product called DSRR either (digital short range radio) which was allocated but intentionally torpedoed by manufacturers lobbying for standards that they knowingly never intended to build to. Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: wispa To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:53 PM Subject: [WISPA] Some "unlicensed" history.... In the early 90's the FCC set about to create additional unlicensed and licensed spectrum. This was specifically for "PCS", or "personal communications services". UTAM was created and tasked with the job of migrating what was then a large network of terrestrial microwave networks to other frequencies / spectrum. Over 100 mhz of spectrum was cleared by hte FCC / UTAM and in the mid 90's it began to be auctioned off to PCS providers. Sprint, I believe, was the first to offer services using this spectrum - ergo, Sprint PCS. UTAM then acted as frequency coordinator as new users came in and old users migrated - especially for unlicensed. Of this spectrum, 1910 to 1930 mhz and 2390 to 2400 mhz is now unlicensed spectrum. Originally a larger slice, eventually part of it was given to Nextel and part devoted to AWS (advanced Wireless SErvices) and auctioned off. Why? The space, after years, was still almost utterly unused. Smack dab in the middle of the PCS spectrum lies fallow ground. Search the internet and you're unable to find U-PCS (Unlicensed PCS) products. UTAM cleared hte spectrum, and fees from manufacturers of the products for this spectrum were to be used to pay back the costs of liberating the unlicensed spectrum. Today those fees are $50k per manufacturer and $0.50 per device to use the space. U-PCS has very low ERP limits, it's useful for in-building phones or networking devices. HOwever, the FCC created its own version of a non- interference protocol and specified channel maximum and minimum sizes, and nobody built networking devices for that frequency. Some wireless business phone systems have been built, but it is all but impossible to find, if you search for u-pcs specific products. UTAM remains millions of dollars in debt after paying users to clear the microwave spectrum. Speculation as to why the spectrum lies fallow and almost completely unused tends to revolve around the FCC requiring specific protocols and procedures for interference avoidance and around the extremely low ERP limits. I don't know that they're right or wrong. Each time the FCC promotes the idea of more unlicensed spectrum, this "waste" as many industry types like to call it is shoved to to their face. Thus, the FCC's reluctance in the future to try to specificy any specific technology or means to do anything. This information may explain some industry opposition to unlicensed use of tv whitespace. While we see unlicensed as viable, it's easy to see that arguments against free use can be made, especially when billions of dollars can be obtained through auctioning, and when "unlicensed" means the kind of interference and unsuitability for WISP use of both 2.4 and 900 ism bands in some areas. What is needed is proposals that walk the line between locking out small enterprise and innovation and allowing degeneration into uselessness due to either excess regulation, or proliferation of noise in a free-for-all. Unlicensed could be made to work. Assuming that the FCC has a type acceptance that only allows WISP type gear to exist. Or a registration type license that coordinates spectrum use and specifies the kind of use it has. The "listen before transmit" requirement for U-PCS is the most common reason given in my reading, for it's failure to be used. Yet, without a similar mechanism, tv whitespace will become unusable or will have to be exclusive use only. WISP success is mostly due to the creativity of people using 'open' spectrum. What is now needed is a way to improve on that creative deployment capability and at the same time make sure that we are neither politically nor tecyhnologically limited in new spectrum. Just my opinion... -------------------------------------------- Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/