On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:30:38 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote > 3650 is complicated. Last month's FCC visit stated that they are > getting close, and expect answers by Fall :-( Experimental licenses > are available, allthough, would likely result in removing gear in a year.
Can you point to any info on getting one? > > I'm hoping personally, that they rule to keep it 100% unlicensed > (actually "registered / Non-exclusive Free licensing", being almost > the same as unlicensed) , 100% in tact, but get rid of "contention > based". My personal belief is that the delay of 3650 will have > helped small WISPs. The reason is that Licensed 3650 in other > countries has allowed Manufacturers to start scaling their > production and doingtheir research. At the same time it kept Capitol > rich US telecom out of the WISP business, while WISPs could take the > time to get stronger and larger. Its possible that if they remove > "contention" based, in a year WISPs would have virgin spectrum with > LOW DOLLAR WiMax gear that they can afford by teh time the spectrum > is usable. If it's left in, we can use variants of 802.11 gear NOW, and for relatively cheap, as well. Heck, whether it's in or out, it appears to be workable. Frankly, I could use it now. I have no issues with distance and eirp for 2.4 or 5.8 as it stands. I mean, I can find ways of dealing with those limitations. I can't deal with the interference nearly as well. I found both UDC's and antennas that could be built to comply for 3650 NOW, and the idea of some interference free backhauls certainly sounds good. Being required to pull them in a year or two doesn't sound catastrophic to me. But Telecoms would still ahve the uncertainty of > Unlicensed, detering its use by large scale telecoms. The word is > that WiMax does not work in non-Licensed, but as we know, allthough > WiMax will undisputedly perform better in Licensed, it will perform > JUST AS GOOD as our current legacy TDD gear (such as Trango and > Motorola). However, if they insist on keeping Contention based, I > personally do not think a manaufacturer will ever make gear to use > the spectrum. It would be nice if 802.16H or equivellent succeeded > in stepping up to the table (contention based WiMax), but personally > I don;t think it will happen in our Small WISP lifetime (meaning > before WISPs sell to RollUps :-). Although WISPA's position was to > support Contention BAsed, and it was the right thing to do at the > time, I beleive that will ahve to be compromised in order to get use > of the spectrum. Just because I think so many manufacturers are > fighting it. Its the "near license Free" model that is essential > and can't be compromised. My view on this is because 5.8G > equivellent spectrum is what is so scarce, and none of the > allocations given to use allowed equivellent power, we need the 3650 > power, bad. I read the last R & O quite extensively and decided that there's no real great advantage to 3650. You can use 25 W ERP, but only if you use a 25 mhz wide channel. The narrower the channel, the lower the erp limits. Exactly how this plays out Thus, using narrower slices of the spectrum is not encouraged. One other apparently odd "deficiency" is that there's no ERP distinction between P2P and P2MP. You can use an omni at both ends of a P2P link without penalty, nor is there anything to encourage cleaner P2P use like the ISM 2.4 and 5.8 rules. Personally, I think the FCC is holding out, trying to > force manufacturers to innovate and embrace the ideas of "contention > based". They are waiting for a manufacturer to show them it CAN and > WILL be done, if they hold firm on the original rules. But if > Manufacturers don;t cooperate and make something that can pass the > requirement, teh FCC will effectively be squatting on the spectrum, > and will probably give up on their ideals, and get pressure to find > a way to make the spectrum usable. But that is just my personal > feelings, and in no way a representation or confirmation of what the > FCC feels. They are prety much at a no comment stage, lsitening to > all the arguements and watching how things evolve. Without rules to go by, I don't see ANYONE putting money into it. Any idea what kind of rules for what equipment is allowed? What kind of certifications mechanism? They hinted at "use any antenna" rules, which is fine, but if we're stuck with a part-15 type of "whole assembly" certification, we're going back to the "must buy only the big boy's solutions" which...may never exist, as you say. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:29 AM > Subject: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status? > > >I spent some time reading the latest R & O about the 3650 spectrum, which > >is > > dated back in 2005. > > > > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf > > > > I am, however, unable to understand what the present status is. Does > > anyone > > have that information? What's going on...or not going on? > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc > > Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains > > 541-969-8200 > > > > -- > > 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/ -------------------------------------------- Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
