On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:35:07 -0700, wispa wrote
> I filed a comment on TV Whitespace today...
> 
> I had to think about it for a long time, first.
> 
> Here's my comments, probably not in good format, due to the webmail 
interface.
> 
> ======================
In this proceeding, the FCC is proposing to allow unlicensed use of
 TV Whitespace.  The stated goal is to promote broadband and consumer and 
business information services - presumably data, video, internet and other 
networking applications.  

I highly agree with this idea.  There is one drawback to this 
notion - that being that in this spectrum space, almost any 
consumer item that might be purchased retail, would have 
extensive "reach".  The characteristic that makes this spectrum 
valuable and absolutely essential for the deployment of ubiquitous
 wireless services, is it's ability to penetrate outdoor 
obstacles, such as foliage, buildings, etc.  

This same characteristic also creates a huge challenge, in that 
if a vast array of consumer items, like cordless phones, baby
 monitors, in home networking, or even on-campus networking is
 deployed in a non-directional topology, the "interference" reach
 is enormous, and will easily result in the first two or three 
users of any particular frequency spectrum preventing any 
additional use or deployments, due to wide area interference
 issues.  

Unlicensed, at least to me, implies the ability for anyone,
 anywhere, to use this spectrum for ANY purpose.  In the 
unlicensed spectrum, where Part-15 rules apply, in 900 mhz, 
2.4 mhz, and 5 ghz, interference is rampant, often from 
devices which are "spectrum hogs" in that they use all 
available spectrum to accomplish very little.  Often these 
devices are designed for robustness in interference rejection, 
which means they are relatively unaffected, but cause total
 disruption for any other use. 

While appropriate spectrum (well below 1 ghz) is required if 
the Commission's stated goals of ubiquitious information services
 deployments can possibly become realized in any fashion, the
 Commission needs to use judgement and careful thought about rules
 governing its use. 

Non-exclusive licensing, similar to that proposed for 
3650 - 3700 Mhz, requiring licensing be restricted solely to 
information services would accomplish this.  

Alternatively, rules which allow only "outdoor" type of digital
 information or networking equipment to be used would accomplish
 the same.  

Additionally, both TV Whitespace and 3650-3700 mhz present an
 opportunity for incredibly rapid innovantion, provided that some
 small adjustments to equipment certification rules could be made. 

Across the nation, thousands of small, community, block,
 neighborhood, or even free public access networks have been built 
on commodity WiFi equipment.  These networks are often not 
technically compliant with Part-15 rules, because individuals 
were able to innovate with software replacement, or removed 
consumer shells from retail or surplus retail (often obsolete)
 products and then reconstructed them suitable for outdoor use.  

Today, "commodity" networking equipment cost is a tiny fraction of
that of proprietary.  It's often built on open standards, which has
 encouraged programmers (who may have no RF understanding ) to 
write software that, coupled with a pre-built networking modules 
and an inexpensive processor becomes a device that for very 
little money has technological capabilities that exceed even 
the imagined limits of just a decade ago.  Often, they exceed the
capabilities of any commercial products available, at any price.

However, technically, all this is "illegal", even though components
 which have already been tested and found completely compliant 
and within standard limits have their environment changed, and thus
no longer technically comply with the certification methodology 
and rules.  

These "illegal" devices often have technical capabilities that
 vastly exceed any certified products that a single manufacturer 
can create, because they are the collaborative work of thousands 
of people world-wide, using free tools and free software, and 
open standards.  

I cannot more strongly encourage the FCC to consider a scheme of 
certification for WISP, Information SErvices Providers, etc, 
equipment that takes advantage of this incredibly enormous potential
of the open and free world of ideas, talent, and innovation. 

This could be accomplished with a "componentized" rules, where 
a nearly fully self-contained RF module, like a mini-pci card, is certified 
compliant to an RF profile, including out of band 
emissions, etc, and can then be controlled by anyone's software, 
who can then certify that it does not operate the rf module outside
of it's certified limits.  Then, antenna manufacturers could then
certify the gain, and directionality and rf profiles of thier
products, which would allow a simple profile matching and limiting
process which would then produce a huge array of available, 
competitively priced and competitively featured, competitive quality
combinations that have NO limits on the innovation and imaginations 
of the operators or programmers or individuals who can innovatively
create their own unique and yet compliant solutions and services.

I urge the FCC to "unstrangle" the innovation of WISP's, ISP's, Information 
services with a ruleset which encourages, rather 
stifles, the free and open innovation of technology. 

--------------------------------------------
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/

Reply via email to