Agreed. Just getting caught up on some of my email readings and strongly believe Jack and John are off the mark here.
6GHz, 11GHz, 18GHz, 23GHz, 24GHz, 60GHz and 80-90GHz should all be important to us as a group. Any frequency that can be used by fixed wireless operators should be important to the group. For Jack and John to assume the focus as a group should be limited to UL frequencies is short sighted to say the least. Many operations, ours included, are already utilizing licensed spectrum were we can. Best, Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Anything related to 11Ghz, should be WISPs concern. It is my belief that all serious unlicensed ISPs will at some point start to migrate to Licensed spectrums for backhauls. 11Ghz is one of the few upgrade options available for WISP's that designed their existing backhaul to 5.8Ghz functionality. (meaning needing 4ft dish 11Ghz to reach equivellent distances of 5.8Ghz 2ft dish links, in practicality). There really aren't very many Long range backhaul spectrum range options out there. Relaxing the rules could result in the inabilty for many WISPs to obtain 11Ghz licenses, because of unavailable spectrum, when they are ready to need it. A 2ft dish beamwidth (9-10 degrees) will cover the width of most of a small city at 10 miles. (Sorry I didn't do the Angle math yet). Compared to that of 4 ft dish beamwidths. As much as I'd like a 2 ft Dish, how would that effect my future abilty to get a license? Thats an important question. Fibertower wants 2ft dishes today because they are ready to buy up the licenses today. Are the rest of the WISPs ready to buy the licenses today? How much license space is available still? I think some propogation data and current saturation data (number of links / potential for more links) would need to be disclosed first to develop a relevant opinion. And how would the rules effect cost? Currently 11Ghz is significantly more expensive to obtain because of dish size. If smaller more advanced dishes were allowed, a 2ft dish that had the characteristics of 3-4ft dishes, would those dishes be more expensive because of their unique better characterisitcs? The truth is, every provider would chose 11Ghz over 18Ghz, if they could get away with a smaller dish. It would likely lead to less use of 18Ghz and 23 Ghz. Is 18Ghz getting saturated? If so it would be relevent to allow 11Ghz to take over the load. But I'd argue that 18Ghz should be near at capacity before 11Ghz be allowed to be more leanent in antenna size. The bigger fight for smaller antennas is to allow 6Ghz to be allowed to use 4 ft dishes. 6ft dish requirement is insane. If 6Ghz was allowed to use 4ft dished, it would then give another option for long range, (within a realistic antenna size for roof tops), then justifying the allowance for 11Ghz to have smaller antennas. The question is, why isn't Fibertower just using 18Ghz in their applications? Can they prove that 18Ghz is to limiting or unavailable for them? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband John Scrivner wrote: Thank you Jack. You said it better than I could have. :-) Scriv Jack Unger wrote: > Dylan, > > It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the > changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say. > > I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may > want to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need > to be focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have. > > I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will > probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we > decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them > anyway. > > Finally, WISPA dosn't have an engineering staff that can adequately > analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical > responese to submit to the FCC. > > jack > > > Dylan Oliver wrote: > >> I recall some past discussion bemoaning the large dish sizes required >> for >> licensed links .. I just found this in the latest "Rural Spectrum >> Scanner" >> from Bennett Law (http://www.bennetlaw.com/rss.php?vol=13&issue=12). >> Should >> WISPA endorse this? I'm not familiar with the details of 11 GHz >> regulation. >> >> *FCC Seeks Comment on the Use of Smaller Antennas in the 11 GHz Band* >> >> The FCC has released a *Public Notice* announcing that it has adopted >> a *Notice >> of Proposed Rulemaking* seeking comment on whether to permit the >> installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in the >> 10.7-11.7 GHz band. The FCC initiated the rulemaking pursuant to a >> Petition >> for Rulemaking filed by FiberTower, Inc., a wireless backhaul provider, >> proposing to change the technical parameters that would permit the >> use of >> smaller FS antennas with reduced mainbeam gain, increased beamwidth, and >> modified sidelobe suppression in the 11 GHz band. The FCC seeks >> comment on >> whether FiberTower, Inc.'s proposals would serve the public interest by >> facilitating the efficient use of the 11 GHz band while protecting other >> users in the band from interference due to the use of smaller >> antennas. The >> pleading cycle has not yet been established. >> >> Best, > > -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wirele -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
