Brad,
Jack and I did not say this is something WISPA should ignore. Read what
Jack said and I agreed with. I own an AWS license myself so trust me
when I say I believe licensed interests can match our own. I just do not
agree with your assessment that this is a big issue for WISPA to devote
time, energy and resources to right now UNLESS we have more information
about what is at stake, how it effects us, how we can and should work to
work on this issue.
Brad, the answer here is for YOU or someone else to take this issue on
and show us why it is an issue for our involvement. I do not support
constant "knee-jerk" reactionary policy initiatives. We need to have
some degree of focus and purpose beyond just slapping comments on top of
other people's petitions for changes. Maybe if we start actually
studying the issues and making informed and targeted policy initiatives
then we can actually start drafting petitions of our own which will
become the policy for our industry in the future as opposed to rapid
fire commenting on other people's work all the time.
Scriv
Brad Belton wrote:
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: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
