Jack,
No problem. But my error, you are right, I didn't say what I disagreed with,
leaving a lot of room for misinterpretation.
I did not disagree with your posts.
When I said disagree, I meant... that going to comment individually may not
be the best next step YET, because many who may want to comment because of
the importance of the topic to them, may not be ready or knowledgeable
enough on the topic yet, to appropriately comment. (Me one of them). More
discussion will help that.
License and unlicensed bring up two very different strategies for WISPs
working with Property owners. In unlicensed, a WISP tends to buy from
property owners, rights to broadcast spectrum ranges. With License, the
rights are bought from the FCC, and the WISP buys space from property
owners. This principle confused Property owners Leasors, because they were
always used to selling space to people who owned their licences. When
unlicensed came to play, property owners, now needed to learn how to manage
spectrum allocation, which is a sifficult job with unlicensed. With
Unlicenced there then can become a finite amount of space. The smarter
first-in WISPs will lock it up, to protect themselves. Unlicensed WISPs are
experienced at that game. The relevence of these comments is that with
Licensed, WISPs are not yet so experienced at it. Will a WISP get locked
out from getting the licensed spectrum they desire, because a quicker WISP
got it first? I do not think there is a good perception yet of how much
licensed spectrum is or isn;t available to them, or how easy it is to re-use
channels and spectrum at a site, and still get the license to use it? For
example, not even considering the cities overall environment, just from a
single given roof, how many 11 ghz links could be acheived from a single
roof, with the licensed system? Same question with 18Ghz, 60G (unlicensed),
80Ghz? What is the risk that a WISP will get locked out from being able to
expand their own cell site? If Telco Licenses several 11Ghz links at my
cell site, will there be some 11Ghz left over for me to also use to increase
my backhauls when needed? Will I be forced to buyt transport from them? Is
there a race to buy and deploy the licens first? There was with Unlicened
5.8Ghz. But having half a system doesn't make a solution. These are the
answers I am looking at right now. Can I afford to grow organically and
slowly, or will that mean I will miss out on availabilty?
What is the current landscape of LICensed BAckhaul in Urban America? What
percentage of Licensed requests get DENIED, because interference would occur
if more licensed were granted?
I rcognize that its impossible to answer those question, as it depends on
the location and site. But in general, what are the expectations?
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Tom,
Now I wish I had read this post of yours first - before I responded to an
earlier post that you made. I guess I should learn to always read later
posts before responding to earlier ones. If my earlier post comes across a
bit too strongly, please accept my apologies. Even in my strongly-worded
earlier post, I basically agreed with and I support your belief that we
should always welcome open discussion and participation on this list.
Respectfully,
jack
P.S. - If I stay up any later I'm likely to do something really foolish
like send the list a copy of my "Haiku at 2 AM" that I wrote one night
while Hurricane Katrina was lashing the Gulf Coast. G'nite
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Jack,
I have to agree fully with your post, from that point of view.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon,
Just for info... see inline...
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
All due respect right back at ya! grin
Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at
heart is a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale
or a cheap and easy 2' or 1' dish?
DISH SIZE - Licensed microwave links are engineered with the proper
antenna to deliver the proper amount of fade margin to achieve your
desired reliability (for example, 99.9%, 99.99%, 99.995%, 99.999%) over
the actual path in the actual rain zone that the link will be operating
in. The engineering is all cut and dried. You know before you purchase
the system what dish size you need to achieve the reliability that you
want. You also know the dish hardware cost, the dish mounting cost, and
the largest size dish that the tower can handle at the specific height
that the terrain and link distance determine is needed. If the cost is
too high (or the tower too small) you can choose to go with a smaller
antenna and have less reliability.
I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The
fact is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should
be left up to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY
in a licensed band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If
they cause interference they have to fix it.
INTERFERENCE - Interference is not left up to the local operator.
Interference is avoiding by the the company that handles the link
licensing, not by the WISP operator. A licensing company will do a
proper frequency search and select a frequency that will not cause
interference or be interfered with. Freedom from interference is the
basic reason for selecting (and paying for) a licensed link.
I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry.
Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest
and greatest technologies available to them.
MICROMANAGING THE PROS - Nobody in their right mind would micromanage a
licensed link design engineer and everybody wants to use the best
technology that they can afford.
If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO
reason for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do
the trick nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5
(or some other such really small number) fade margins too. No need for
the typical microwave 30 dB fade margins.
SHORT LINKS AND ATPC - Once again, nobody would advocate using a large
antenna on a short link because a small antenna that provides the
desired reliability will cost a lot less than a large antenna. We're not
the experts when it comes to "mandating" ATPC. How do we know; perhaps
ATPC is already in use? If it's not, we're not the fade margin experts
who can state unequivocally that ATPC is needed. If ATPC is not in use,
what are the costs to redesign a $30,000 licensed microwave link to add
ATPC? I'd suggest leaving the issue of ATPC to the experienced microwave
equipment design engineers who do this for a living every day.
The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world
often doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my
adult life (such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper
really work in the field.
ENGINEERING EVERYTHING - Engineering a real-world microwave link is a
science that is at least 60 years old. When you spend $30,000 in
hardware costs plus $10,000 in equipment mounting costs for a licensed
microwave link, believe me - you want it fully engineered so it will
deliver the reliability that you need. An experienced microwave engineer
can design a microwave link with whatever reliability you want. That's a
lot different than you or me finding a way to "make it work". "Making it
work" is nowhere near the same thing as engineering a wireless link to
deliver 99,999 out of 100,000 packets error-free 24 hours a day, 365
days a year.
If we're going to be going on record with the FCC, we need to be going
on record with actual, factual engineering knowledge. IMHO, "making it
work" is just not good enough.
jack
We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do
what's expedient in the field.
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon,
With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're
going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit
comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the
FCC (the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what
we're talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the
FCC. What's the benefit of losing our credibility?
No one here needs to be reminded that we're here "to serve the
interests of the WISP community". We all know that. A few of us have
been in this industry since 1993. Some of us first offered WISP
service in 1995. Some of us having been unselfishly serving the needs
of the WISP community since 1995.
The "manufacturers" are the ones that we are going to be buying our
licensed 11 GHz equipment from. Why would "their" interest in 11 GHz
dish size be any different from "our" interest? Wouldn't it be in
"their" interest to make the best equipment to serve "us"? If allowing
smaller dishes on 11 GHz was "bad" and if it would lead to fewer
licensed links being deployable then wouldn't the equipment
manufacturers oppose the proposed changes?
Again, with all due respect... I really don't understand what you are
trying to say in your post. Can you please state your points more
clearly - for everyone's benefit?
By the way, thank you for all the energy and the effort that you have
put into improving the WISP community since 1999.
jack
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
Jack,
With all due respect.... We don't need engineers to know what we'd
like the rules to be like! WISPA is here to serve the interests of
the wisp community. The manufacturers can look after themselves.
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11
GHz
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,
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
