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" <wireless@wispa.org>
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" <wireless@wispa.org>
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" <wireless@wispa.org>
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" <wireless@wispa.org>
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: wireless@wispa.org

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: wireless@wispa.org

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: wireless@wispa.org

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: 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/

Reply via email to