Jack,
My read is 100% the same: any system with a protocol that can sense AND
try to avoid other resident systems, like or dissimilar in protocol,
will be allowed to operate across the entire band.
WiMAX, scheduled Canopy, and any other system that can be synchronized
-- i.e. automatically "cooperate" -- with like systems, but cannot sense
and deal with other resident systems are confined to the lower 25 MHz.
However, it is worthy to note that WiMAX can be deployed in the lower 25
MHz then be allowed to use the entire 50 MHz at a later date IF the
installed system can at some point be upgraded to deal with
"non-restricted" products. 806.16h, which will meet this burden, is
expected be a software upgrade that will be able to be applied to
802.16e products.
In the end, the FCC strove to strike a balance between QoS capable
technology vs. fast time to market. In the end I think the band gets
populated quickly and there will be a point at which systems with
"cooperate" so much via their contention systems that actual real
bandwidth availability will take some careful management not dissimilar
from the P15 bands. The only problem is that this time around, the R&O
language tells WISPs that others MUST cooperate so all will have more
legal standing to bring others to the table. This actually will be a new
challenge for WISPs as it forces them into the legal arena more fully
than P15, which is basically a free for all.
The real winners are our friends in the legal profession. I submit
(Larry, et al) that a modest nice little practice can be made by
providing 3650 arbitration services. :)
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
As I read it, the FCC says that contention-based protocols that are
capable of detecting signals that are using *both* *similar* and
*non-similar* protocols (and thereby deferring transmission to avoid
generating interference) can be legally used over the entire 50 MHz band
but protocols that are capable of detecting *only similar protocols* or
that are *scheduling-based *must be used only in the bottom 25 MHz.
Other things being equal, this means that the bottom 25 MHz will be
noisier (more dissimilar non-CSMA protocols allowed) and the top 25 MHz
will be quieter. The examples the FCC used (I know it seems funny or
maybe ironic, depending on your point of view) is that WiMAX is limited
to the bottom 25 MHz because it uses a scheduling protocol which does
not listen for transmissions that use other protocols before it (WiMAX)
transmits. In comparison, Wi-Fi-like protocols *do* listen before
transmitting and are capable of detecting the presence of other
(non-Wi-Fi) protocol transmissions and deferring their own transmission
until the channel is quiet. Wi-Fi-like protocols therefore *can be* used
across the entire 50 MHz band.
It looks like only certified products will be allowed. It seems to me
that Mikrotik or other software (with proper channel/power restrictions
built in) combined with a Ubiquiti 3.6 GHz card could serve as the basis
for a line of reasonably-priced full-band WISP equipment. If CSMA is
disabled then only the bottom half of the band will be usable and likely
only if the Point Coordination Function (PCF) is enabled for the entire
system.
jack
Patrick Leary wrote:
I would hope any WISP worth serious about its being a business (versus
a
hobby) should be at least roughly familiar with the issue and the fact
that a decision was being re-evaluated.
At my read, it looks like ALL listen-before-talk type BWA products
will
be certifiable under the rule for use in all 50 MHz. But -- and yee
haw
for this -- no license is provided WITHOUT the operator entering the
FCC
equipment authorization number for the intended product. This means
this
band will be largely free from illegal systems -- if a vendor wants to
play in the space, they have to do the minimal work required to make
themselves legal to do so. All should rejoice at this.
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:09 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
I just hope systems like Mikrotik w/ Ubiquiti SR3s/ XR3s(eventually)
can
be
made certified under 3650. That will keep the equipment low priced
AND
able
to use the whole band. And in CSMA disable mode, only the lower half
of
the
band.
I think that in major cities 3650 coordination may become an eventual
issue
if the major carriers jump on this (like cell, Clearwire, etc). But
most
rural and small WISPs will never even hear about this band for a long
time,
keeping it open for those who know a lot longer.
Less likely will it be that those WISPs will even know what to file,
seeing
as they probably didn't even file a 477 or CALEA form.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:57 PM
To: WISPA General List; FCC Discussion
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
Very interesting clarifications that will be immediately beneficial to
WISPs and others looking to deploy in the band. The big wild card and
open question in my view is the cooperation requirement. The
Commission
extensively uses the language about being "required" to cooperate, but
does not fully define what that means and to what extent or any
consequences of not doing so. Does it mean the existing operator MUST
re-work an existing channel plan to accommodate every new entry? This
is
one of many open and important questions. And these questions only
become more acute in the lower 25 MHz restricted portion. That rule
clearly allows any TDD product that can sync with any other like
operator, i.e. Canopy, .16e WiMAX, and any number of other TDD
products.
But the rule still requires these distinct entities to "cooperate" on
some level even though there is no way for them to cooperate via gear
short of channel isolation, which is not mandated.
So that part of the rule will be an enforcement AND legal mess over
time.
All that said, I am glad to see it finally out and happy that the FCC
put some effort into the clarification.
Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:21 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org; FCC Discussion
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
Only FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein added comments to the 3650
band
Memorandum Opinion and Order published today.
He said:
________________________________________________________________________
_______________
*"A little over two years ago, I was very pleased to support the
Commission's innovative
decision to make the spectrum in the 3650-3700 MHz (3650 MHz) band
available on a licensed,
but non-exclusive, basis. In many respects, this was a bold statement.
We wanted to take
advantage of the success of the WiFi movement and take it to another
level. We wanted to find
the right balance between a licensing model for traditional, area-wide
mobile systems and a
model for unlicensed, consumer-based services. Our licensing regime
for
the 3650 MHz band
will serve as a wireless highway between small towns and the big city
-
it will facilitate the
delivery of broadband to all corners of the country by serving a
different user group, one that
often is driven by more localized, community based needs.
Since our initial decision, I have talked often about the public
interest benefits of the new
licensing rules for the 3650 MHz band. I have spoken with many
supporters of our decision, and
with those who believe the band would be better used on an exclusive
basis. But I remain
convinced the hybrid licensing approach that we first adopted for the
3650 MHz band is the
correct one, and I enthusiastically support our reconsideration order
today.
During my time at the Commission, I have pushed for flexible licensing
approaches that
make it easier for community-based providers to get access to wireless
broadband opportunities,
and the rules we affirm for the 3650 MHz band should help make
wireless
broadband services
available to a large number of new users. Today, we uphold our earlier
decision to put in place a
regime that doesn't rely on first in time and provides equal access to
all. I have heard from
representatives of the Community Wireless Network movement about our
3650 MHz licensing
rules, and they are thrilled with the hybrid approach and the positive
impact it will have on their
efforts to deploy broadband networks in underserved communities around
the country.
So, once again, I wholeheartedly support our 3650 MHz licensing
decision. Of course,
only time will tell if this unique approach will result in increased
use
of this spectrum band. But
I think that given the success of unlicensed wireless networks, we are
on the right track, and our
creative spectrum management approach is well justified.
*_______________________________________________________________________
______________
Dan Lubar wrote:
Greetings everyone..
I wanted to make everyone aware of today's published response from
the
FCC regarding the reconsideration of its 3650 NPRM..
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-99A1.pdf
Note that the petitions for reconsideration of this rule making have
been denied and 3650 band usage in the United States is now one step
closer.
Respectfully,
Dan Lubar
RelayServices
_______________________________________________
FCC mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc
