Steve,
Thanks for the clarification and comments. There is always a lot of conjecture on some of these subjects that the "normal man" who has never held an experimental license holds as truths, but in reality is not totally true at all. I (as I am sure others) appreciate the time you take to "get the facts straight" on some of the subjects that come up on list. Continue educating us and keep us in line! :) Thanks Mac Dearman > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Steve Stroh > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:53 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 PtMP vs. 2.4 PtMP > > An experimental license allows you to test systems, spectrum, or > techniques that otherwise aren't normally allowed. > > I know of a number of service providers that used their 3650 > experimental licenses for commercial service. As I understand it, > commercial operations aren't DISALLOWED by the Part 5 experimental > license rules. What those rules DO state is that the Part 5 license > doesn't give you any special preference whatsoever when the FCC deems > that the period of your experimental license is up... like it would be > now that the 3650 rules are set and commercial service is commencing. > > Those experimental deployments that I heard about were PMP for > backhaul and for access for business customers; I haven't heard of any > 3650 residential deployments, though that would be feasible using 3.5 > Fixed WiMAX CPE that has been updated for 3650 rules. > > It was kept pretty quiet, except with the vendors that were supplying > "experimentally compliant" 3650 gear, but there were MANY larger > Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers who used > experimental licenses similar to Covad's rationale quoted in Dylan > Oliver's message. While all those deployments had to be similarly > couched in "yes, we acknowledge it's experimental..." language, they > all used such systems for commercial, revenue service... THAT was the > "experiment" - to see if it was feasible, economical, and reliable. It > worked; looks like 3650 will be quite the success, especially with the > mandated coordination / non-interference between competing service > providers in urban areas. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > On Nov 19, 2007 12:39 PM, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Those of that have using experimental licenses only got to test > things > > such as propagation. We where not allowed to provide commercial > > services. Anyone who might have used their license incorrectly is > > certainly not going to admit to it on a public list. Therefore, your > > question cannot be answered. > > > > > > -Matt > > > > -- > Steve Stroh > Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC > 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------- > > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
