No matter where you create a radio frequency service, you are forcing the current occupant to share it with you or in some cases they are being booted from their turf. UHF TV has been eaten away at for about 20 years. First for trunking two way and SMR systems then for cellular and more cellular and now more cellular. The Motorola brick phone was on the cover of popular science in 1976 and how long did it take for the FCC to carve out a spot for them? 10 years.
The FCC allowed bandwidths and modulation schemes to be used for part 15 purposes that were never before allowed. That enabled us to exist. They could have forced data and telemetry to stay slow speed or totally licensed but they didn't, they let us take over some ham turf for the purpose of making money. And they didn't even charge us for the spectrum or even a license. I am grateful. Those bands were "created" for those with the know how to create products. High speed data was one of those products. I spent years trying to spin the word telemetry so that I could infer that my "high speed" data products were legal. They ran at a whopping 9600 bps in the UHF splinter channels using such "advanced" modulation as QAM subcarriers on FM. (Because QAM was not allowed as a direct modulation method on those bands. Nor was FSK with any decent modulation index). And those were all licensed ($$$) and frequency coordinated($$$) through NABER. Gheeze folks, we have a wonderful thing here, courtesy of our regulators and technology providers and it keeps getting better. If we cooperate with the FCC to prove that they made a good decision and that we are good stewards of the commons, then perhaps they will slowly open up new opportunities to us. But regulators run on data and studies. All the while they get budget squeezes and more requests from congress. The FCC knows of the WISP phenomena; I know this personally because I have presented ex parte testimony in the whitespaces docket. They are enthused at our successes and point to our industry as a model of inventiveness. There is no nefarious purpose for their data requests. Y'all have it easy compared to the regulated public utility business, believe me, you ain't seen nutin' yet when it comes to data requests. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC approves new method for tracking broadband's reach But were those bands created for WISPS, or for all the home routers, telephones, etc and we get to piggy back on them? IMHO, the only thing I have saw the FCC do for WISPS is the 3650 band, and not all of us can use it. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:19:39 -0600 >Hold your horses there a bit, the FCC is tasked to produce the highest and >best use for the public commonly held electromagnetic spectrum. They have >a >stewardship and are "trying" to do their job. We exist due to the >relaxation of their modulation regulations and the fact they continually >elbow the hams off their turf. This is covered by the legal doctrine of >the >"commons". I can remember when spread spectrum was not allowed (not too >long ago). I can remember when the ISM bands were created. The FCC is our >friend, whether or not you believe it. >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:55 AM >Subject: Re: [WISPA]FCC approves new method for tracking broadband's reach > > >> They have EVERY FREAKING CHOICE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD. >> >> They could hire a research company to physically find out and map it. >> they >> could poll the public and extrapolate. They could do ANY number of >> things >> that are NOT invasive to my business, my time, and my money. >> >> And instead of filing 2000 responses to the FCC telling them to "TAKE A >> LONG >> WALK OFF A SHORT PIER, WE'RE NOT YOUR SLAVES!!!!" instead we're here >> trying to console each other or something? >> >> It is not only perfect and right in THESE UNITD STATES to tell the >> government to get back in line, it is our civic duty. Congress has every >> right to tell the FCC to find out information. The FCC has no right >> whatsoever to demand we do its work for for free. >> >> And so, yes. We SHOULD object. Tell them HELL NO WE WILL NOT. And >> then >> back it by by NOT. >> >> Guess what, they'll do their jobs the right way then. >> >> What I want to know is who thinks they're going to benefit from playing >> footsies with the FCC? That's a one way street. We give, they take. >> Repeat ad nauseum. Maybe if we gave them some headaches, they'd think >> twice before they screwed us over repeatedly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> <insert witty tagline here> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 7:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA]FCC approves new method for tracking broadband's >> reach >> >> >>> That's not quite accurate. There is a law on the books that directs the >>> FCC >>> to find out such info. They have no choice. >>> >>> And, unfortunately, far too many people have ignored the reporting >>> requirement so the numbers that the FCC has collected are pretty >>> worthless. >>> Everyone knows it. >>> >>> We are simply reaping what we've sown. >>> marlon >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >>> <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:43 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA]FCC approves new method for tracking broadband's >>> reach >>> >>> >>>> Sigh. >>>> >>>> I am in an industry filled with jellyfish. >>>> >>>> It is unbelievably depressing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> <insert witty tagline here> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:37 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA]FCC approves new method for tracking broadband's >>>> reach >>>> >>>> >>>>> There are ways to do this in GIS software and I thought I heard >>>>> mention >>>>> that the FCC was going to provide a site to do this as well. The >>>>> census >>>>> block is the smallest sized geographic polygon that they use as a unit >>>>> of >>>>> study at the Census Bureau. You can download the raw data and create >>>>> them >>>>> yourself. The process will be to geocode (address to lat-long match) >>>>> your >>>>> customer address list then overlay that with the census block data. >>>>> Most >>>>> GIS >>>>> tools will then be able to add a column with the census block ID each >>>>> customer falls within. The exceptions to this will be PO boxes since >>>>> they >>>>> will not geocode properly to the actual customer location. >>>>> If the FCC can not provide a tool to do this I am sure I can figure >>>>> something out that we could provide to paid WISPA members. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank You, >>>>> Brian Webster >>>>> www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:00 PM >>>>> To: WISPA General List >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA]FCC approves new method for tracking broadband's >>>>> reach >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm curious to know WISPA's official position on this is. >>>>> >>>>> Looking back in the archives, I see little discussion about this, but >>>>> the >>>>> only way this information is going to be obtained, is if ISP's are >>>>> required >>>>> to determine the location of each census unit and then plot on maps of >>>>> the >>>>> census unit each customer and count them up. At this moment, I have >>>>> no >>>>> idea what a "census unit" is, how it is determined, or even how to >>>>> find >>>>> out >>>>> that information, much less plot hundreds of customers spread over >>>>> thousands >>>>> of square miles. Frankly, I haven't the time. >>>>> >>>>> Unless software exists to automate this, this is going to be rather >>>>> man-hour >>>>> intensive for anyone with more than 20 broadband customers. >>>>> >>>>> Is WISPA going to lobby to defend us from this big pile of free labor >>>>> the >>>>> FCC wants us to do so they can claim political credit, or are they >>>>> going >>>>> to >>>>> sell us down the river by lobbying for it? It seemed that no >>>>> organized >>>>> resistance existed for the first mandate to report, and unless we >>>>> start >>>>> defending ourselves from the do-gooders in DC, we're going to end up >>>>> with >>>>> mountains of work and nothing but a headache and some legal papers >>>>> from >>>>> bankruptcy court to show for it. >>>>> >>>>> Every industry I know of is VEHEMENT in telling the federal goverment >>>>> to >>>>> back off from mandates... Why does the ISP industry just keep rolling >>>>> over >>>>> and getting reamed? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> <insert witty tagline here> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Rick Harnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 6:03 AM >>>>> Subject: [WISPA] FCC approves new method for tracking broadband's >>>>> reach >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> HYPERLINK "http://www.wispa.org/?p=215"FCC approves new method for >>>>>> tracking >>>>>> broadband's reach >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Filed under: HYPERLINK "http://www.wispa.org/?cat=1"General at 7:02 >>>>>> am >>>>>> HYPERLINK "http://www.wispa.org/?p=215#respond";(no comments) >>>>>> HYPERLINK >>>>>> "http://www.wispa.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=215";(e) >>>>>> >>>>>> WASHINGTON-As expected, federal regulators on Wednesday voted to >>>>>> overhaul >>>>>> the way they measure how widely broadband is available across the >>>>>> United >>>>>> States. >>>>>> >>>>>> For years, the Federal Communications Commission has been drawing up >>>>>> reports >>>>>> on the state of U.S. Internet access availability based on >>>>>> methodology >>>>>> that >>>>>> considers 200 kilobits per second (Kbps) service to be "high >>>>>> speed"-and >>>>>> such >>>>>> access to be widely available even in ZIP codes that may, in reality, >>>>>> house >>>>>> only one connection. >>>>>> >>>>>> The decision to move away from that methodology is potentially >>>>>> significant. >>>>>> Critics, both inside and outside the agency, have charged that the >>>>>> inadequacy of data that the FCC collects semiannually from Internet >>>>>> service >>>>>> providers hinders both the government's ability to set smart >>>>>> pro-broadband >>>>>> policies and could slow investment on the technology side. It could >>>>>> also >>>>>> help federal regulators determine whether HYPERLINK >>>>>> "http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9897103-7.html"the United States is >>>>>> really >>>>>> as far behind in broadband penetration as some international studies >>>>>> have >>>>>> suggested during the past few years. >>>>>> >>>>>> If not for good government data, "our economy would come to a >>>>>> screeching >>>>>> halt," said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat. For example, >>>>>> manufacturers depend on unemployment and gross domestic product >>>>>> figures >>>>>> to >>>>>> set their production targets, and schools and hospitals rely on U.S. >>>>>> Census >>>>>> numbers to project demand for their services, he said. >>>>>> >>>>>> "When companies and investors put money into e-commerce or voice over >>>>>> Internet Protocol or Internet video.they need to know what kind of >>>>>> broadband >>>>>> infrastructure America actually has," Copps said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said, "This is really the >>>>>> first >>>>>> step toward the national broadband strategy that we so desperately >>>>>> need." >>>>>> >>>>>> Despite his support for the new data collection method, FCC Chairman >>>>>> Kevin >>>>>> Martin said he believes the United States has made incredible strides >>>>>> in >>>>>> broadband deployment since he joined the commission in 2001, with the >>>>>> number >>>>>> of lines growing from 9 million to more than 100 million. Still, he >>>>>> acknowledged, "there is certainly more work to be done." >>>>>> >>>>>> The FCC, as is typical, won't release the full text of the changes it >>>>>> adopted for a few weeks, but here's a rundown of major components >>>>>> described >>>>>> at Wednesday's meeting: >>>>>> >>>>>> . 200Kbps speeds are no longer considered "broadband." Until this >>>>>> point, >>>>>> the >>>>>> FCC has considered any service that produces 200Kbps speeds in the >>>>>> upload >>>>>> or >>>>>> download direction to be "high speed." With Wednesday's vote, that >>>>>> methodology is no more. Now, 768Kbps, which is the entry-level speed >>>>>> offered >>>>>> by major DSL providers like Verizon, will be considered the low end >>>>>> of >>>>>> "basic broadband," a range that extends to under 1.5Mbps. >>>>>> . Broadband service speeds will have to be reported both for uploads >>>>>> and >>>>>> downloads. Previously the FCC had six big categories of broadband >>>>>> speeds, >>>>>> and they effectively only tracked download speeds. Now the agency >>>>>> says >>>>>> it >>>>>> will require reporting on upload speeds. Pro-regulatory advocacy >>>>>> groups >>>>>> like >>>>>> Free Press say that's a necessary step in part because of HYPERLINK >>>>>> "http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9872464-38.html"Comcast's admitted >>>>>> throttling of peer-to-peer file-sharing uploads. >>>>>> . Upload and download speeds will have to be reported in a more >>>>>> specific >>>>>> way. At the moment, the broadband speeds most commonly offered by >>>>>> cable >>>>>> and >>>>>> telephone companies are lumped into two major categories: those >>>>>> between >>>>>> 200Kbps and 2.5Mbps, and those between 2.5Mbps and 10Mbps. The FCC's >>>>>> new >>>>>> rules would require them to be broken down further, in an attempt to >>>>>> address >>>>>> charges that the current buckets have the potential to overstate the >>>>>> number >>>>>> of high-end subscriptions and understate the number of low-end >>>>>> subscriptions. Those new tiers will be: 1) 200Kbps to 768Kbps ("first >>>>>> generation data"); 2) 768Kbps to 1.5Mbps ("basic broadband"); 3) >>>>>> 1.5Mbps >>>>>> to >>>>>> 3Mbps; 4) 3Mbps to 6Mbps; and 5) 6Mbps and above. >>>>>> . ISPs will be required to report numbers of subscribers, and at the >>>>>> census-block level. Under the current methodology, ISPs report only >>>>>> the >>>>>> number of ZIP codes in which they have at least one subscriber, and >>>>>> they >>>>>> report numbers of lines nationwide. Now they'll have to report the >>>>>> number >>>>>> of >>>>>> subscribers in each census tract they serve, broken down by speed >>>>>> tier. >>>>>> The >>>>>> FCC decided to use census tracts because researchers may be able to >>>>>> use >>>>>> other demographic statistics collected by the U.S. Census, such as >>>>>> age >>>>>> and >>>>>> income level, to gain insight about what drives broadband penetration >>>>>> rates. >>>>>> . ISPs will not have to report the prices they charge..yet. >>>>>> Democratic >>>>>> commissioners and liberal consumer advocacy groups had argued such a >>>>>> step >>>>>> is >>>>>> necessary to give consumers an idea of the value they're getting for >>>>>> their >>>>>> money-and to compare U.S. prices to those for comparable services >>>>>> abroad. >>>>>> Copps said on Wednesday that he continues to believe it's a "mistake" >>>>>> to >>>>>> omit that requirement, and Adelstein also voiced concern. But a >>>>>> majority >>>>>> of >>>>>> the commissioners opted to push that decision off until another time >>>>>> and >>>>>> gather more comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Each of the five commissioners voted in favor of adopting the order, >>>>>> although some attached reservations about some portions of the rules. >>>>>> Adelstein said he would have liked to see the commission require that >>>>>> ISPs >>>>>> distinguish between residential and business customers when doing >>>>>> their >>>>>> reporting. Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said he was >>>>>> concerned >>>>>> that some of the definitions contained in the rules-particularly that >>>>>> of >>>>>> broadband-could have negative long-term effects. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Government cannot outguess the genius of free markets, nor should it >>>>>> try," >>>>>> McDowell said. >>>>>> >>>>>> Representatives from the cable and telephone industry had advised the >>>>>> commission against making major changes to its data collection >>>>>> methods. >>>>>> They >>>>>> said they would not be able to comment on the FCC's vote Wednesday >>>>>> until >>>>>> after reviewing the full text of the order. >>>>>> >>>>>> The old method's last gasp >>>>>> In an ironic twist, at the same meeting, the commissioners narrowly >>>>>> voted >>>>>> to >>>>>> adopt the FCC's latest report about the state of American broadband >>>>>> deployment-except based on the old methodology that they went on to >>>>>> revamp. >>>>>> Because of that, Copps and Adelstein ripped apart the report and said >>>>>> they >>>>>> couldn't support its conclusions. (Martin, McDowell, and Republican >>>>>> Deborah >>>>>> Tate voted for adoption of the document.) >>>>>> >>>>>> The HYPERLINK >>>>>> "http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280906A1.pdf"report >>>>>> (PDF), which covers the first half of 2007, concluded that "broadband >>>>>> services are currently being deployed to all Americans in a >>>>>> reasonable >>>>>> and >>>>>> timely fashion." >>>>>> >>>>>> High-speed lines-meaning, mind you, capable of 200Kbps or greater >>>>>> data >>>>>> transfer speeds-grew from 82 million to 100 million lines during that >>>>>> time, >>>>>> the FCC said. Its report also found that an Internet service provider >>>>>> reported having at least one connection in 99 percent of the >>>>>> country's >>>>>> ZIP >>>>>> codes, and that 99 percent of the American population lives in those >>>>>> ZIP >>>>>> codes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Copps, for one, called the ZIP code methodology "stunningly >>>>>> meaningless." >>>>>> >>>>>> "I'm happy we're starting to change our benchmarks," he said, "but my >>>>>> goodness, how late in the day it is." >>>>>> >>>>>> The FCC's actions drew mixed reviews from groups who have been >>>>>> pressing >>>>>> for >>>>>> better broadband data and Net neutrality rules. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gigi Sohn, the president of Public Knowledge, one such group, >>>>>> commended >>>>>> the >>>>>> FCC's new data collection plan, although she said she would have >>>>>> preferred >>>>>> to see price data included and information about residential and >>>>>> commercial >>>>>> customers separated. She also deemed it a "mystery" that the FCC also >>>>>> chose >>>>>> to issue the broadband availability report "when, mere moments later, >>>>>> the >>>>>> Commission admitted the inadequacy of the information." >>>>>> >>>>>> WASHINGTON-As expected, federal regulators on Wednesday voted to >>>>>> overhaul >>>>>> the way they measure how widely broadband is available across the >>>>>> United >>>>>> States. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>>>> Checked by AVG. >>>>>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.10/1421 - Release Date: >>>>>> 5/7/2008 >>>>>> 5:23 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ------ >>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/ >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> ------ >>>>>> >>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> 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: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> 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: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> 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: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> 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: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> 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: wireless@wispa.org >> >> 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: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 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: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
