* Harold Bledsoe wrote, On 7/2/2008 3:19 PM: > I respectfully disagree. In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a > particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation > in that band. > I agree with Hal. As an amateur radio operator as well as someone in this and the broadcast business I have seen too many times where the FCC tried to over-regulate and stifled innovation.
3650 is a real PITA because of the grandfathered FSSes. I think, though, we might want to think about moving the full 50 mHz to restricted instead of unrestricted as I don't see unrestricted coming anytime soon. Leon > -Hal > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> > To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP > Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:14:48 -0500 > > I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do away > with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz as > required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position from > our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity for > WISPs to move up to the next level of reliability and scale. Many > people are building in WiMax with success in the 3.5 to 3.8 GHz bands > across the world. If WiMax were the standard for the 3650 band across > 50 MHz then carriers could easily work together to band plan and move > away from interference. With GPS sync the bands can be reused multiple > times anyway. Sticking with one standard in this band just makes sense > for us. It can be a "WISP band" if we do this. Spanking more out of > 802.11 is old news and needs to be put to bed. It is time to use a > real platform for scalable and reliable outdoor wireless broadband. > WiMax is the path to this in 3.65 GHz. 802.22 will be the standard in > the TV whitespaces (hopefully). It is time for us to standardize and > use something better than repurposed WiFi. > Scriv > > > > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted. >> >> The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the atheros >> mechanism is just an "energy detection", it will not be allowed. This is >> what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some of which >> were from the FCC to someone wanting certification. >> >> >> >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> <insert witty tagline here> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Harold Bledsoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:52 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >> >> >> >>> The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of based on power >>> level. If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the mechanism is >>> activated at -82dBm. Otherwise it requires a relatively high energy >>> level (-62dBm). >>> >>> Although I agree that even -62dBm seems "fair". It would be very useful >>> to know what part of the CCA mechanism of 802.11a does not work for the >>> FCC's contention requirement. If it is not the detection mechanism, >>> then perhaps it is the backoff mechanism? >>> >>> -Hal >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:23:31 -0700 >>> >>> That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a tear and >>> decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want. >>> >>> I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of nonsense is >>> about, >>> but when it declares that 802.11 "does not detect dissimilar systems", >>> then >>> nothing can EVER be made to work. After all, the whole "listen before >>> talk" >>> is AN RF ENERGY DETECTOR. If that doesn't work, nothing can. Or, only >>> that device or mechanism the person passing judgement wants to promote >>> will >>> "work". >>> >>> We would spectulate who has bought this favor from the FCC, but in >>> reality, >>> it doesn't matter. I predict NO equipment will be certified for the rest >>> of >>> the spectrum and it will be auctioned for big bucks to some large entity. >>> We'll still be in the same boat 2 years from now, with statements about >>> "we're watching the development of <insert technology du jour here> with >>> interest". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> <insert witty tagline here> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:28 PM >>> Subject: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >>> >>> >>> >>>> Update from the FCC. This makes is very clear to me what the FCC is >>>> looking >>>> for, if there are any questions or comments feel free. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, Tony Morella >>>> Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider >>>> Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008 >>>> http://www.demarctech.com >>>> >>>> >>>> "Tony: >>>> Thank you for your inquiry. >>>> >>>> In the email you mentioned that several companies have obtained equipment >>>> authorization for operation in the lower 25 MHz of the 3650-3700 MHz >>>> band. >>>> This is correct. In the Commission's evaluation these devices met the >>>> requirements for restricted contention based protocol operation. Thus >>>> all >>>> of these devices support contention based protocol, but they only support >>>> that for similar types of systems. They do not provide for recognizing >>>> and >>>> coexistence with other dissimilar systems. >>>> >>>> In order to obtain the authorization for the full 50 MHz operation the >>>> system has to demonstrate coexistence with different protocols. At the >>>> present time the Commission reviews each application on its merit to >>>> determine if the system meets the requirements for such unrestricted >>>> operation. The Commission is monitoring the progress of IEEE 802.16h and >>>> 802.11y working groups in terms of their plans to extend their respective >>>> protocols to support coexistence. We are encouraged by this development >>>> and >>>> think that they are in the right direction. However, it is not a >>>> precondition for authorization. In the absence of any industry standard, >>>> we >>>> treat each application on a case-by-case basis. One of the tests we do >>>> apply is the co-existence analysis recommendation currently under review >>>> by >>>> the 802.19 committee. We would expect to see some simulation to show how >>>> the proposed system would behave in the presence of other systems, the >>>> back-off strategies employed and approaches to fair sharing mechanisms. >>>> >>>> Please let us know if you have further questions. >>>> Thank you, >>>> Rashmi Doshi, PhD >>>> Chief, FCC Laboratory Division" >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
