I am reminded of a short story I read many years ago. A salesman for farm equipment was out calling on customers in middle America and following his directions found himself turning off the maintained county road into a side road and was immediately confronted with a wide, very deeply rutted, muddy road, which disappeared around a bend just a short distance away.
Immediately to his right was a hand lettered sign tacked to a fence corner that read "PIck your rut carefully, you'll be in it for miles". Now, I suggest before we attempt to all climb into the same wagon, that we think long and hard about whether we all wish to be in the same rut. On another part of your topic, I don't know anyone who understands the 802.11 standard who likes it, much less "loves" it. On the other hand, we live in a world constrained by reality, and that reality is, that consumer driven development of the 802.11 chipsets has resulted in vast economies of scale which are tied to the 802.11 world. That allows us economical deployments that generate revenue, which pays for research into new and better ideas. Not just a few people ARE attempting to find the means of applying the mass produced hardware without being chainganged to the 802.11 weaknesses. I, for one, believe many of us are improving those odds by sticking with those software innovators, who will in time create viable and competitive alternatives to a monopoly. Whether we are chained to an 802.11 monopoly or a WiMax monopoly, neither is wise or wanted, in my view. As 'tempting' as it may seem, I never found that following a crowd resulted in my success - only my mediocrity. If the ONLY means by which I can compete is the colors painted on my install rig, the name I choose, and the gullibility of my investors to throw money into a sinking pit until I have squashed all other competition and then am a monooly free to rape and pillage until I am the equivalent of Standard Oil, then I'm already excluded from this game. The combined might of all the WISP's behind a single standard will definitely cause inflation, not "economies of scale in innovative research". Innovation comes from thinking outside the box... outside the rut... outside of what everyone else is doing. We'll simply stifle any "outside the box" development. This is not to say that Much miles are not made from DOCSIS - to use a given example - but that two cable companies have no means of actual competition with each otehr... Besides the name, protecting territory via by law, slicker advertising, or by driving the otehr out of business - or finding more or deeper pocket investors. We could all probably dig and find at least a score of spectacular examples of this kind of "let's all choose one road to follow", which DID result in at least one or two big winners, to the exclusion of everyone else. I'm thinking...Telco, Cableco, desktop OS's... None of which today we admire for thier innovation and continual striving for stunningly new results. How many years did it take phone companies to bring us ubuquitous broadband, even though they all agreed on wonderful standards? Seen the latest contender for desktop OS's at Walmart lately? Seen any companies outside of the Cable TV realm making any original research into a better mousetrap for delivering a network to clients over a CATV environment? Nope, they're all in one box and you'd have to be stupid to waste your money. Even a better system will never sell, the market has only a few players in a tight club. If you really think that success is found in travelling the road of life, all single file on the same road, by all means, speak up. I, for one, think this notion is one of the worst ideas I've seen in a years. Then again, there are those who aspire to be seen in the eyes of whoever they consider their peers, to be some specific type or image, and the prestige of being in an industry of a few big players playing footsie with the rich, powerful, or famous, seems really tempting to a lot of politcal aspirants. In my less than fully humble opinion, this is playing politics, not entrepreneurism. It may result in what they define as "success", but it will not by my definition, certainly. Just call me "a highly skeptical curmudgeon". ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <insert witty tagline here> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP >I hope all of you will read this post. I have spent a long time > writing it and I think it is very important for us to all think about > the issues involved. > > How about if we tie the 3.65 GHz band to one technology with our > wallets instead of making Uncle Sam do it with regulation? We will see > which platforms dominate over the next 5 years in wireless broadband. > We are going to see some movement away from 802.11 based systems as a > platform for delivery of outdoor broadband in all bands in my opinion. > I think we will see a move toward licensed WiMax and LTE systems used > predominantly for wireless broadband delivery as the next few years > progress. I have little doubt that other platforms will be put to use > but innovation will not occur from multiple platform distractions away > from the goal of building efficient, cost effective and unified > systems for outdoor wireless broadband. > > Do you think mixing several unrelated technologies into he same band > is a good idea? I believe that we need to be using ONE platform in > 3.65 and we need to all support it. Fragmentation of support, vendors, > operators, etc. does not help our collective efforts. We need to > decide on a platform and all of us need to use it if we are ever going > to make headway as a group. The rest of the world is building WiMax in > 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz. I just cannot see why we have to reinvent the wheel > here. I assure you that if we all built on this platform that we could > get the regulations changed to allow for WiMax use across the entire > 50 MHz of this band. With GPS sync and 6 non-overlapping channels we > could certainly avoid interference and deliver quality wireless > broadband in 3.65 GHz. > > How does our industry standardizing on a platform like WiMax in 3.65 > GHz stifle innovation? I think it does the opposite. I think it > provides focus and clarity and economies of scale for a platform > designed to provide outdoor wireless broadband. It is our best shot at > building interconnected networks with scale and an exit strategy for > operators, many having been running wireless broadband networks for > over a decade. We are not getting any younger and someday we need to > have something that someone will want to buy. > > I have given much thought to this. I am sure some will doubt what I am > saying but I feel very strongly that we need to be setting a standard > and supporting it as a group. If we cannot mass our buying power > collectively toward a common platform VERY soon then we will not have > to worry about it much longer because deeper pockets will do it for > us. > > By most all accounts Telecoms with DSL and CableCos with DOCSIS have > flourished by choosing industry standards for their broadband > platforms and using it. They all support these same standards. I > remember the early days of cable modems when there were 50 proprietary > standards. Innovation came when the cable companies and their vendors > banded together and built the DOCSIS standard and they all agreed to > support it. That is innovation, focus, and efficiency. Why can't we do > the same thing and learn from others who have succeeded? How can we > achieve economies of scale with several different incompatible > systems? I think we better wise up in 3.65 before we end up with an > inefficiently used band with little chance of reuse (no GPS sync in > 802.11x). > > All of us need to choose a platform which is designed to provide > outdoor broadband efficiently and effectively. WiMax was built to fill > this need and we need to start supporting it or face diminishing > returns as the billions of dollars from others globally build over > us. It is time for us to wake up and smell the coffee. The change is > in the air and you need to be aware of it. The rest of the world is > building WiMax networks to deliver wireless broadband. How long do we > need to wait to see that this is not a fad? This is not just another > option. It is how wireless broadband is going to be delivered in the > 3.4 thru 3.8 GHz bands globally. Indeed it is how it is being done > already. We are just late to the party. > > Do you think several non-cooperative systems (some of which are not > even designed for outdoor wireless) are better than choosing a good > standard and all of us supporting it? I am not trying to start a holy > war here or anything. I just want to know why many in this group seem > to have a preference for 802.11 based systems over systems designed to > work better in outdoor environments as we have seen with 802.16 and > 802.22, or even other proprietary systems like Canopy for instance? > What is the love affair with 802.11? I don't get it. It is not > designed for this purpose and yet many here seem to prefer it to > systems built from the ground up to do outdoor broadband wireless. > What is so bad about picking a good standard and all of us trying to > support it instead of having 50 different systems all acting as little > islands of users and support? WISPs better get together and make use > of this golden opportunity in 3.65 GHz. It is as close to a WISP band > as we will likely ever get. If we mess this up then we will not get > another chance. WISPs and WISPA are at a crossroads I think. It is > time to stop playing with tinkertoys and get out some real tools and > go to work. > John Scrivner > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Harold Bledsoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> 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. >> >> -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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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/
