> One of the problems with sensing as it is proposed, there are no > provisions > for the sensing to accommodate other unlicensed users in the spectrum, > only > TV stations and other incumbent users. That's a big problem if you are a > WISP and someone fires up their unlicensed gear and takes out your > customers.
You bet. That's why I came up with the idea of time sharing as well. Coordinated automatically and on the fly by the AP's themselves. > > The OET report on the testing of the devices still shows a very high > failure > rate of the sensing devices that people claim are working. There is no > public comment period for that report and their conclusion is contrary to > their own data. The sensing will also not work well in areas where a over > the air TV users have to use a big antenna with a pre-amp out on the > fringe > of the TV coverage area. If they can barely pick up signal like that, > these > unlicensed devices will certainly not sense the TV signal and therefore > think they can transmit. Those devices will then easily swamp a mast > mounted > TV preamp and wipe out the signal. As a WISP do you want to deal with > those > types of problems from people who aren't even your customers....seems like > a > nightmare to me. To me, we hit the greater good argument with this one. I don't know about your area, but out here almost no one is using over the air TV. It sucks so bad already, that we just get TV via sat. I have the biggest TV antenna that I could buy and I could still only get 1 or 2 channels at a time. It used to be much better, back when I was a kid. But something has changed, cheaper TV's different TX properties or something. Mom and dad are less than a mile from me. We put an amp on their system. That didn't work either. And if 2 people want TV and 10 want broadband? And there is an alternative (admitedly not free) for TV and not for broadband? > > If they are wrong and there is a huge production run of these devices that > cause problems, that spectrum will be lost for serious outdoor wireless > use > forever. Those devices will end up being repurposed for things they > weren't > intended or at emission levels that are not what they are type accepted > for. > We know this is the case, it happens in the bands we use now and to be > honest that is how this industry got started. Thing is when allowing that > to > happen, you can't say "we can do it but you can't" to groups that might > start different uses for the equipment that harms your operations. Agreed. > > "Licensed-Lite" if approved will give you some official standing with the > FCC against this problem of unlicensed devices. While you would not be a > primary user or have exclusive rights, you would have protection from the > unlicensed consumer devices. Today you have none of that unless you are > operating in licensed spectrum. Agreed. > >>From the beginning most who have followed the whitespaces issue have > understood that the metro markets have little to gain by this ruling, the > spectrum is that crowded already. This was never supposed to give free > spectrum to the metro markets. There is too much money to be had to do > that > and if there were any amount of spectrum in those markets it would have > been > auctioned, plain and simple. That is reality. The whitespaces was to > provide > opportunity to the rural markets, with underutilized spectrum, to deliver > economical broadband to the low density areas that do not have adequate > service now. > > WISP's in the metro markets unfortunately will not get a lot from > whitespaces. It really was never intended to be that way from day one. That could be. And personally I don't think that's a bad thing. The 5.3 and 5.4 bands should work nicely for high density short range sites. marlon > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:11 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade > > > The difference between sensing in 5 GHz and sensing in TV spaces is that > the > TV transmitters are published and easily accessed in terms of location, > height, transmitter power, etc. The military radars are supposedly > secret. > Without long term spectrum analysis, you have no way of knowing if > military > radar is in your area... and it may not even be a station activated at > this > time, but still able to be powered on in 3 years, once you've built a big > network around it. > > To keep things simple, I'll speak to analog channels. Channels 2, 5, 7, > 9, > 11, 26, 32, 44, and 50 are the major Chicago stations. If I try to use > channel 9 around here with sensing, I deserve to get kicked out. Sensing > should allow me to be closer to Davenport, IA's channel 6 based on real > world measurements than what an extremely conservative database would > permit. The database would take into account worst case actions. The > sensing would take into account what the radio is actually doing. > > How much bandwidth can a microphone really use? > > I'm actually against any unlicensed use in this band, or if there is, keep > it similar to 5.1 GHz rules... a power so low it's practically useless. > > > ---------- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Forrest W. Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:58 AM > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade > >> I'm going to ignore the first part of your email (since I'm sure others >> will discuss), and point out a couple of things you missed: >> >> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels. We give up >>> 3 >>> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area. >> The proposal indicates that we give up the channel, plus the adjacent >> ones for each DTV channel.... not microphone users. >> >> I'm not sure where it occured, but there was one discussion I >> participated in where part of the discussion were that the microphone >> users indicated they were perfectly happy in the middle of the adjacent >> channels. As a microphone user myself, I know that I'm happy operating >> on adjacent channels. >> >> So, say you have a location where channels 1 and 5 are used. We could >> locate on channel 3. The microphone users would end up on channels 2 >> and 4, since they would not be limited by the adjacent channel >> limitation. The purpose of the microphone users being in the >> database, in my mind, is so we know where they are and so we can either >> work around or with them... For instance, if they were on channel 3, >> we could perhaps work with them to clear out channel 3 for our own use. >> >> I think the idea is that you separate "high power", nominally-licensed >> users by at least one channel, and then you can let the unlicensed users >> use what is left. >>> Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism. >> Ask many operators in 5.2 and 5.4 about how well they like sensing, and >> you'll understand why sensing does not make sense. >> >> I like the proposal, in that it basically says, "broadcasters are >> important in this band, and so are the WISP's running licensed lite. >> Both of you should be able to put out plenty of power, as long as you >> don't interfere with each other - and since we can define where your >> transmitters are, you don't have to use sensing. If you instead want >> to operate unlicensed you can do that as well, but you must use lower >> power and sensing". >> >> I agree that unlicensed operation in this band is of interest, but I am >> also a firm believer that permitting even 1W using just sensing is never >> going to fly, just because of the interference potential - what if a >> device with a deaf receiver decides it can't hear anything on a TV >> station's channel and fires up running 20W? >> >> For high power, we're probably going to have to live with geolocation. >> If we have to live with geolocation, why don't we just discard the >> sensing since all it will do is reduce reliability of the service? >> >>> Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be >>> found that will work. >> Already in the proposal. Sensing can be used for unlicensed devices. >>> Licensed lite is a great idea. There should be NO first in mechanism >>> though. This leads to those with all of the money getting all of the >>> prime >>> slots and the rest of us sucking hind teet again. >> From the proposal: >> >> "In the unlikely event that no non-interfering base station facilities >> could be designed through techniques >> such as location changes, power reductions, antenna polarity changes or >> channel >> selection, the registrant and the incumbent registrant would be >> obligated to negotiate in >> good faith to coordinate their facilities for a period of 30 days and >> keep records of their >> discussions in case the information is needed by the Commission." >> >>> Just think about how >>> many mics could cover the Indy 500 if they effectively had 1000 channels >>> available in every 6 MHz TV channel!?!? >>> >> In reality, existing products are nearly this dense. The Microphone >> users are just worried about having thousands of 'baby monitors' in >> their space. One poorly designed 'baby monitor' could take out dozens >> of microphones at an event. As long as the Microphone users can set >> their gear to a frequency and have some assurance that an interferer >> isn't going to come up on-channel, they will be happy. >>> We also need to set max channel sizes. >> I agree in principle... I would like to see an eirp per channel >> related to the width. That is, the narrower the channel, the more >> power. >> >> The problem today is that if you spread out to a 40mhz wide channel, you >> can get more bandwidth just because you are limited to power. If you >> were able to increase your power such that higher modulations were able >> to work in a narrow channel, I suspect that people would be using >> smaller channels. Most of the wide channels I use today have to do >> more with total bandwidth needs for the link distances. >>> Never mind the fact that most of us that need the TV band's can't use >>> the 5.4 band due to it's low power levels. >> And that many of the people that can use the 5.4 band find it unusable >> due to DFS (sensing). >>> Unlicensed whitespaces devices should ONLY be allowed to connect to >>> a registered base station. It should be nearly impossible to use >>> whitespaces for home/office WLANs. >>> >> Assuming that the FCC sticks to very low power (tens of mW) for >> unlicensed devices in the band, and we're given 20W, I don't see this as >> a problem. >> >> -forrest >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ >> 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/
