Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> "These data points would include geographic coordinates, antenna beam
> width, transmitter power, antenna height, antenna polarization and
> antenna azimuth, which in turn could be used to calculate D/U
> (desired/undesired) protection ratios, geographic separation or any
> other defined measure of interference protection, as determined in
> this proceeding. After the data entry process, ULS would notify the
> registrant whether the proposed facilities are predicted to cause
> interference. If no interference to a primary licensee or a previously
> registered base station is predicted, the facilities could be placed
> in operation and, as described below, the Commission's database would
> be updated to show the new base station. If interference to a primary
> licensee is predicted, the registration would be rejected and the
> registrant could then propose alternative facilities. Although
> previously registered base stations would not be protected from
> interference from subsequent base stations, if interference to a
> previously registered base station is predicted, the prospective
> registrant could then propose alternative facilities so that neither
> party would suffer actual interference. "
> I'm not sure how else to interperate this section Brian. It clearly says
> that there can be no new stations that will interfere with an existing
> operator. Primary or "registered base station".
>
You missed the following portion of that paragraph:
"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.".
The proposal from WISPA basically says:
1) If you ask to use a completely clear channel, the license-light will
be granted. ..
"If no interference to a primary licensee or a previously registered
base station is predicted, the facilities could be placed in operation
and, as described below, the Commission's database would be updated to
show the new base station"
2) If you ask to use a channel which would interfere with a TV station,
the license-light will be rejected.
"If interference to a primary licensee is predicted, the
registration would be rejected and the registrant could then propose
alternative facilities."
3) If you ask to use a channel which would interfere with another
license-light user, then the system will notify you that interference is
likely and will give you an opportunity to ask for a different
channel. If you can't find one, it will let you register anyways, and
you and the incumbent will have to work it out. And the incumbent is
required to negotiate with you.
"if interference to a previously registered base station is
predicted, the prospective registrant could then propose alternative
facilities so that neither party would suffer actual interference. [OR]
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."
-forrest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
