----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Forrest W Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Whitespaces filing


> 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.".

I didn't miss that.  I tossed it out as unhelpful.

Location changes?  That's not usually going to be an option out here.  I'm 
not going to abandon a current tower site without a fight.....

And a 30 day delay PLUS however long it takes the commission to issue a 
ruling to an unlicensed operator?

No thanks.  There has to be a better way.

>
> 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"

Right.

>
> 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."

OK.

>
> 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."

This whole section is back assward.  We should simply say where we want to 
put in a system and the licensing mechanism should tell us what channels are 
available.  Why should we have to sit there and fiddle with anything hoping 
that we can land on an open channel?

Sorry but as far as I'm concerned this is a very poorly worded and 
unworkable solution.
marlon

>
> -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/

Reply via email to