Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.
With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed" links are for the birds. The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. <grin> I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... > Ok, that opens up a useful conversation..... > > Why is that? > 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. > I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do > 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not > translating to larger deployment. > I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. > > So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? > Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? > Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? > And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller > antenna > is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size > antenna? > > The fact is.... 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused > spectrum > available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower > or > property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft > requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... > > >> As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz >> that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq >> pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean >> even >> fewer available freq pairs. >> >> Best, >> >> >> Brad >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >> today... >> >> Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas >> to >> be allowed on 6Ghz. >> Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. >> >> The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t >> hold >> for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >> today... >> >> >>>I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't >>>there >>> already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have >>> quite some range to them? >>> >>> >>> ---------- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM >>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting >>> today... >>> >>>> Butch, >>>> >>>>> Then, the "music" turned to "noise".... >>>> >>>> You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. >>>> >>>> They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, >>>> and >>>> said, "but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also >>>> a >>>> very important part of broadband delivery".. >>>> >>>> The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and >>>> FCC >>>> committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But >>>> the >>>> commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was >>>> clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, >>>> we >>>> know where we stand now. >>>> >>>> We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to >>>> fix, >>>> if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand >>>> and >>>> change "100mw" to "4w" (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll >>>> be >>>> fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we >>>> can't >>>> survive without adequate power. >>>> >>>> Tom DeReggi >>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> To: "Wispa List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>> Cc: "WISPA Members List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... >>>> >>>> >>>>> Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our >>>>> industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but >>>>> in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were >>>>> "music to my ears". Then, the "music" turned to "noise".... >>>>> >>>>> "White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our >>>>> broadband future." >>>>> >>>>> I can't agree more. He also said: >>>>> >>>>> "Today?s decision is consequential to our nation?s future because >>>>> wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and >>>>> quality of life in even the remotest areas." >>>>> >>>>> Again, when I heard this, I thought he must REALLY "get it". Then, >>>>> he went on to say this: >>>>> >>>>> "Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most promise for maximizing >>>>> the use of white spaces. Our balanced approach in this order >>>>> provides the flexibility and low barriers to entry needed to provide >>>>> an opportunity for everyone to make the best use of this under-used >>>>> spectrum. It also implements safeguards to protect those that >>>>> already make valuable use of the spectrum." >>>>> >>>>> WHAT? The "most promise"? I'm not horribly disappointed about the >>>>> overall likely outcome of the rules, but how can he think that >>>>> unlicensed at 100mW is going to "maximize the use" of anything? >>>>> Unlicensed used has not been bad for us as WISPs in the past, but >>>>> these power levels will not give us anywhere near the useful >>>>> spectrum that the WISPA suggested "licensed lite" approach could >>>>> have offered. I won't continue in disecting his statement since >>>>> most of it was not something I am very positive about. >>>>> >>>>> All talk today centered around point-to-point deployments and >>>>> nothing about ptmp. This is not a perfect scenario, but it's not a >>>>> total loss. I strongly suggest that all interested parties (that's >>>>> you if you are a WISP) at least read the statements and news release >>>>> at http://www.fcc.gov/ and see for yourself. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the decisions were a total loss. We did get >>>>> geolocation, which is very important to WISPA's position. We also >>>>> got adjacent channel space, which was very unexpected. The only >>>>> real problems I see are the lack of sufficient power, which is >>>>> because they chose unlicensed over license lite. Our FCC committee >>>>> worked very hard to get us to this point. I don't think any of us >>>>> realize how much time Jack Unger and Steve Coran put into this issue >>>>> on our behalf over the past 2-3 weeks. If you have not personally >>>>> thanked them, you really should take a minute to do so. >>>>> >>>>> My personal take on this is that they wanted to do "something" but >>>>> not too much. I think I sense a "new battleground" forming when the >>>>> new commission takes over next year. It is for this reason, that I >>>>> urge ALL OF YOU (me, too) to do 3 things over the next few months: >>>>> >>>>> 1. If you are not already, become a WISPA member. We would not be >>>>> at this point without your financial support. >>>>> >>>>> 2. If you have not already done so, become familiar with WHY the >>>>> TVWS are (or will be) beneficial to you and your network. This will >>>>> prepare you for the upcoming fight. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Join the debates which are sure to come over the next few weeks >>>>> to help WISPA prepare to continue the fight for this most valuable >>>>> of spectrums for our cause. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>> * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* >>>>> * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * >>>>> * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * >>>>> * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * >>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >>>>> 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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/
