I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story.
Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. ---------- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... > > >> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? > > No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due > to > the barrier to entry. > >> Telco's (like Chuck) use >> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support >> the >> dishes. > > Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, > its > $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of > whether its approved. > Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the > right to build a tower, IF it occurs. > >> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? >> > > Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that > should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" the > actual towers. > It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an > antenna approval. > >> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller >> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the >> larger >> dishes... > > Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a > 4ft > dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license. > However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT > meet > the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a > "secondary basis". > . >> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a >> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing >> the >> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the >> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. > > Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all > 5.x > Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so > spectrum > is not wasted? > What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? > >>>From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to >>>do >>>a >> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up >> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. > > Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is > irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, > and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. > These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near > as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower > power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my > opinion. > > I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP > backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I > argue > whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. > FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in > place. > I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was > promised when it was licesned to the licensee. > But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a > smaller > antenna, where its feasible, to enable "better use" of vacant spectrum. > > I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. > 4ft > dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum > preservation conscious. > There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft > versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the > grasp of many many needy WISPs. > > What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace > spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking > the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree > beamwidth? > > Tom DeReggi > >> Daniel White >> 3-dB Networks >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> 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/
