The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum. It is generally big time QAM with tons of margin. Like 40 dB+ of margin. Part 90 and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back before microprocessors. So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game there. It is all about availability and fading. We try to design for 99.999% availability using the old AT&T long haul spec. With the new digital radios with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... >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/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
