Hi,

We are going to need specifics on this... because this is NOT what the FCC has said would happen nor is it what other people (at ISPCon) have said.

There is another story of a telco that owns several of the "ground stations" that prevent others from registering 3.65 in that area... I wonder if those stories are getting mixed together?

Travis


3-dB Networks wrote:
Patrick,

Respectfully I have been told the exact opposite by a WISP that was going to
do a large 3.65 deployment, except the local teleco registered all of the
high ground in the area preventing them from registering their own sites.
The teleco has no intention of deploying the gear, so now they are in a heck
of a problem.

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

  
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

Hi Travis, I wish I had specifics, but I don't have anything other than
an anecdotal story told to me by Redline when I was at a conference. I
had always been under the impression an operator could register for the
same locations.

Patrick

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65


Patrick,

Could you please share the exact information about the FCC rejecting
applications for the same tower? At ISPCon a month ago, there were
several people there that had deployed 3.65 and had even registered on
the same tower as other 3.65 people and the applications went through
just fine.

I think you are giving people the impression that if they are first to
the tower, they get entire use. This is NOT going to be the case.

Travis
Microserv

Patrick Leary wrote:

	I'll chime in with a few comments:

	I admit to having been frustrated by the requirements in the
3.65 GHz
	ruling by the ambiguity of the cooperation requirements and for
sure
	there are no first in rights. However, what I am seeing thus far
in
	practice is that first movers do enjoy a meaningful advantage in
their
	markets. Since WiMAX does represent a more significant CAPEX
investment
	on infrastructure, operators are reluctant to deploy
aggressively in a
	market where several operators are already live. Second, since
the rule
	does not define neither the nature nor extent of the
cooperation, the
	first in operators seem to have a leg up with the next in folks
needing
	to work around them to some extent. At a minimum, cooperation as
it
	relates to 3.65 GHz is a boon for the lawyer class and since
most WISPs
	are loathe to deploy an attorney to battle the first in's
attorney, many
	opt to find greener pastures. Also, according to me Redline
friends, we
	are learning that the FCC has rejected some registrations of
multiple
	operators on the same tower site. So on balance, the
interference risks
	in 3.65 GHz are minimal as compared to 5.x GHz and certainly the
other
	ISM bands.

	I do wish that the FCC would use some of the 3.65 HGz license
fees to
	create an enforcement pool, as well as defining a more specific
set of
	rules and procedures for the human side of 3.65 GHz cooperation.

	Cheers,

	Patrick Leary
	Aperto Networks
	813.426.4230 mobile


	-----Original Message-----
	From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On
	Behalf Of John Scrivner
	Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:36 PM
	To: WISPA General List
	Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65

	I consider my reply to be of enough value that I am sending out
on the
	WISPA members list. You will see my reply there.
	Scriv



	On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Travis Johnson <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>  wrote:



		 John,

		What are your thoughts about using the 3.65ghz band that
has no
		capabilities to handle any type of noise rejection? One
of my big
		concerns with 3.65ghz is spending a lot of money on base
stations,
		NMS, etc. and then having someone purchase a $3,000
LigoWave 3.65
		point to point link and shut my system down completely.
I believe this





		to be a _very_ real concern in this space.

		I know the Vecima equipment is just a frequency change
from their
		3.5ghz equipment. I know equipment in that band has
nothing to deal
		with noise, because they are licensed frequencies and
therefore don't
		need to worry about interference. Do you have concerns
about this? The





		FCC has already said that problems will need to be
"worked out", and
		that they are not going to step in and do anything. It
will NOT be a
		first come first serve basis as many believe.

		Thoughts? Comments?

		Travis
		Microserv

		John Scrivner wrote:

		My thoughts inline below:

		On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Travis Johnson
<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>


	<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>  wrote:



		  Ummmm.... pricing is WAY, WAY different.

		Redline AP's are around $10k
		Vecima AP's are around $4k



		 Redline has an FCC approved system with 3 - 120 degree
sectors with a





		3-way splitter which allows for full 360 degree coverage
now with one
		sector controller  with upgrade path for more sector
controllers as
		your needs increase over time. Redline supports uplink
		sub-channelization which adds about 15 db of increased
receive
		sensitivity to your CPE to base station link. I find the
cost is
		justified for the Redline system and I have one online
that I am very
		happy with. I am moving my leased line connections to
WiMax with
		better speeds and erquivalent reliability. The ROI for
this base
		station ist less than 2.5 years now and will improve as
I add more
		customers. I feel very satisfied with the Redline system
and am


	confident we will add more Redline bases in the future.





		 Redline CPE's are $300 each (even in 250 quantity)
Vecima CPE's are
		less than $249



		 Redline CPEs are built like a tank. They have the Intel
WiMax Ruby
		chipset (the best available at any price). Future
migration to 802.16e





		for this CPE is a firmware flash. It is true that you
have to buy 72
		radios (not 250) to get the $300 price point. They are
well worth the
		money. I take a Redline CPE in with me on sales calls.
The quality
		helps me sell WiMax.. It is that nice of a piece. It is
the best
		quality CPE device I have used. It is very similar to
the quality look


	and feel of the Alvarion VL CPE radios.




		 And, I was told Tranzeo is making Redline's CPE as
well? Could you
		send a picture of the Redline CPE?



		 This is not true at all. Tranzeo and Redline CPEs are
night and day
		different from one another. The quality of the Redline
CPE was a big
		part of my decision to choose Redline as our WiMax
platform. Nothing
		touches the Intel Ruby chipset. It is the best going.
		Scriv



----------------------------------------------------------------------
		---------- 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/







----------------------------------------------------------------------
		----------
		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/






------------------------------------------------------------------------
	--------
	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/



------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
	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/






--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
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/
    



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/


  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/

Reply via email to