I have always assumed multiple operators could register the same site too. Though I was skeptical (and remain so), Remi was really emphatic that the same site could not be registered and he mentioned that the Part 90 rule has some language that prevents multiple registrations. Like you, I'd need proof.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 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]> <mailto:[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]> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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/
