Not sure how I can prove it... being that I didn't actually go through this but its what one of our customers told us (and they are not on the list).
Daniel White 3-dB Networks > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Patrick Leary > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:42 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 > > 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
