I have a license and registered site. I'm about to find out exactly how the FCC intends to deal with this.
The site owner is a bandwidth provider, and they signed a frequency coordination agreement with someone else, but I got my license and site first. The "other' guy is objecting to my using a full spectrum radio there . I don't know if he has tried to register yet or not. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <insert witty tagline here> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gino Villarini" <[email protected]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 > This is easy to confirm, just go ahead an register a base on a know site > > > > Gino A. Villarini > [email protected] > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of 3-dB Networks > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:51 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vecima 3.65 > > 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/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
