Due to the number of channels and the likelihood of channel bonding, there's not going to be an antenna that covers from 692 - 698 MHz, then another that covers 686 - 692 MHz. it also depends on the area. Maybe the broadcasters are all sitting on channels 35 - 50, forcing you to use the lower UHF and VHF channels. It is possible (hopefully) that we'll have gear that does 3, 4, 5 channels bonded together.
http://www.winegarddirect.com/cview.asp?d=winegard-television-(tv)-antennas&c=UHF%20Only%20Antennas That page will have antenna sizes and gains for TV UHF and VHF antenna. A 22"x34" only has a 9 - 11.5 dB gain. A 32"x27"x93" only has 12 - 16 dB gain. Those are only UHF. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -------------------------------------------------- From: "Mike" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:06 PM To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow! > Jack: > > If your goal is to use VHF frequencies at 54 MHz then YES you will > need a large radiator! If your goal is to use UHF frequencies at > 300, or 500 MHz, then NO, you won't need a 'TV sized" antenna. If > *MANY* 6 MHz wide allocations are made, then one would be stupid to > use a "do all" antenna for all frequencies. Maybe I am missing > something here. Perhaps a newly revised rules of physics? > > Mike Hammett, I am not just trying to be contrary but am willing to > learn. UHF antennas are *MUCH* smaller than VHF antennas. > > Mike > > At 01:50 PM 10/23/2009, you wrote: >>Mike, >> >>You are correct. I'm deep into a final review of WISPA's Spectrum >>for Broadband FCC filing right this minute (well, actually all >>morning) but I plan to respond to Mike's points with more >>information that he may not have about the TV White Spaces FCC >>rules. I think once he has that additional information, he will >>understand why your (and my) conclusion about needing a "TV-sized" >>antenna is correct. >> >>jack >> >> >>Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>>The 30 meter antenna was misconstrued from the antenna height >>>requirements. >>>It's required to be 10 meters or above for CPE use and no higher than 30 >>>meters for AP use. >>> >>>Why would a TV antenna or a TVWS antenna on the same frequency be any >>>different in size? Maybe some missing elements if your antenna only >>>covers >>>part of the band, but a full band antenna should be roughly the same size >>>as >>>current TV antenna. We have the use of 54 - 698 MHz (with the current >>>rule >>>set, minus a few reserved channels). >>> >>>Unless I'm missing something, which I doubt because Jack and I discussed >>>this at FISPA. >>> >>> >>>----- >>>Mike Hammett >>>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>><http://www.ics-il.com>http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> >>> >>>-------------------------------------------------- >>>From: "Mike" <mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> >>>Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:10 PM >>>To: "WISPA General List" <mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow! >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Well the comments I've heard ARE ludicrous. Antennas as big as a TV >>>>antenna, 30 meter antennas, and others. >>>> >>>>Free space path loss is greater at 5.8 GHz than at 2.4 >>>>GHz. Substantially. Free space path loss at 700 MHz, or 600 or 500 >>>>is also SUBSTANTIALLY lesser than at 2.4 GHz. >>>> >>>>Free space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance >>>>between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the >>>>square of the FREQUENCY of the radio signal. >>>> >>>>The FREQUENCY effect of the free space path loss is directly coupled >>>>to the aperture of the antenna, which describes how sensitive an >>>>antenna is to an incoming electromagnetic wave for which it is >>>>resonant. Lower frequency equates to a larger aperture, and a larger >>>>capture area for similar antennas, as compared to a much higher >>>>frequency. >>>> >>>>If it is indeed a narrow band, then of course the chances of self >>>>interference are there. The propagation characteristics of UHF for >>>>fixed wireless are what cause me to want to "play" in this band >>>>instead of some new allocation in the microwave regions. Think >>>>through the trees, over the horizon, near line of site possibilities. >>>> >>>>You also can't just reinvent the Yagi-Yuda or log periodic antenna >>>>either. The sizes I stated for those frequencies ARE the full size >>>>of an antenna, not some miniaturized or "rabbit ear" antenna. >>>> >>>>Actually, I don't even think I'm arguing anything, just trying to >>>>dispel a belief that white space antennas are these huge >>>>monstrosities; they aren't. >>>> >>>>For what it's worth, my personal record for distance on UHF is around >>>>44,000 miles. REALLY! >>>> >>>>Mike >>>> >>>>At 12:20 PM 10/23/2009,Cameron wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>It is not "ludacrous". Sure you can receive with a small yagi or panel >>>>>or heck, even a set of rabbit ears. It's the uplink that will be the >>>>>major issue. If you are using small cells for coverage you can probably >>>>>get away with "smaller" antennas on the towers, but this will limit >>>>>your >>>>>uplink capability if you are wanting a desktop type CPE or even a small >>>>>roof mount antenna. Small cell coverage like with uW freqs will have to >>>>>be carefully planned due to the propagation characteristics and the >>>>>potential for self interfernece on such a narrow band. It's not >>>>>impossible, just more complicated. >>>>> >>>>>Cameron >>>>> >>>>>Mike wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>At 704 MHz, a quarter wave is about 4 inches long. The driven >>>>>>element of a Yagi would be about 8 inches long. They would be way >>>>>>shorter than 30 meters, or what do you mean? Think about the 900 MHz >>>>>>antennas you see but just a little bigger for the upper UHF white >>>>>>space. >>>>>> >>>>>>Ch 52 is 698 MHz. Ch 69 is 800 MHz. Some of the talk I've seen >>>>>>about enormous antennas in the "white space" is ludicrous. >>>>>> >>>>>>Give me ANY part of it and the radios to use it and I >>>>>>will. Propagation would be superior to anything we're using now. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>At 07:46 PM 10/22/2009, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What equipment are they using? Did they have to do the 30 meter >>>>>>>antennas? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Scottie >>>>>>> >>>>>>>---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >>>>>>>From: "Gino Villarini" <mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> >>>>>>>Reply-To: WISPA General List >>>>>>><mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> >>>>>>>Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:05:22 -0400 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>IIRC, 6 mhz channels were proponed on the FCC RO, you could bond >>>>>>>>them... >>>>>>>>so with current OFDM technologies you can get 10 - 12 Mbps on a 6 >>>>>>>>mhz >>>>>>>>channel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not bad for a NLOS, self install and mobile probability >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Gino A. Villarini >>>>>>>><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>>>>>787.273.4143 >>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>From: >>>>>>>><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>>>>[mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>>>>On >>>>>>>>Behalf Of Scott Carullo >>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:58 AM >>>>>>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>My question is how fast can their internet go using tv whitespace? >>>>>>>>Sprint >>>>>>>>used to serve this area with an unutilized tv channel and it was >>>>>>>>SLOW. >>>>>>>>I >>>>>>>>guess if you had nothing else but if it can't go one MB its not on >>>>>>>>my >>>>>>>>radar >>>>>>>>of concern. Actually in our market if you cant deliver 10-20MB your >>>>>>>>not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>playing the game. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Scott Carullo >>>>>>>>Brevard Wireless >>>>>>>>321-205-1100 x102 >>>>>>>>-------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>From: "Jack Unger" <mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 11:49 AM >>>>>>>>>To: "WISPA General List" >>>>>>>>><mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Holy cow! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>See the attached Case Study and Press Release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>jack >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Jonathan Schmidt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dell, Microsoft Launching Broadband Net In Rural Virginia >>>>>>>>>>Computer Companies Join TDF Foundation, Spectrum Bridge To Debut >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Network >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Using 'White Spaces' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 10/21/2009 3:47:19 PM >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Computer companies Dell and Microsoft are scheduled to join with >>>>>>>>>>TDF >>>>>>>>>>Foundation and Spectrum Bridge Wednesday to launch a broadband >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>network >>>>>>>>in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>rural Virginia, using the so-called white spaces between TV >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>channels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>House Communications Subcommitee Chairman Rick Boucher, who >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>represents >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>rural Virginia, is scheduled to be on hand as the companies host a >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Webcast >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>with residents of an Appalachian community talking about how >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>wireless >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Interent connectivity can change their lives. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The government is currently working on a national broadband plan, >>>>>>>>>>including freeing up even more spectrum space for wireless >>>>>>>>>>Internet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Spectrum Bridge, a sort of Ebay for identifying available spectrum >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>secondary markets, launched a Web site in February to help >>>>>>>>>>identify >>>>>>>>>>available open TV channels. The site can be used by wireless >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Internet >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
