A Couple questions.....
First, I would agree, any Whitespace spectrum is good spectrum for us, and
better than none.
But, why does the FCC keep hypothetically asking us.... "what about VHF
channels 1-x" the lower part of the band?
I think when we met with Blair, the lower portion of VHF also came up
briefly.
1. Are they asking us, because they plan to give the rest to someone else
:-(
2. Are they asking because others are requesting the higher portions of the
band, that are more advantageous?And wondering whether we consider the lower
portions more or less advantageous for our use?
3. Is there something wrong or more encombersome with Bands 1-X (7?), that
we dont know about or do know about?
4. Is VHF ch 1-X (7?) more advantageous, becaue its a band more widely
available in more places in the US?
(For example, I think some free channels exist in Band 1-7 for the DC
area, but I'd need to go back and check to verify).
5. How will our Antenna size requirements vary for this portion of the band?
I guess my point is.... What do we as WISPs really think about the VHF ch
1-X (7?) compared to the other portions of the Whitespace band?
If the FCC is hypothetically putting the lower bands out there, what do we
want to do about it?
Should we make an official statement asking for that part of the band, to
feed the FCC thoughts for allocation that potentially are already being
considered, to increase the chances of prompt release? Or should we continue
pushing for the complete band?
Also.... After reading the report, it was clear that the FCC trip was highly
advantageous and a lot was accomplished. I also recognize that the FCC will
not disclose their full intent on their intent record. But have we learned
anything more than we knew from our meeting with Blair, as far as how
Whitespace will progress? Did we get any updates on the Broadcaster's
database development for Whitespace? Is this still in motion towards
progress? Or has anything gotten stalled relating to the database work,
because of the possible Whitespace re-organization and re-consideration that
potentially could still be occuring?
I think we need to make sure the FCC recognizes a couple things and we need
to be cautious what we do about it.... Any Whitespace given to unlicensed
will not likely ever be used for Cellular phone cell sites, obviously.
They'd want fully licenced for that. But that does not mean that large
carriers wont use unlicensed Whitespace for special applications, expecially
public safety. UNlicensed has the unique abilty to go anywhere with little
advanced planning, and carriers can use that advantage to their benefit,
just the same as WISPs can. And they do. The wide use of Proxim Lynx radios
(that use the full 5.8G band per 1 link) by Telcos is proof of that. With
some carriers pushing for Whitespace Backhaul, it viable that they'd try to
use Whitespace UNlicensed for backhaul just the same.
Part of the attraction of TV Whitespace was not only its propogation
characteristics, but also the large number of channels, so there was enough
to go around for multiple palyers.
If unlicensed Whitespace is only allocated in a small capacity, our industry
would continue to get plagued with risk, with little room to move to, if
interference ever occured.
So it scares me when I hear things like, "what do you think about the first
7 channels?" It could mean, say goodbye to the rest?
It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel availabilty
in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their
territory or not.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scrivner" <j...@scrivner.com>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct.
>Every
> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in
> the
> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue but
> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high
> quality
> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have
> coverage
> to 100% of my potential customer base.
> John Scrivner
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes <st...@pcswin.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work. What channel
>> width are you going to need to have a usable system. I mean in the VHF
>> band
>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
>> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>> customers more bandwidth and faster service. Yes it would cut through
>> trees
>> and I would love it. But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>>
>> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
>> (>800 Mhz).
>>
>> Someone enlighten me here.
>>
>> Steve Barnes
>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mike
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> Awesome report! Thanks.
>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS
>> rural
>> market. At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse
>> any
>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense. I know some of
>> the
>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so. A TV antenna is
>> by
>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>> frequencies. A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
>> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business. Heck, if this comes to
>> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>>
>> Friendly Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Mike Gilchrist
>> Disruptive Technologist
>> Advanced Wireless Express
>> P.O. Box 255
>> Toledo, IA 52342
>> 239.770.6203
>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>>
>> Next question. I don't know any of the team personally just from your
>> posts. The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
>> right.
>>
>> Steve Barnes
>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>> Engineering
>> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>>
>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>>
>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
>> feel
>> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
>> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by
>> making
>> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
>> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>>
>> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
>> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
>> with
>> the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
>> part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please
>> rotate
>> the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>>
>> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>>
>> Respectfully Submitted,
>>
>> Jack Unger
>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>> 818-227-4220
>>
>> --
>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
>> Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
>> www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> 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: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> 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: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> 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: wireless@wispa.org
>
> 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: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
