Hello Fred, Regarding "snarky insults" - a simple review of this email thread reveals that the only "snarky insults" are the ones that contributed.
Please review WISPA's mailing list policies at <http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=9>. Regarding your "strong RF and regulatory background" I offer the following for your consideration. 1. Join WISPA. A quick review of WISPA's billing server did not return either your name or your domain name. Of course, if you are (or once you become) a WISPA Member then go to step 2 (below). 2. Join WISPA's FCC Committee and apply your expertise by working with WISPA's dedicated, FCC Committee Members who volunteer hundreds of hours of work to keep abreast of wireless technology and who discuss, draft and file WISPA's FCC comments. Again, have a great day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:28 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote: >> Fred, >> >> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. > Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question. Quite frankly I > have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good > idea to treat me like a dunce. So I'll ask the question > differently. Do I need to create a new petition or did you address > the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue? > > I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT. So I > want WISPs to be able to put a radio there. I'm really confused at > what you're trying to do. Do you really call subscriber units (I'm > imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) "receive only" (I > don't), or do you really only want receivers? Which of course don't > fall under those rules anyway. > >> Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. >> >> jack >> >> >> On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >>> At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: >>>> Fred, >>>> >>>> Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations >>>> that transmit. >>> Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way >>> transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with >>> wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. >>> >>>> jack >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: >>>>> At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum >>>>>> Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office >>>>>> yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS >>>>>> Memorandum Report& Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing >>>>>> that was made today. >>>>> Rick, when you guys said "to remove the HAAT restriction for >>>>> receive-only sites", did you really mean receive-only, or did you >>>>> mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the "tower"? >>>>> >>>>> I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not >>>>> only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. > -- > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
