At 10/14/2010 08:35 PM, Jason Bailey wrote:
In the days of two way radio,we had a great tx site,but low power
handhelds(customer radios) couldnt be heard well by the reciever at
that main tx site.We then installed remote reciever sites to be able
to better hear the handhelds(customer radios)They uaually heard the
main tx site fine. Jason
That makes sense when power is highly asymmetrical, as with an
HT. However, power limits on TVWS are all low -- 4 W ERP max for a
fixed unit -- so there's little reason to do that. A wireless mic
("personal/portable") system just might, if it has to cover a fairly
large area, but that's not what WISPs need. And wireless mics
(non-fixed devices) aren't subject to the HAAT limit; their receivers
can be anywhere too. Channels up to 20 are only usable by Fixed devices.
The term "receive only" is not defined in the recent TVWS Order. It
was used in the old days for satellite receivers, back when you
needed a license to legally pick up a satellite signal. They dropped
"TVRO" licensing after a lot of rural people had put in unauthorized
dishes (remember those), prior to the start of DBS services.
ju> the only "snarky insults" are the ones that you contributed.
Oh, and Jack, I actually did read the whole new policy. Why do you
think I joined the great silence greeting a certain other poster's
partisan comments earlier today? I'm seriously asking about what you
meant, and what position was expressed to the FCC. Really. You
didn't answer me. Unless you think "worth precisely zero" was an
insult, though I meant it quite literally.
I work with an organization that is pulling a ton of middle-mile
fiber which we hope will be attractive to WISPs, to serve currently
"unserved" areas. I've even done some strawman designs in
RadioMobile to test the feasibility. But those areas (hill towns)
have houses, not to mention CAIs (on fiber) and thus obvious AP
sites, higher than 75m HAAT. So the height rules are a real problem
in both directions. I read your FCC posting and saw the term
"receive only". It also talked about moving towers below the 75m
limit, and didn't directly address subscribers. But the Fixed rules
apply to subscriber sites too. A WISP could often beam uphill,
rather than downhill, if it were only the towers, but Fixed APs will
more often talk to Fixed subscribers than to personal/portable
ones. Especially when the available channels are below Ch. 21. So
it's a real technical/regulatory issue I'm raising.
Does anyone else here think I'm being insulting? Have I made the
question clear? Or is Jack just being overly defensive?
--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
From: Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:26 PM
Maybe explain what it means to WISPs?
On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, "Jack Unger"
<<http://us.mc525.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jun...@ask-wi.com>jun...@ask-wi.com>
wrote:
> Fred,
>
> If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple.
>
> 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: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
