Jack my friend, I think you may have been rather harsh with Fred. For someone who isn't aware of where the FCC Committee is heading with this, it does sound somewhat illogical. IMHO, such a harsh tone pretty much wiped out my previous attempt today to build membership. I thought posting the Ex Parte would be icing on the cake and show the non-members what they are getting for their dues. You know I respect you very highly. I feel I owe it to you as a friend to encourage you to try and explain it in clearer fashion so everyone can understand. I thought maybe Steve would step in and explain things but he must be away tonight.
Regards, Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:49 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday > > Oops, typo corrected in 2nd line below (added the word "you"). > > > On 10/14/2010 5:44 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > > Hello Fred, > > > > Regarding "snarky insults" - a simple review of this email thread > reveals that > > the only "snarky insults" are the ones that you 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: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> 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 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/
