Re: FCC to provide 50 MHz spectrum

The FCC statements specifically mentioned WiMAX and systems that were has
"technologies employing contention-based protocols. "  I don't know how you
can get any clearer than this. I will talk to a couple of the leading
manufacturers this week to see what they say about adapting their systems.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Josephson" <[email protected]>
To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: FCC to provide 50 MHz spectrum


> Jack Unger wrote:
>
> > I agree with most of the points made but wish to add my slightly
> > differing opinions into the discussion...
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> The FCC issued a new ruling that will make 50 MHz of spectrum
> >> available for semi-unlicensed use between 3650 and 3700 MHz.
> >
> >
> > Semi-unlicensed is misleading. This is licensed operation although no
> > "big bucks" are required to win exclusive spectrum rights "at auction".
>
> Specifically, anyone can get a nationwide license, probably for the same
> rate as a microwave station license ($730 for ten years) or less.
>
> >
> > This spectrum is
> >
> >> very close to the 3500 MHz which is widely available globally for WBB
> >> service including WiMAX.  Several vendors have 'pre-WiMAX' equipment
> >> available for 3.5GHz spectrum and should easily be able to operate in
> >> the 3.65-3.7 GHz spectrum.
> >
> >
> > Yes, the equipment may be "retunable" in some cases but it may take
> > the manufacturers a while to incorporate the "contention-based"
> > interference-reduction mechanisms - after the FCC specifies what these
> > mechanism should be. The implication that equipment will soon be
> > available may turn out to be wrong unless we define "soon" to mean 1
> > to 2 years.
>
> I don't expect that any existing equipment will be retuned. It seemed
> from the language in the proceeding that FCC was not going to specify
> what the contention mechanism would be, and instead would wait for
> manufacturers to submit equipment for certification that addressed the
> issue. I agree with the 1-2 year period -- 1 year is very optimistic.
>
> >
> >>
> >> The FCC will allow WISPS to operate in the new band but will require
> >> them to register what equipment they will use.  This assures that the
> >> FCC can supervise compliance with the power and non-interference
> >> requirements.
> >
> >
> > Registration is good but any "assurance" that the FCC will actually be
> > able to be involved to determine who is causing interference to
> > someone else is a real stretch. The FCC operates under budgetary
> > constraints. Unless Congress acts to give the FCC the funds to deal
> > with the inevitable interference issues that will arise (getting this
> > money is unlikely) there is a high probability that there will be
> > many, difficult-to-resolve interference problems.
>
> The comments I filed in this proceeding were mainly on this aspect of
> the issue. The requirements that FCC was talking about for coordination
> would make it difficult for small WISPs to coordinate, without some sort
> of ad-hoc local coordination body. We have such an organization running
> for the 5 GHz bands now in the San Francisco Bay Area (SF-BANC) and
> outgoing FCC chairman Powell visited us last year to see how we were
> doing it. It is not perfect by any means but it's a start.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I think that we are very likely to see other bands of spectrum become
> >> available on a similar basis: monitored more closely than current
> >> unlicensed spectrum but open for use at higher power levels by
> >> equipment that is shown to meet and be operated by WISPs who obey the
> >> non-interference rules.
> >
> >
> > More spectrum would be nice however I wouldn't hold my breath given
> > the behind-the-scenes lobbying power of the telcos and cable
> > companies, the unknown philosophy of the yet-to-be-appointed new FCC
> > Chairman, and the interference problems that will likely occur even
> > when WISPs "obey the rules".
>
> Agreed. There are mandates to turn other pieces of the spectrum over to
> this sort of usage but the incumbent stakeholders will do their best to
> make it difficult to use.
>
> <snip>
>
> If you look at the spectrum and think about the various stakeholders
> between 400 and 6000 MHz I think you will come to the same conclusion I
> have: with a few narrow exceptions the new WBB allocaitions will be
> above 6 GHz. I think it's a sure bet, given the need for more bandwidth,
> that any new last- or first-mile systems will be in the higher part of
> the spectrum, starting with some play at 60 GHz in the next couple of
years.
>
> --
> David Josephson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk