https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363358A2.pdf This is the first step. We're going to lose this band for HamWAN soon. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
I must be missing something. The letter states the STA does not authorize operation within 75 km of MacDill or Anclote. Tom NY4I Principal Solutions Architect Better Software Solutions, Inc. 727-437-2771
On Mar 27, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363358A2.pdf
This is the first step. We're going to lose this band for HamWAN soon. -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ FSG-public mailing list FSG-public@lists.keekles.org http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fsg-public
On 3/27/20 6:22 PM, Tom Schaefer wrote:
I must be missing something. The letter states the STA does not authorize operation within 75 km of MacDill or Anclote.
No, what are you missing? This is an attack on the only non-ISM portion of our 5 ghz band. This has been an ongoing wet dream of WISPs and the wireless providers for some time. Even in the filing they refer to it as U-NII-4! Mimosa networks had a firmware update out within 4 hours of this being authorized. (you may recall Mimosa is run by a former ham using his former status as credibility with the commission.) There's nothing in here limiting interference to other licensed users other than Part 90. This is the camel's nose under the tent, once they have these bands, they will not give them back. WISP's have a track record of non-compliance with the part 15 rules, and named providers in this STA have been cited by the FCC before. Understand WISP's combine an ignorance of RF and ignorance of networking into a profit driven enterprise. These are not entities compatible with sharing our spectrum. As Machiavelli said, "Never waste the opportunity offered by a good crisis." 73's -- Bryan Fields, W9CR Florida Simulcast Group, Inc.
Hi Bryan, I was just asking about the STA. I read it and the STA does not grant authority within 75 km of this area. I was not commenting on how it is can be a foot in the door with the potential for an STA to become permanent. When I asked what I was missing, it was about that the STA did not seem to impact this area because of the 75km restriction near government sites. Given a literal reading of the STA, I was not inferring all you put in your reply so you must have further information on those motives I missed —hence the question of what I was missing. Am I reading this STA wrong and it does allow operation within 75 miles of the sites like MacDill and Anclote? Regards, Tom NY4I
On Mar 27, 2020, at 10:48 PM, Bryan Fields <bryan@flscg.org> wrote:
On 3/27/20 6:22 PM, Tom Schaefer wrote:
I must be missing something. The letter states the STA does not authorize operation within 75 km of MacDill or Anclote.
No, what are you missing? This is an attack on the only non-ISM portion of our 5 ghz band. This has been an ongoing wet dream of WISPs and the wireless providers for some time. Even in the filing they refer to it as U-NII-4! Mimosa networks had a firmware update out within 4 hours of this being authorized. (you may recall Mimosa is run by a former ham using his former status as credibility with the commission.) There's nothing in here limiting interference to other licensed users other than Part 90.
This is the camel's nose under the tent, once they have these bands, they will not give them back. WISP's have a track record of non-compliance with the part 15 rules, and named providers in this STA have been cited by the FCC before. Understand WISP's combine an ignorance of RF and ignorance of networking into a profit driven enterprise. These are not entities compatible with sharing our spectrum.
As Machiavelli said, "Never waste the opportunity offered by a good crisis."
73's -- Bryan Fields, W9CR Florida Simulcast Group, Inc. _______________________________________________ FSG-public mailing list FSG-public@lists.keekles.org http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fsg-public
On 3/27/20 10:56 PM, Thomas Schaefer wrote:
Hi Bryan,
I was just asking about the STA. I read it and the STA does not grant authority within 75 km of this area. I was not commenting on how it is can be a foot in the door with the potential for an STA to become permanent.
We're looking at two sides of the same coin. I'd agree Tampa and St Pete should be ok (Tampa's already been impacted by the DSRC stuff), for now.
When I asked what I was missing, it was about that the STA did not seem to impact this area because of the 75km restriction near government sites. Given a literal reading of the STA, I was not inferring all you put in your reply so you must have further information on those motives I missed —hence the question of what I was missing.
I was taken by the speed at which it was granted. WISPA has become very secretive and the industry has become laser focused on getting spectrum. These small steps here with the lack of "meaningful response" from the amateur community will be used as the argument to take the band. 5725 to 5850 is unusable now due to the noise floor, and the inability to work with part 15 users. 2.4 GHz and 902 MHz is even worse. 73's -- Bryan Fields, W9CR Florida Simulcast Group, Inc.
Yes we are in agreement. Tom Principal Solutions Architect Better Software Solutions, Inc. 727-437-2771
On Mar 28, 2020, at 12:48 PM, Bryan Fields <bryan@flscg.org> wrote:
On 3/27/20 10:56 PM, Thomas Schaefer wrote:
Hi Bryan,
I was just asking about the STA. I read it and the STA does not grant authority within 75 km of this area. I was not commenting on how it is can be a foot in the door with the potential for an STA to become permanent.
We're looking at two sides of the same coin. I'd agree Tampa and St Pete should be ok (Tampa's already been impacted by the DSRC stuff), for now.
When I asked what I was missing, it was about that the STA did not seem to impact this area because of the 75km restriction near government sites. Given a literal reading of the STA, I was not inferring all you put in your reply so you must have further information on those motives I missed —hence the question of what I was missing.
I was taken by the speed at which it was granted. WISPA has become very secretive and the industry has become laser focused on getting spectrum.
These small steps here with the lack of "meaningful response" from the amateur community will be used as the argument to take the band. 5725 to 5850 is unusable now due to the noise floor, and the inability to work with part 15 users. 2.4 GHz and 902 MHz is even worse.
73's -- Bryan Fields, W9CR Florida Simulcast Group, Inc. _______________________________________________ FSG-public mailing list FSG-public@lists.keekles.org http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fsg-public
On Sat, 28 Mar 2020, Bryan Fields wrote:
I was taken by the speed at which it was granted. WISPA has become very secretive and the industry has become laser focused on getting spectrum.
These small steps here with the lack of "meaningful response" from the amateur community will be used as the argument to take the band. 5725 to 5850 is unusable now due to the noise floor, and the inability to work with part 15 users. 2.4 GHz and 902 MHz is even worse.
I completely agree with Bryan on this. While I recognize that spectrum is a preciously small commodity that the FCC has decided to multitask to the breaking point, WISPs were just green-lighted to do what we always considered our mission because we sat on the wayside. We didn't develop the networks and technology to make it happen because manufacturers and distributors were unwilling to work with us, because they were scared of the FCC after TWDR interference cases or just because they didn't want to. The WISP arena has known for a while now that the only way to deliver to the last mile with power-limited unlicensed radios is by making smaller and smaller sectors with higher gain antennas and intelligently using spectrum. This has been an end-run around the upgrade cycle for them. The focus should have been to enable Cambium and other vendors to work at 2.5 GHz in those license-based chunks, or remediate the absolute mess made above 3.5 GHz. The FCC absolutely destroyed CBRS above 3.5 GHz with a litanty of changes and limits in an manfacturer limited space. Throughput is the result of power times bandwidth times modulation density. The WISPs know this. Like anyone else, they don't want to change unless they have to, and now they have a new playground at our expense. -- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR Disinformation Architect, Systems Mangler, & Network Mismanager
participants (5)
-
Bryan Fields -
Bryan Fields -
Kris Kirby -
Thomas Schaefer -
Tom Schaefer