[opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium

  • From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:16:15 -0800 (GMT-08:00)

There are hundreds of thousands of fixed microwave links that are licensed (and 
coordinated before a construction permit is granted) to prevent or minimize 
interferencez: telco, earth station, ITFS, MMDS, etc.

I think you are just trying to avoid the costs of licensing.  Don't be 
surprised if you are forced into coordination (where you have to formally 
notify all the users listed with the FCC for a certain frequency band and zone 
around a central point) -- and resolve all their issues -- 30 days before you 
can file an application for a construction permit.

John Willkie

-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Nov 7, 2006 11:39 AM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium
>
>Maybe I have argued that licensing didn't help prevent interference.
>Don't remember the issue or context. I argued against the licensing of
>70-90 GHz licenses because I thought that the issue of interference
>was not a big problem. The beam is so narrow it is unlikely that
>others will need the same space. 70-90 GHz though, does spill past the
>target and I think that is the reason they have licensing. 60 GHz dies
>in Oxygen at short distances so there is less chance of it
>interfering. I don't know where in that last post of mine you got that
>I believed that licensing helps prevent interference. That info is
>just not there. But it seems obvious to me that in many instances
>licensing with its implied enforcement can be used to prevent
>interference.
>
>Yes I know that no one owns spectrum. Now lets tell broadcasters that.
>
>Lease or own is more and more just semantics. I own a Co-op but cannot
>sell it to who I want to, can't sell it for what I want to, can't
>sublease it to who I want or for how long I wish. BTW this is all
>about to change. More and more of what we "own" is so circumscribed by
>conditions that it is ownership by definition of the IRS and for the
>IRS only.
>
>I would suggest that the lease that broadcasters have on their
>spectrum is more nearly ownership than the deed on most homes or land
>in this country. It would be easier to take away a home or land from
>an individual by a governmental agency than for all of Congress to
>take away any broadcast spectrum IMO. So who is the owner?
>
>When someone who has a lease on broadcast spectrum says they own it
>they are more right as to the true understanding of their situation
>than if they said they had a lease IMO.
>
>The government creates both of these abstract ideas, lease and own,
>and neither exist without government's continued support.
>
>Bob Miller
>
>On 11/7/06, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So, you are now of the belief that licensing helps prevent interference?  
>> That wasn't always your position in this thread.  You even said something 
>> about "spectrum I don't own."  Nobody owns spectrum, they just use it as a 
>> public trustee subject to the communications Act.  Or, do you think I am 
>> wrong about that (for the moment) too (but you'll change your argument or 
>> position if confronted?)
>>
>> You were talking about "proof of concept."  That sounds high-faluting, when 
>> you were really referring to a lower rung on the price curve.  Maybe 
>> "concept" doesn't mean to you what it's always meant to me.
>>
>> Good luck with the cost issue.
>>
>> John Willkie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >Sent: Nov 6, 2006 8:07 PM
>> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium
>> >
>> >And I pointed out that my interest had nothing to do with the
>> >consortium's proposed use. I am interested in the chips and other
>> >technology that could be used for other purposes. The longer range
>> >uses suffer from a small market that cannot generate inexpensive
>> >silicon. SiBEAM's vision is of a very large market that must create
>> >very low cost silicon. It may create something that can be used in the
>> >other market or in between the indoor and the 60 GHz radios. Something
>> >that cost more than $100 but less than $20,000.
>> >
>> >Interference is not a big issue with lasers and it is not as big an
>> >issue with these narrow RF beam 60 and 70-90 GHz radios either. The
>> >license required for 70-90 GHz was only argued for to prevent
>> >interference and it has a nominal fee for registering.
>> >
>> >Bob Miller
>> >
>> >On 11/6/06, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> Which, as I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, has virtually 
>> >> nothing to do with the consortium's proposal, except that it uses similar 
>> >> frequencies.
>> >>
>> >> I guess you lost the concept that FM uses licensed spectrum and suffers 
>> >> only minimal interference, and that CB uses unlicensed spectrum and is 
>> >> full of interference.
>> >>
>> >> And, that there is a world of difference between enjoying 60ghz in your 
>> >> home on an unlicensed and minimally interfering basis, and trying to get 
>> >> a 60-ghz signal to travel up to 1.2 miles reliably without the protection 
>> >> of a license that gives you more protection from interference.
>> >>
>> >> I would point out that in the higher frequency bands, what is unlicensed 
>> >> today today tends to become licensed tomorrow (above 100 mw)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> John Willkie
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >Sent: Nov 6, 2006 7:44 PM
>> >> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium
>> >> >
>> >> >The distance we are talking about is up to 2 kM for 60 GHz and up to 5
>> >> >miles for 70-90 GHz. The beam is very narrow and say only 12 ft in
>> >> >diameter at receiver. More like laser than cb or FM.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bob Millr
>> >> >
>> >> >On 11/6/06, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> yeah, unlicensed spectrum is so much better than licensed (primary 
>> >> >> user) spectrum to send signals over distance.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> think cb versus FM radio.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John Willkie
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> >From: Bob Miller <robmxa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >Sent: Nov 1, 2006 1:34 PM
>> >> >> >To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> >Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: WirelessHD Consortium
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >As far as I know that is all licensed spectrum, LMDS/MMDS, none of
>> >> >> >which I own. Also had a lot of problems with LMDS spectrum years ago.
>> >> >> >No, I like the very high directionality of this spectrum in the 60 GHz
>> >> >> >and 80-90 GHz and I like the fact that 60 GHz is unlicensed and 80-90
>> >> >> >is minimally licensed. That is a fee for and quick registration of
>> >> >> >only.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Have no problem with IEEE 802.16 but I believe it is designed more for
>> >> >> >a shared shotgun RF use and not for the rifle shot full duplex
>> >> >> >multiple Gbps connections I am interested in.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Bob Miller
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On 11/1/06, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Bob Miller wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Line of sight yes but I don't think bird fade is an
>> >> >> >> > issue, more like window washer fade. The beam is
>> >> >> >> > spread near the transmitter and receiver. At low
>> >> >> >> > cost you could envision all nodes having multiple
>> >> >> >> > transceivers with each being full duplex backups of
>> >> >> >> > each other. A meshy redundant network
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Bob, I still don't understand what you are creating here.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The article we're referring to talked about a 10 meter range 
>> >> >> >> system, for
>> >> >> >> internal hookup of audio/video equipment where the video can be
>> >> >> >> uncompressed. A wireless form of HDMI, if you will. That's why the
>> >> >> >> comparison with UWB, which is intended for a similar mission, or 
>> >> >> >> maybe
>> >> >> >> better characterized as "wireless USB."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You seem to be adressing something else. If you are trying to use a 
>> >> >> >> 60
>> >> >> >> GHz carrier for a two-way last mile link, then what's wrong with the
>> >> >> >> existing IEEE 802.16, MMDS/LMDS, which is already a standard that 
>> >> >> >> takes
>> >> >> >> you all the way up to 66 GHz, and does so with any number of 
>> >> >> >> optional
>> >> >> >> encapsulations (i.e. even ATM, if you like)?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Bert
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings 
>> >> >> >> at FreeLists.org
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the 
>> >> >> >> word unsubscribe in the subject line.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings 
>> >> >> >at FreeLists.org
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the 
>> >> >> >word unsubscribe in the subject line.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
>> >> >> FreeLists.org
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
>> >> >> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>> >> >
>> >> >- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
>> >> >FreeLists.org
>> >> >
>> >> >- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
>> >> >unsubscribe in the subject line.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>> >>
>> >> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
>> >> FreeLists.org
>> >>
>> >> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
>> >> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>> >
>> >- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
>> >FreeLists.org
>> >
>> >- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
>> >unsubscribe in the subject line.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>
>> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
>> FreeLists.org
>>
>> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
>> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>
>>
> 
> 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
>FreeLists.org 
>
>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>

 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: