Best of the ISP-Lists

Politics

WISPs Demand 3.65 GHz Equipment

As all available spectrum gets cluttered, WISPs look to new spectrum frontiers.

[December 13, 2005]

On the ISP-Wireless list in November, BG, responding to problems one WISP experienced that were caused by a misguided government install (see WISPs: Beware of Traffic Lights) warned:

This reflects a growing trend. In our area, and apparently in yours as well, it's government that's emerging at the new spectrum hog on the Part 15 bands. It's using that spectrum not because it has no other spectrum to use, but rather because Part 15 equipment is cheaper. And since their equipment only needs a fraction of the bandwidth that one needs to provide competitive broadband, they're deploying radios that sacrifice speed for robustness and destroy more efficient uses of the band.

In our area, the city and state governments are destroying the 5.8 GHz band with Canopy. The County (which, fortunately, is willing to coordinate a bit) is on 2.4 GHz. The City is already using 900 MHz for SCADA and is threatening to deploy a swarm of 2.4 GHz hoppers (which will trash the last remaining usable band) while NOT REMOVING the 900 MHz equipment.

And our area has the additional problem that it's in a "no fly zone" for 3650 MHz, which means that even if equipment WERE available for that band (where is it, by the way?) we couldn't use it here.

Where's the pressure to get some usable spectrum for wireless broadband?

Right now, in Washington, the loudest voices are all pushing agendas that won't work for WISPs. The big corporations—Verizon, Motorola, Intel, etc.—are pushing for auctions, so that they can lock out smaller entrants and do business among themselves. The free market thinktanks support them. On the other hand, the libertarian thinktanks (including the New America Foundation) support opening up more spectrum under Part 15, which will lead to more of the same mess we have now. And the equipment manufacturers seem to be "boycotting" the new rules for 3650 MHz by refusing to develop equipment for that band, perhaps at the behest of their big corporate customers.

Anyone want to work with me to start designing some radios with "contention based" protocols? While we can't use 3650 MHz in our area, the success of such technology would hopefully prompt the opening of more spectrum under the same rules.

[TR noted] "I'd argue that that is the case, but not necessarily to the fault of the government. I'm finding that most governement projects are chosen based on proposals submitted by third party consultants or integrators. Its the integrators fault for suggesting unlicensed radios. They do it because its easier for them to close the deal and easier for them to procure the equipment.

I don't think it would be all that hard to convince a government to use spectrum allocated for them (4.9 GHz public safety) or licensed. Government rarely has a cost issue, when it comes to justifying the best solution for long term reliabilty. What do you think would happen if the IRS used a unlicensed backhaul, and it had interference on Tax return day? Not a risk they'd take if they were proposed an option to avoid that risk. The only exception is municipal hotpot blanket city coverage for consumers broadband. There is a need to use unlicensed because its what the consumers will have built into their laptops and portable devices. But for government purposes, there is little reason to require unlicensed, which is why I get irritated with consultants that so quickly propose an unlicensed spectrum solution. I'm not saying the government should not have the right to use the unlicensed spectrum, I'm just saying, consultants need to do a better option exploring the government options, before making recommendations."

BG agreed and disagreed:

That's what I said: it's cheaper. So the third party makes a more price competitive bid and wins. The net result is that the government chooses the Part 15 equipment.

Our city was sold a solution based on a 2.4 GHz frequency hopper. Now, even though several local experts and professionals have told them that this system would cause interference and would likely be unreliable itself, they're having a "study" done—by the radio manufacturer and the consultant who sold their stuff to the city! Both will obviously have a vested interest in selling the equipment that was originally specified. What's more, the City is balking at the expense of changing things (apparently, it costs money to do so once you've approved the plans). They refuse to change anything until they get the report—even though it would not be prudent to use it because it comes from a source with a vested interest.

What's more, the city is unduly concerned about the difficulty of obtaining a license. Even though I repeated several times that the license was simple and cheap to get, they'd come back to the next meeting saying, "But getting a license will be a long and expensive process!" (I do wonder if the contractor is telling them this.)

Of course, we would have liked to speak up earlier, but there could not have been public input before the plans were approved. Why? Because the government is allowed to keep things under wraps during contract negotiations. The plans do not legally become public records until after the negotiations are over.

In any event, things are still very much up in the air (no pun intended) here. We have been doing everything we can to convince the City that if it does not change course, it'll be a lose/lose.

We don't know if we will soon be embroiled in an out-and-out RF war with the City as we try to keep our customers connected. And, yes, we'd have no choice but to fight this one out, because there is no other band to go to. We'd bring a large crowd of users down to City Hall and ask the City Council to save wireless broadband in our city. Beef up everyone's equipment to fight back against the interference. Go to the press, explaining why Laramie was "the city that killed wireless broadband." Go to court with a "tortious interference" claim and a request for an injunction.

[GW opined] "Not the greatest thing to happen to you, but it could be a lawsuit worth watching that could have long term effects on our industry. I understand that the common consensus is that you cannot sue, but there has to be ramifications for negligent actions that were clearly understood before hand. My opinion, and I hope you work out your differences.

[BG replied] "We all have the right to own a baseball bat but not to go around hitting people with it. The same, I believe, is true of the use of Part 15 equipment. You have the right to use it, but if you use it to harm someone (negligently or intentionally), you have still committed a tort and can be sued. At least this seems to be the consensus I'm hearing from people with whom I've discussed the situation."

BG reiterated the point that these problems wouldn't exist if equipment was available for the 3.65 GHz band:

The ironic thing is that we've had a free license arrangement for the 3650 MHz band for half a year... and NO ONE IS USING IT. Now, it's true that the band is off limits in some areas (including where I am), but I'm eager to see it succeed so that the same licensing regime will be approved for other frequencies that we CAN use. Where is the equipment?

RA noted that the installed base of any technology works against change and innovation:

AFAIK, There should be something out real soon now from Ubiquiti... Expect a few months.. But the rewards are nothing like that for gear that can be used for a/b/g so the incentives have to be pretty special... There's what, like 1000 radios if you hit it right on to start with against something like 100,000 radios for the existing standards?

—End