PRESS RELEASE: New Paper Concludes Wholesale AccessLicensingEssential to Wireless Competition]

[Yournet@hotmail.com]

I very much disagree:

Wireless has been moving towards multi-mode and multi-spectrum capabilities. 
While WiFi has been limited in bands of spectrum and way the standard has 
been devised and must be used (contention based rather than managed type 
access networks), the major trend for wide area cellular and access networks 
has been towards networks and devices that use multiple spectrums and 
multiple modes of operation.  WiFi devices do that only to a limited extent. 
New multimode WiFi+cellular phones to a greater but still limited extent 
because they switch modes of operation - phone service remains castrated.

If we wanted to think from the perspective of engineers we would likely 
devise wireless based on what could be implemented now and within a 
realistic time frame: we would think about developing products that take 
advantage of various spectrum based on how the signals propagate not just on 
one or two spectrum that are available or based on the limited focus of 
earlier standards.

I would take 700 MHz and think that would be good for providing rural 
access, suburban and urban VoIP, messaging and video broadcast/multicast 
service.  And a 'basic' level of urban environment broadband service as a 
gap filler and backup for higher density of deployment, higher frequency 
services where multiple spectrum reuse is advantageous.  And I would combine 
that with ability to operate in multiple other spectrums and standards 
modes.

We already have an example of that, albeit in a prescribed 'walled garden' 
service network: Qualcomm's MediaFlo combined with Verizon's 3.5G cellular 
network: 700 MHz OFDM based system combined with 2.3 GHz  mobile service.

The 700 MHz spectrum offers among the last available spectrum to provide 
wide area rural service where number of connections can be expected to be 
limited and very high penetration and low cost possible for digital 
broadcast service  IPTV, digital radio, messaging, localized adverting, 
meter reading, traffic control, public safety/first responder services, and 
many other services that can overlay more densely deployed, higher bandwidth 
services.

Part of this picture is also 'graceful degradation' and redundancy of 
fall-back connections: 700 MHz has the benefits of long range signal 
propagation and penetration but that is a catch 22 in terms of bandwidth 
density achieved through frequency reuse; network granularity, MIMO and beam 
steering and use of smart distributed networking methods.  But what users 
most want, even more than bandwidth,is to easily get connected and stay 
connected: most users will accept occasional lower bandwidth than being 
dropped or not connecting altogether. So, if you can deliver a basic, or 
'maintenance level' of bandwidth for generalized access (Internet) that can 
be switched on seamlessly in shadow areas, inside buildings, or in rural 
coverage areas, then that goes a long way to improving the user experience 
at a relative low cost of spectrum acquisition and deployment cost.

Google recently submitted a statement to the FCC saying they would bid for 
spectrum and make it commonly available if the FCC goes along with Chairman 
Martin's open access proposal for the 700 MHz auction.  They said they have 
put up $4.6 billion which they estimate it will take to acquire spectrum to 
provide national coverage. That seems like a lot but it is very cost 
effective if used properly.  And that is based strictly on what I know can 
be done in the near term (next 3-6 years) .. technology is unlikely to stop 
evolving anytime soon.

The major shift for wireless is in new business models:WiFi community access 
'free' networks have an hidden cost of difficulty of getting and staying 
connected, hassling with equipment, etc.  We should rejoice each new sliver 
of spectrum that becomes open access and advocate for more unlicensed 
spectrum.  Unfortunately, that battle was not effectively engaged for 700 
MHz and the best hope for community wireless advocacy is for 20-30 MHz to 
become open access.  That will help make reasonable services available that 
allow current and innovative new applications and content that can be used 
on public access IP networks such as 2.4 and 3.6 GHz unlicensed.

Robert Syputa


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tyler van Houwelingen" <tyler at azulstar.com>
To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <talk at seattlewireless.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE: New Paper Concludes Wholesale 
AccessLicensingEssential to Wireless Competition]


>I really dont see why people believe that 700Mhz is all that important.
> Sure you will get great coverage quickly, but I dont see anything better
> than 1-2Mbps max to clients given the slivers of spectrum and WAN
> architectures planned.   I like 2.5GHz (ala clearwire/sprint) or the 
> 3.6GHz
> band deployed with WiMAX picocells much, much more...
>
> ty
>
>
>
> -------
>
> Tyler van Houwelingen
> Founder
> Azulstar, Inc.
> 1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
> Main:  1-877-AZULSTAR
> Fax:  616-842-1104
> www.azulstar.com
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Matt Westervelt" <mattw at seattlewireless.net>
> To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <talk at seattlewireless.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:20 PM
> Subject: [Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: New Paper Concludes Wholesale Access
> LicensingEssential to Wireless Competition]
>
>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk mailing list
>> Talk at seattlewireless.net
>> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> Talk at seattlewireless.net
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>