LLigetfa
join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
2 edits | reply to cmaenginsb
Re: PtP vs. PtMP and max EIRP
Is Vivato the only one that got the exemption? That name doesn't jog my memory but then again, I've had a few too many bithdays.
I can see where a straight forward PtP for backhaul using narrrow beams are easy to justify but somehow, the number of clients and not the narrowness of the beam seem wrong. Someone can crank out high EIRP through an omni, spewing RF everywhere and justify it by the number of clients?
I am not an advocate of "Tim the toolman" thinking that more power is better but imaginge if someone took something like the Hotspot 16 »www.wlan.org.uk/hot%20spot%2016%20page.htm and set it up as a quad array, the mess they could make. Such is not likely to happen for a one client PtP EIRP justification but none the less, theoretically possible.
The specrum here is already a mess. It is so bad that the school board is planning to switch to a licensed band next year. Add to that, another WISP who is also a cellular carrier is planning to bring in Moto Canopy. This is a border town and not only are there too many Canadian players in the spectrum, but I think Tim the toolman lives just over on the US side of the border. "Tim" has a really short backhaul using a mesh to our water tower (on the Canadian side). I don't know if he is omni off the water tower. Tim's Canadian cousin is also on the water tower and was running illegal EIRP but was coerced into removing his amp.
I have a situation where there are three of us (myself included) on the same azimuth that I could easily hit all three with a mesh at the base while keeping the beam tight but that would be considered PtMP. Granted, I could still use the grid at the AP and keep it at legal EIRP and use a grid at the furthest CPE but margin would be tight. Also, cranking EIRP on the CPE, while legal, is not good stewardship of spectrum because the signal would cross over the water tower and hit Tim's backhaul.
The same thing goes with the elevation game. I could gain some advantage in the elevation game, since the company I work for owns some of the highest elevation not factoring broadcast radio and telco/cellular towers. Of course the cellular carrier/WISP can ultimately win.
Some manage their spectrum by containing "just enough" power by terrain and carefully reusing channels while others use all the channels and all the power to overcome lack of elevation as if nobody else needs the channels. Someone with callous disregard and the available elevation could really cause others greif. The "I was here first" guy uses social pressure of disgruntled subs to tar the newcomer.
I don't really know where I'm going with this topic. There is no sense of fair play. "I was here first" means nothing, good stewardship is unheard of, and nice guys never win. |
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to LLigetfa
You're thinking of Vivato who used a phased array antenna. I can't speak for IC but the FCC certified this under the idea that each signal was "steered" towards the client so that the actual signal was a narrow beamwidth signal.
The original rules were quite blank and applied to both ends of a PTMP link, the FCC has since changed the rules about the client end and is looking more at the type of antenna used rather than the intent of it's usage.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
