Many, but not all, of the WISPA requests are incorporated: <div><br></div><div>Geolocation database yes, sensing is not required. </div><div><br></div><div>No minimum antenna height (because sensing is not required), but not the increase in max height WISPA asked for. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">65. </span><i><span style="font-family: "TimesNewRoman,Italic"; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">Decision. </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">We decline to increase the maximum permitted transmit antenna
height above ground for fixed TV bands devices. As the Commission stated in the
</span><i><span style="font-family: "TimesNewRoman,Italic"; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">Second
Report and Order</span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">,
the 30 meters above ground limit was established as a balance between the
benefits of increasing TV bands device transmission range and the need to
minimize the impact on licensed services.</span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-family: TimesNewRoman; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">129 </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">Consistent with the Commission’s stated
approach in the </span><i><span style="font-family: "TimesNewRoman,Italic"; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">Second Report and Order </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);">of taking a conservative approach in protecting
authorized services, we find the prudent course of action is to maintain the
previously adopted height limit. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">If, in the future, experience with TV bands devices indicates that
these devices could operate at higher transmit heights without causing
interference, the Commission could revisit the height limit.</span></span></p></div></blockquote><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; color: rgb(1, 1, 1);"> </span></p></div><div>However the 30 meter antenna height appears to have gotten worse because it's now above "average terrain", a more stringent requirement that might pose problems for WISPs in hilly areas.<div>
<br></div><div>All in all, it looks good enough that a variety of new products and uses should emerge.</div><div><br clear="all">Thanks,<br>Brough<br><br>Mobile: +1 617 285-0433 Skype: brough<br>Blog: <a href="http://blogs.broughturner.com/">http://blogs.broughturner.com/</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Ben West <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:westbywest@gmail.com">westbywest@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
This is good news indeed!<br>
<br>
Does anyone know if the requests from WISPA, et al, to have<br>
restrictions eased on device power, antenna height, and geolocation<br>
database were incorporated?<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Brough Turner <<a href="mailto:broughturner@gmail.com">broughturner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Yes, it's true.<br>
> 2nd Memorandum and Order<br>
> <a href="http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=301652" target="_blank">http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=301652</a><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Brough<br>
><br>
> Mobile: +1 617 285-0433 Skype: brough<br>
> Blog: <a href="http://blogs.broughturner.com/" target="_blank">http://blogs.broughturner.com/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> 2010/9/25 Matthias Šubik <<a href="http://wirelesssummit.org" target="_blank">wirelesssummit.org</a>@<a href="http://matthias.subik.de" target="_blank">matthias.subik.de</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Is it true?? (full text below)<br>
>> Is this the change we waited for?<br>
>> Matthias<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/fcc-votes-to-open-vacant-tv-airwaves-for-4-billion-wireless-market-by-u-s.html" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/fcc-votes-to-open-vacant-tv-airwaves-for-4-billion-wireless-market-by-u-s.html</a><br>
>><br>
>> Vacant TV Airwaves Opened for $4 Billion Wireless Market by U.S.<br>
>> By Todd Shields - Sep 23, 2010<br>
>> Federal regulators cleared the way for technology companies to use vacant<br>
>> television channels for wireless data and Internet services that may be<br>
>> worth more than $4 billion a year.<br>
>><br>
>> The Federal Communications Commission voted 5-0 today to adopt rules for<br>
>> using the airwaves, known as white spaces. Microsoft Corp.,Google Inc.,<br>
>> Hewlett-Packard Co., Motorola Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. are laying plans<br>
>> to exploit the airwaves, which exist in all U.S. cities.<br>
>><br>
>> “Today we open a new platform for American innovation” that will lead to<br>
>> billions of dollars in private investment, said FCC Chairman Julius<br>
>> Genachowski.<br>
>><br>
>> The radio waves travel in the spectrum between television channels known<br>
>> as white spaces, and like TV signals they carry far and penetrate walls.<br>
>> Uses may include wireless Internet connections, remote monitoring of<br>
>> industrial systems such as power plants, and taking over some mobile-phone<br>
>> traffic to ease sluggishness for users of devices such as Apple Inc.’s<br>
>> iPhone.<br>
>><br>
>> White-space applications may generate $3.9 billion to $7.3 billion in<br>
>> economic value each year, according to a September 2009 study funded by<br>
>> Microsoft and written by Richard Thanki, a London-based analyst with<br>
>> Perspective Associates.<br>
>><br>
>> New York and Los Angeles, the nation’s two biggest media markets with<br>
>> multiple TV stations, may have few vacant channels for the devices,<br>
>> according to an FCC fact sheet. Most markets have five or more empty<br>
>> channels.<br>
>><br>
>> Users of the white-space airwaves won’t need an FCC license, leaving them<br>
>> free to create devices for applications yet to be developed, Genachowski<br>
>> said in an interview before the vote.<br>
>><br>
>> Broadcaster Objections<br>
>><br>
>> The FCC in 2008 approved white-space use over objections of television<br>
>> broadcasters who said their signals might be disrupted. The agency left<br>
>> final rules on technical standards for later, and these are the matters that<br>
>> came to a vote today.<br>
>><br>
>> The FCC also was to vote on easing rules for schools and libraries to use<br>
>> federal funds for high-speed Internet connections. Schools and libraries<br>
>> could use the funds to connect to networks or to fiber that has been<br>
>> installed nearby and is ready to carry Internet service, Genachowski said in<br>
>> a Sept. 21 speech.<br>
>><br>
>> AT&T Inc. opposed the proposal, saying Congress intended subsidies to<br>
>> spent on communications providers and not directly on fiber.<br>
>><br>
>> To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at<br>
>> <a href="mailto:tshields3@bloomberg.net">tshields3@bloomberg.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at<br>
>> <a href="mailto:lliebert@bloomberg.net">lliebert@bloomberg.net</a>.<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> CWN-Summit mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:CWN-Summit@lists.chambana.net">CWN-Summit@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/cwn-summit" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/cwn-summit</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWN-Summit mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWN-Summit@lists.chambana.net">CWN-Summit@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/cwn-summit" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/cwn-summit</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">--<br>
Ben West<br>
<a href="mailto:westbywest@gmail.com">westbywest@gmail.com</a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
CWN-Summit mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWN-Summit@lists.chambana.net">CWN-Summit@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/cwn-summit" target="_blank">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/cwn-summit</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>