ComReg FWA Consultation - Getting a clue at last?

damien

http://comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=102474

While the FWALA local area licensing scheme has met ComReg’s objectives in terms of increased competition and broadband rollout, the nature of the licensing scheme has resulted in ‘black spots’ or ‘dead zones’ between licences where no further FWALA licences can be issued in the same band (see Figure 1 below).

As shown in Figure 1 below, a ‘dead zone’ arises when two FWALA licences are in close proximity to each other, thereby not leaving enough space between them to allow another FWALA licence to be issued on the same channel. Within these dead zones there may be a demand for broadband services which cannot be met under the current FWALA licensing process3.

One option could be to provide services in these zones by using licence exempt spectrum in the 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz. However, with a few exceptions, this is unlikely to be a long term solution due to the inability to guarantee service in these bands which can be very congested in certain areas of the country. In an effort to address this issue ComReg has decided to issue this consultation paper seeking the views of interested parties on how the FWALA licensing process may be modified to address the ‘dead zones’ issue.

jwt

I know we have a few RF heads in here so could you respond here with some opinions or ideas re guard bands, current bandwidth frequencies used and channels.

Also isn't frequency seperation used elsewhere in Europe to allow overlapping licences to operate? If so what model have they used?

John

crawler

Wise words JWT....

thebman

jwt wrote:

I know we have a few RF heads in here so could you respond here with some opinions or ideas re guard bands, current bandwidth frequencies used and channels.

Also isn't frequency seperation used elsewhere in Europe to allow overlapping licences to operate? If so what model have they used?

John

Note: I'm not an RF head just Joe Soap.

If the problem was just two conflicting frequencies I think you'd just use another frequency for the competitors so they don't have a conflict. They seem to suggest that due to the number of operators in the licensed area there isn't any free bandwidth available for the dead zone.

Wouldn't a reasonable solution be to extend the current license holders limits on the basis that they service the dead zone with their current license and make compliance compulsory for current license owners or new license owners.

Basically if you want the profitable area, you have to cover the non-profitable area and the license holders can share of the dead zone region can share the cost of it or it could be state sponsored at least for initial setup cost to cover the region so that they license holders are not out of pocket and the money from the few users in the dead spot region can be used for maintenance (Presumption that the few users could cover the cost, state sponsored where this isn't the case).

Probably some fatal flaw in my idea (like the requirement of communication between parties) but hey at least I put it out there.

watty

Directional aerials (which they are already) and since the different operators are in different directions the potential customer can get a higher gain aerial and service from which ever operator is best.

In many cases Niether with be received. A "fill in" base on a different band or frequency is then needed, but number of subs might be small and not much likelyhood of fill in bases getting built.

Allow coverage area to be any size that works at existing powers, i.e. More expensive bigger antenna for customer on bigger pole like MMDS and TV does.