Wireless ISP’s under fire

Ok let see
As I know govement has a hand in WBS/iBurst. Sentech, so tell us how come when Wireless ISP’s try and get a license there is no available spectrum

As most Wireless ISP’s are giving rural areas and farms, schools wireless internet and Voip which hundreds of customers are very grateful and which no other provider is willing to go the extra mile.

Telkom, Neotel and Sentech have already been allocated 3.5 GHz spectrum, with Telkom and Neotel receiving 2 x 28 MHz each and Sentech receiving 2 x 14 MHz. A total of 60 MHz is now available for further assignment.

In the 2.6 GHz band Sentech has an assignment of 50 MHz and WBS/iBurst has been allocated 14 MHz. This leaves a total of 126 MHz spectrum available for further distribution.

All the cellular providers are eagerly looking to snap up WiMax spectrum, but the limited availability of spectrum in the ‘WiMax range’ may mean that they will not be the recipients of spectrum this time around.

So ICASA are you going to let South Africa slide back into bark ages, or are you going to look at other African countries that have embraced wifi.
 
dominic said:
please point me towards a basis for this statement in the context of modern telecommunications.
Click to expand...
Common sense ... if any un-regulated spectrum is not limited to short range, the probablity of interference makes it unusable for all partical purposes.

dominic said:
agreed without reservation - as stated above there are moves in their final stages to address this...there is clearly a need for some regulation and co-operation
Click to expand...
Not sure what your try to say? ...should 2.4 usage (e.g. private WiFi) be regulated/licensed?

dominic said:
cool - in the specific context of the article i would like details of cases of wisps interfering with iBurst
Click to expand...
I was commenting on the rights of private WiFi vs. WISP, not iBurst vs. WISP. The reason why I stated 'self-serving' is cos iBurst dont use 2.4.
 
Roman4604 said:
Common sense ... if any un-regulated spectrum is not limited to short range, the probability of interference makes it unusable for all partical purposes.
Click to expand...
common sense also dictates that wifi is a suitable technology for a country with huge universal access issues. advances in the technology have shown in many places around the world that interference issues can be effectively managed

Roman4604 said:
Not sure what your try to say? ...should 2.4 usage (e.g. private WiFi) be regulated/licensed?
Click to expand...
there needs to be a mechanism for the resolution of interference issues - this can be done effectively through self-regulation backed up by ICASA (as is the case in the USA where there is a self-regulatory body sanctioned by the Federal Communications Committee)....so i am not saying it needs to be licensed (this cannot be done without breaking ITU obligations but i am agreeing that it cannot be a free-for-all

the WUGS should be encouraged to join such a self-regulatory body
 
dominic said:
common sense also dictates that wifi is a suitable technology for a country with huge universal access issues. advances in the technology have shown in many places around the world that interference issues can be effectively managed
Click to expand...
Wouldnt it just be simpler to use another band to isolate long haul use from the established private short range use? A lot of higher end WiFi equip (specifically designed for long haul) can operate outside of 2.4.

WiFi users shouldn't be penalised cos our regualtor has been sleeping instead of allocating regulated spectrum. Even if they dont want to hand out 'precious' spectrum, ICASA could mandate that if you want to cross a property boundry or street you have to use 5.8 (802.11a)

dominic said:
there needs to be a mechanism for the resolution of interference issues - this can be done effectively through self-regulation backed up by ICASA (as is the case in the USA where there is a self-regulatory body sanctioned by the Federal Communications Committee)....so i am not saying it needs to be licensed (this cannot be done without breaking ITU obligations but i am agreeing that it cannot be a free-for-all

the WUGS should be encouraged to join such a self-regulatory body
Click to expand...
Again this is starting to intrude on the hassle free nature of WiFi LAN usage. I dont want there to even be a chance of having to resvolve a dispute at some body with some distant party.

The dispute resolution process for 2.4 should be limited to vloeking your neighbour over the wall cos he's selected the same channel as you.
 
Roman4604 said:
Wouldnt it just be simpler to use another band to isolate long haul use from the established private short range use? A lot of higher end WiFi equip (specifically designed for long haul) can operate outside of 2.4.

WiFi users shouldn't be penalised cos our regualtor has been sleeping instead of allocating regulated spectrum. Even if they dont want to hand out 'precious' spectrum, ICASA could mandate that if you want to cross a property boundry or street you have to use 5.8 (802.11a)
Click to expand...
agreed - this should be a goal for cross boundary users in metropolitan areas in the short to medium term and again depending on the regulator (i have correspendence from them from years ago stating that they were looking into the question of what to allocate to wisps)

Roman4604 said:
Again this is starting to intrude on the hassle free nature of WiFi LAN usage. I dont want there to even be a chance of having to resvolve a dispute at some body with some distant party.

The dispute resolution process for 2.4 should be limited to vloeking your neighbour over the wall cos he's selected the same channel as you.
Click to expand...
again i hear you (see above) but i would argue that this does not take into account the realities of telecomms and telecomms regulation in SA...in the future maybe, hopefully
 
Roman4604 said:
Wouldnt it just be simpler to use another band to isolate long haul use from the established private short range use? A lot of higher end WiFi equip (specifically designed for long haul) can operate outside of 2.4.
Click to expand...

Telkom itself uses 2.4 for backhaul links :mad: .

Iv heard of too many stories of WISPs being shutdown where no provider is prepared to provide a decent services:(

EDIT: I don't support WISPs using the ISM ranges, but with the licensing situation at ICASA what else can be done?
 
Last edited:
so technically a wifi link between buildings crossing a public road is illegal then?
or if i have a wimax link to a friend thats ilegal too then?:sick:
 
ICASA should license as many folks as possible. Licensing should in fact be so easy that not getting it should be odd!

ICASA is quick on the draw to defend licensees but the consumer is left out in the cold. They quack like a proper regulating duck, they look like a proper regulating duck but they don't walk like one.

More like a jackass with a couple of folks from Telkom et al holding a little stick in front of it with a carrot at the end...


Heeeehaawwwww.... Heeeeeehaaawwwww! Go fetch stupid donkey!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X