That looks like a much easier mask to meet. Still provides the same protection to TDWR and Part 101 users, yet isn't extremely agressive at the band edges.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Sean Heskett <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's the compromise > > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001333104 > > Not sure where it stands today, maybe Steve Coran could give us an update. > > > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016, Josh Luthman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Pushed it back as in not taking effect summer 2016??? >> >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Chuck Hogg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> That's correct, as I understood it. >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016, Sean Heskett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> OOBE rules have/are being modified so as to meet the intended DoD >>>> requirements but not hamstring the manufacturers with expensive filters >>>> etc. I believe they pushed back some or all of the implementation for a >>>> year. there was an explanation at last years wispapalooza on the technical >>>> details and i know steve coran posted some filings etc. to the list a while >>>> back. I think the FCC chose the UBNT method over the WISPA/JAB method. >>>> >>>> don't quote me on this tho...i might have just been drunk in vegas and >>>> dreamed all this up lol. >>>> >>>> -Sean >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Matt <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Will the "next generation PMP 450 SM" have the same throughput and >>>>> range as the current standard PMP450 SM with a reflector dish in 5.8 >>>>> ghz band? Just concerned the new OOBE rules might reduce usefulness >>>>> of 5 ghz band for longer range PtmP and PTP? I am guessing they will >>>>> have some added filtering to meet the OOBE rules and just hoping this >>>>> does not reduce range terribly? 24 volt or 48 volt POE? It would be >>>>> nice if they worked on either voltage to make swap outs easier. Will >>>>> also slightly reduce cost of swapping power supplies. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Matt Mangriotis >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > YES! >>>>> > >>>>> > We are undertaking this project and working toward a next generation >>>>> PMP 450 >>>>> > SM that will cover the entire 5 GHz band (from 4.9-5.9 GHz), and be >>>>> less >>>>> > expensive than the 450i SM. >>>>> > >>>>> > At this point, I can’t comment on much surrounding the launch, as >>>>> we’ve only >>>>> > recently embarked down this path. >>>>> > >>>>> > Matt >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Lambie >>>>> > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 8:59 PM >>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450i 5.1 and 5.2 non overlapping channels? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Thank you Matt. I appreciate the info. >>>>> > >>>>> > Are there any plans on creating 1 450 SM that can handle all 4 >>>>> frequencies? >>>>> > >>>>> > That would be super.... >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:30 PM, George Skorup <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > No, the regular 450 is hardware limited to 5470-5900. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 2/20/2016 3:55 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Will the 450 CPE work in 5.2? >>>>> > >>>>> > Jeff Broadwick >>>>> > >>>>> > ConVergence Technologies, Inc. >>>>> > >>>>> > 312-205-2519 Office >>>>> > >>>>> > 574-220-7826 Cell >>>>> > >>>>> > [email protected] >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Feb 20, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Tushar Patel <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Matt, >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > To take advantage don't we need cheaper CPE? >>>>> > >>>>> > Tushar >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Feb 20, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Matt Mangriotis >>>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Didn’t see anyone answer you on this Sam. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > 5.1 GHz (UNII-1) is 100 MHz (5150-5250 MHz), and is not DFS >>>>> controlled, and >>>>> > follows similar rules to 5.8 GHz. This band is available in R14.1.1. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > 5.2 GHz (UNII-2) is also 100 MHz (5250-5350 MHz), but is a bit less >>>>> useful >>>>> > in that the max EIRP allowed is 30 dBm and it’s subject to DFS radar >>>>> > detection mechanisms. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Additional info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Taking advantage of these bands, however, can prove hugely useful and >>>>> > several of our customers are getting equipment deployed and working >>>>> soon. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > (Note: 5.2 and 5.4 will be supported in the R14.1.2 beta release >>>>> that will >>>>> > be out very soon). >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Matt >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sam Lambie >>>>> > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:54 PM >>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] 450i 5.1 and 5.2 non overlapping channels? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Is there any documentation or list knowledge on how big each >>>>> frequency is? >>>>> > >>>>> > Just wondering if it is worth it to go to the 450i and the >>>>> ridiculously >>>>> > expensive SM's. >>>>> > >>>>> > We are running out of spectrum in 5.4 and 5.8 though. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Sam Lambie >>>>> > Taosnet Wireless Tech. >>>>> > 575-758-7598 Office >>>>> > www.Taosnet.com >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Sam Lambie >>>>> > Taosnet Wireless Tech. >>>>> > 575-758-7598 Office >>>>> > www.Taosnet.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Chuck >>> >> >> -- *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 [email protected] | http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
