Exactly.... Pristine = lots of available Holes. Rules .... while I don't know them.. but you said it .. they are very old... Time to revise ? and yes .. would be nice to know what is the definition of 'clear' for how many 'miles' ...
PTMP usage does not / would not require two free channels ... and can use the 'holes'.... Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom http://www.snappytelecom.net Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 1:21:54 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP on 6 GHz > For a channel to be available both ends have to be clear for many many miles. > They keep this band pretty pristine due to the long distance nature of the > use. > I think they keep it cleaner than is needed but the rules were probably > created > back in the analog era. > From: Faisal Imtiaz > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 11:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP on 6 GHz > That is a fair question.... but I think it needs to be answered by the > Hardware > Mfg as well.. in terms of how much SNR do they need for max modulation. > While I am open to being 'educated' and gain a better understanding ... up to > now, from what I see in the field, I see the the manner in which Licensed Freq > are allocated / acquired is tremendously wasteful... Lots a lots of 'holes' in > the part 101 allocations > e.g. for a channel to be available, it has to clear both locations A & Z, so > if > A is congested, and Z is not, one cannot have a clear channel. > or (more realistic).... if A and Z have just the right mix of channels in use, > then while one cannot have a free channel, but there is plenty of open > spectrum. > Keep two things in mind.. that this conversation / dialog with the FCC is > within > the context of two key points. > 1) Protect the licensed links > 2) open up more freq in the band. > 3) allow for PTMP use (using similar mechanism as CBRS band). > So.. I am curious to hear what is the "Technical" argument, and what is the > "practical" argument and would like to separate it from 'knee jerk' reactions. > Regards > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > http://www.snappytelecom.net > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 12:17:25 PM >> Subject: [AFMUG] PMP on 6 GHz >> Over on the WISPA list, they are discussing the idea of unlicensed PMP on 6 >> GHz >> part 101 frequencies. >> If Tim Hardy or Liz Creekmore are on, I would like to know how far down an >> interferer must be to get a channel on the lower portion of that band. >> I know that I could not get on license due to the fact that someone else was >> on >> the freq about 100 miles away with their antenna pointed away from us. But >> the >> F/B ratio or a side lobe said our signal would still interfere with them. >> I can only imagine that someone lighting up on your 6 GHz channel, even low >> power indoors would exceed the interference limit in many cases if they were >> within 10 miles or so of your antenna. But it can be calculated. Like to know >> the real numbers. I think that the protection must exceed the protection from >> other licensed systems. And that is likely impossible.
