Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
I believe the FCC or its predecessor was actually created with radio in mind. Of course, TV and the Internet did not exist then. It often seems to me that the current FCC is on a mission to get rid of broadcast radio and TV, which puzzles me. They may die a natural death, but why is it government policy to hasten their demise? Just so they can clear and auction the spectrum? If it was government policy to kill off obsolete technologies, there would be no FAX machines. From: AF On Behalf Of Tim Hardy Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:48 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Agreed, but unfortunately guvment doesn't work that way On Apr 26, 2020, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote: Seems like in times where we're overturning old, silly decisions, there should be more usage of 101 in 74 space. Not the tiny channels they have either, but properly good sized channels. - Mike Hammett <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> _ From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:55:18 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum That’s what Part 101 licensees back in the day requested but NAB and the broadcasters raised hell. So, we are left with exclusion zones wherever there’s a licensed eng area. On Apr 26, 2020, at 9:49 AM, Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote: I meant Part 74 vs. part 101. - Mike Hammett <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> _ From: "Chuck McCown" mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:48:12 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Part 101 has spectral efficiency rules that most part 15 type radios cannot achieve. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote: Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? Why can't it all just be part 101? - Mike Hammett <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> _ From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > wrote: Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote: Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? - Mike Hammett <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSo
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Probably not, but we're had a lot of changes the last 10 years that we would have thought impossible 15 - 20 years ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Hardy" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:47:38 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Agreed, but unfortunately guvment doesn't work that way On Apr 26, 2020, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Seems like in times where we're overturning old, silly decisions, there should be more usage of 101 in 74 space. Not the tiny channels they have either, but properly good sized channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Hardy" < thardy...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:55:18 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum That’s what Part 101 licensees back in the day requested but NAB and the broadcasters raised hell. So, we are left with exclusion zones wherever there’s a licensed eng area. On Apr 26, 2020, at 9:49 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: I meant Part 74 vs. part 101. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:48:12 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Part 101 has spectral efficiency rules that most part 15 type radios cannot achieve. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? Why can't it all just be part 101? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Hardy" < thardy...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Caleb Knauer" < cknauer.li...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. But we shall see. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on rain > fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying your > spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and the > service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart < > timreichh...@hometowncable.net > wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Agreed, but unfortunately guvment doesn't work that way > On Apr 26, 2020, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Seems like in times where we're overturning old, silly decisions, there > should be more usage of 101 in 74 space. > > Not the tiny channels they have either, but properly good sized channels. > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > From: "Tim Hardy" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:55:18 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > That’s what Part 101 licensees back in the day requested but NAB and the > broadcasters raised hell. So, we are left with exclusion zones wherever > there’s a licensed eng area. > > > On Apr 26, 2020, at 9:49 AM, Mike Hammett <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: > > I meant Part 74 vs. part 101. > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > From: "Chuck McCown" mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:48:12 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > Part 101 has spectral efficiency rules that most part 15 type radios cannot > achieve. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 26, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Mike Hammett <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: > > > Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? > > Why can't it all just be part 101? > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > From: "Tim Hardy" mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 > licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. > > On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy <mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz > > On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: > > Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > &
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
That's my preferred solution. I do t like hardware being tweaked to function in its operational edge. Dirty noise On Sun, Apr 26, 2020, 11:24 AM Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > not many, a different post said the AF5XHD/LTU line can go up to 6200mhz > but that's it. Sounds like will need all new hardware to be produced by the > manufactures which I am ok with. > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:46 AM Adam Moffett wrote: > >> I'm happy they're doing this. >> >> My only question is which devices can do 6ghz with just a firmware >> change and which ones need new hardware? >> >> >> On 4/24/2020 5:37 PM, Caleb Knauer wrote: >> > ULS is gonna have to get way more gerbils, it barely runs on a good day. >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Tim Hardy wrote: >> >> Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their >> baby, but if you really want to do know where the influence came from - >> follow the lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, >> Apple & Google spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing >> didn't spring up over night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five >> years is astronomical. It took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and >> Congress just to get to the Rule Making process that started on Oct 1, >> 2018, and the RM garnered over 700 comments, reply comments and ex-parte >> filings. >> >> >> >> The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately >> protect both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must >> check-in with the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS >> (per FCC requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major >> problems and deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public >> Notice reminding licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are >> complete and accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and >> certification process and this will further delay things. Its going to >> take some time for all of this before devices that require the AFC to be >> used. >> >> >> >> FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes >> Apple, Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices >> at 6 GHz. >> >> >> >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF >> wrote: >> >> >> >> After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the >> crusader. Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. >> >> https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: >> >> >> >> I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in >> it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: "Matt Hoppes" >> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> >> Date: 04/23/20 10:14 >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> >> >> >> So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies >> dropped that made it happen? >> >> >> >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen >> wrote: >> >> >> >> The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name >> companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of >> them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power >> (WiFi6) usage. >> >> >> >> I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: >> >> >> >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC >> out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the >> common man/small business. >> >> >> >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: >> >> >> >> FCC has total authority over these bands. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < >> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed with
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
not many, a different post said the AF5XHD/LTU line can go up to 6200mhz but that's it. Sounds like will need all new hardware to be produced by the manufactures which I am ok with. On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:46 AM Adam Moffett wrote: > I'm happy they're doing this. > > My only question is which devices can do 6ghz with just a firmware > change and which ones need new hardware? > > > On 4/24/2020 5:37 PM, Caleb Knauer wrote: > > ULS is gonna have to get way more gerbils, it barely runs on a good day. > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Tim Hardy wrote: > >> Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their > baby, but if you really want to do know where the influence came from - > follow the lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, > Apple & Google spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing > didn't spring up over night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five > years is astronomical. It took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and > Congress just to get to the Rule Making process that started on Oct 1, > 2018, and the RM garnered over 700 comments, reply comments and ex-parte > filings. > >> > >> The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately > protect both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must > check-in with the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS > (per FCC requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major > problems and deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public > Notice reminding licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are > complete and accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and > certification process and this will further delay things. Its going to > take some time for all of this before devices that require the AFC to be > used. > >> > >> FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes > Apple, Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices > at 6 GHz. > >> > >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF > wrote: > >> > >> After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the > crusader. Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. > >> https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: > >> > >> I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in > it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -Original Message- > >> From: "Matt Hoppes" > >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > >> Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > >> > >> So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > dropped that made it happen? > >> > >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen > wrote: > >> > >> The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power > (WiFi6) usage. > >> > >> I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > >> > >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC > out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the > common man/small business. > >> > >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > >> > >> FCC has total authority over these bands. > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < > lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act > of Congress? > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < > er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote: > >> > >> yes you are right. > >> > >> > >> Erich Kaiser > >> North Central Tower > >> er...@northcentraltower.com > >> Office: 815-570-3101 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: > >> > >>
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Seems like in times where we're overturning old, silly decisions, there should be more usage of 101 in 74 space. Not the tiny channels they have either, but properly good sized channels. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Hardy" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:55:18 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum That’s what Part 101 licensees back in the day requested but NAB and the broadcasters raised hell. So, we are left with exclusion zones wherever there’s a licensed eng area. On Apr 26, 2020, at 9:49 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: I meant Part 74 vs. part 101. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:48:12 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Part 101 has spectral efficiency rules that most part 15 type radios cannot achieve. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? Why can't it all just be part 101? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Hardy" < thardy...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Caleb Knauer" < cknauer.li...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. But we shall see. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on rain > fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying your > spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and the > service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart < > timreichh...@hometowncable.net > wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped > that made it happen? > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen < ericlniel...@gmail.com > wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) > usage. > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > On Thu,
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
That’s what Part 101 licensees back in the day requested but NAB and the broadcasters raised hell. So, we are left with exclusion zones wherever there’s a licensed eng area. > On Apr 26, 2020, at 9:49 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > I meant Part 74 vs. part 101. > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > From: "Chuck McCown" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:48:12 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > Part 101 has spectral efficiency rules that most part 15 type radios cannot > achieve. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 26, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > > Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? > > Why can't it all just be part 101? > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > From: "Tim Hardy" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 > licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. > > On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy <mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz > > On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: > > Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > From: "Caleb Knauer" <mailto:cknauer.li...@gmail.com>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been > involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers > and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big > voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. > But we shall see. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote: > > > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on > > rain fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying > > your spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and > > the service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > > > > > From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On > > Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > > To: AnimalFar
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
I meant Part 74 vs. part 101. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 8:48:12 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Part 101 has spectral efficiency rules that most part 15 type radios cannot achieve. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? Why can't it all just be part 101? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Hardy" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Caleb Knauer" < cknauer.li...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. But we shall see. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on rain > fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying your > spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and the > service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart < > timreichh...@hometowncable.net > wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > ________ > > -----Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped > that made it happen? > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen < ericlniel...@gmail.com > wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) > usage. > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of > the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common > man/small business. > > > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < lists.wavel...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > Congress? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < er...@northcentraltower.com > > wrote: > > yes you are right. > > >
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Part 101 has spectral efficiency rules that most part 15 type radios cannot achieve. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 26, 2020, at 7:17 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > > Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? > > Why can't it all just be part 101? > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > > > > From: "Tim Hardy" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 > licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. > > On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy wrote: > > Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz > > On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > The Brothers WISP > > > > > From: "Caleb Knauer" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been > involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers > and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big > voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. > But we shall see. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on > > rain fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying > > your spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and > > the service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart > > wrote: > > > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: "Matt Hoppes" > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > > dropped that made it happen? > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power > > (WiFi6) usage. > > > > > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > > > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of > > the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common > > man/small business. > > > > > > > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > > > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser > > wrote: > > > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > > Congress? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser > > wrote: > > > > yes you are right. > > > > > > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > > > North Central Tower > > > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > &
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Is there a reason that can't be changed to accommodate radio? Why can't it all just be part 101? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Hardy" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:14:55 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Caleb Knauer" < cknauer.li...@gmail.com > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. But we shall see. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on rain > fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying your > spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and the > service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart < > timreichh...@hometowncable.net > wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped > that made it happen? > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen < ericlniel...@gmail.com > wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) > usage. > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of > the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common > man/small business. > > > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < lists.wavel...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > Congress? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < er...@northcentraltower.com > > wrote: > > yes you are right. > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > North Central Tower > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: > > More like 4.9 to 7. > > > > From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
I'm happy they're doing this. My only question is which devices can do 6ghz with just a firmware change and which ones need new hardware? On 4/24/2020 5:37 PM, Caleb Knauer wrote: ULS is gonna have to get way more gerbils, it barely runs on a good day. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Tim Hardy wrote: Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their baby, but if you really want to do know where the influence came from - follow the lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple & Google spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing didn't spring up over night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five years is astronomical. It took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and Congress just to get to the Rule Making process that started on Oct 1, 2018, and the RM garnered over 700 comments, reply comments and ex-parte filings. The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately protect both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must check-in with the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS (per FCC requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major problems and deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public Notice reminding licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are complete and accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and certification process and this will further delay things. Its going to take some time for all of this before devices that require the AFC to be used. FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes Apple, Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices at 6 GHz. On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF wrote: After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the crusader. Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. -Original Message- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Date: 04/23/20 10:14 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped that made it happen? On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) usage. I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common man/small business. So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: FCC has total authority over these bands. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser wrote: How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of Congress? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser wrote: yes you are right. Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: More like 4.9 to 7. From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is limited to indo
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Actually, they are eligible but only in the same areas that other Part 101 licensees would be eligible. They are not eligible under Part 74. > On Apr 26, 2020, at 8:10 AM, Tim Hardy wrote: > > Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz > >> On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett > <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: >> >> Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? >> >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >> >> >> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >> From: "Caleb Knauer" > <mailto:cknauer.li...@gmail.com>> >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> >> The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been >> involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers >> and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big >> voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. >> But we shall see. >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof > <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote: >> > >> > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on >> > rain fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just >> > saying your spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go >> > away, and the service carried on those existing links is often critical >> > traffic. >> > >> > >> > >> > From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On >> > Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser >> > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM >> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> > >> > >> > >> > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more >> > and more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better >> > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart >> > mailto:timreichh...@hometowncable.net>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it >> > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: "Matt Hoppes" > > <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> >> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> > >> > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies >> > dropped that made it happen? >> > >> > >> > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen > > <mailto:ericlniel...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name >> > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of >> > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power >> > (WiFi6) usage. >> > >> > >> > >> > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout > > <mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote: >> > >> > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out >> > of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the >> > common man
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Radio is not eligible for 7 GHz > On Apr 25, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Mike Hammett <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: > > Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > > > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > From: "Caleb Knauer" <mailto:cknauer.li...@gmail.com>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been > involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers > and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big > voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. > But we shall see. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote: > > > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on > > rain fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying > > your spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and > > the service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > > > > > From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On > > Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart > > mailto:timreichh...@hometowncable.net>> > > wrote: > > > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: "Matt Hoppes" > <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > > dropped that made it happen? > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen > <mailto:ericlniel...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power > > (WiFi6) usage. > > > > > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout > <mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote: > > > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of > > the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common > > man/small business. > > > > > > > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy > <mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser > <mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > > Congress? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser >
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
ULS is just the data set that will be used - the software and hardware will be state-of-the-art. > On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:37 PM, Caleb Knauer wrote: > > ULS is gonna have to get way more gerbils, it barely runs on a good day. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Tim Hardy wrote: >> >> Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their baby, >> but if you really want to do know where the influence came from - follow the >> lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple & Google >> spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing didn't spring up over >> night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five years is astronomical. >> It took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and Congress just to get to the >> Rule Making process that started on Oct 1, 2018, and the RM garnered over >> 700 comments, reply comments and ex-parte filings. >> >> The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately >> protect both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must >> check-in with the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS >> (per FCC requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major >> problems and deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public Notice >> reminding licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are complete >> and accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and certification >> process and this will further delay things. Its going to take some time for >> all of this before devices that require the AFC to be used. >> >> FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes Apple, >> Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices at 6 GHz. >> >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF wrote: >> >> After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the crusader. >> Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. >> https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: >> >> I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it >> WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: "Matt Hoppes" >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> Date: 04/23/20 10:14 >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> >> So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies >> dropped that made it happen? >> >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: >> >> The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name >> companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of >> them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) >> usage. >> >> I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: >> >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of >> the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common >> man/small business. >> >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: >> >> FCC has total authority over these bands. >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser >> wrote: >> >> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of >> Congress? >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser >> wrote: >> >> yes you are right. >> >> >> Erich Kaiser >> North Central Tower >> er...@northcentraltower.com >> Office: 815-570-3101 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >> More like 4.9 to 7. >> >> >> >> From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser >> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> >> >> >> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, >> so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed >> will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint >> it will be tough to count on a sy
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Shouldn't they be in 7 GHz? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Caleb Knauer" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 4:46:41 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. But we shall see. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on rain > fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying your > spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and the > service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart > wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped > that made it happen? > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) > usage. > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of > the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common > man/small business. > > > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser > wrote: > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > Congress? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser > wrote: > > yes you are right. > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > North Central Tower > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > More like 4.9 to 7. > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, > so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed > will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint > it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about > the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the > entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > North Central Tower > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > > from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: > > > > "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard > Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that > determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have > geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client > AP
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
I wonder how many digits are in the number that it would take to bring all government IT systems to no more than 30 years old. 20 years? 10 years? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Bill Prince" To: af@af.afmug.com Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 6:18:37 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum At some point, the WDC (Whole D*** Country) is going to have to figure out how to get our government's IT infrastructure out of the stone age. I would not be surprised to hear ULS is running a COBOL program in a PDP-11. bp On 4/24/2020 2:37 PM, Caleb Knauer wrote: > ULS is gonna have to get way more gerbils, it barely runs on a good day. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Tim Hardy wrote: >> Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their baby, >> but if you really want to do know where the influence came from - follow the >> lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple & Google >> spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing didn't spring up over >> night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five years is astronomical. It >> took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and Congress just to get to the Rule >> Making process that started on Oct 1, 2018, and the RM garnered over 700 >> comments, reply comments and ex-parte filings. >> >> The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately >> protect both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must >> check-in with the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS >> (per FCC requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major >> problems and deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public Notice >> reminding licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are complete >> and accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and certification >> process and this will further delay things. Its going to take some time for >> all of this before devices that require the AFC to be used. >> >> FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes Apple, >> Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices at 6 >> GHz. >> >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF wrote: >> >> After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the crusader. >> Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. >> https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: >> >> I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it >> WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: "Matt Hoppes" >> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> Date: 04/23/20 10:14 >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> >> So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies >> dropped that made it happen? >> >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: >> >> The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name >> companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of >> them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) >> usage. >> >> I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: >> >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of >> the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common >> man/small business. >> >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: >> >> FCC has total authority over these bands. >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser >> wrote: >> >> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of >> Congress? >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser >> wrote: >> >> yes you are right. >> >> >> Erich Kaiser >> North Central Tower >> er...@northcentraltower.com >> Office: 815-570-3101 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >> More
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
At some point, the WDC (Whole D*** Country) is going to have to figure out how to get our government's IT infrastructure out of the stone age. I would not be surprised to hear ULS is running a COBOL program in a PDP-11. bp On 4/24/2020 2:37 PM, Caleb Knauer wrote: ULS is gonna have to get way more gerbils, it barely runs on a good day. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Tim Hardy wrote: Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their baby, but if you really want to do know where the influence came from - follow the lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple & Google spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing didn't spring up over night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five years is astronomical. It took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and Congress just to get to the Rule Making process that started on Oct 1, 2018, and the RM garnered over 700 comments, reply comments and ex-parte filings. The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately protect both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must check-in with the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS (per FCC requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major problems and deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public Notice reminding licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are complete and accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and certification process and this will further delay things. Its going to take some time for all of this before devices that require the AFC to be used. FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes Apple, Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices at 6 GHz. On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF wrote: After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the crusader. Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. -Original Message- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Date: 04/23/20 10:14 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped that made it happen? On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) usage. I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common man/small business. So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: FCC has total authority over these bands. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser wrote: How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of Congress? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser wrote: yes you are right. Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: More like 4.9 to 7. From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. Th
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Last few we did were all 20+ miles. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:33 PM Jaime Solorza wrote: > > Yep...I help maintain two long 6GHz STLs for a Christian Radio station...El > Paso to Las Cruces, Las Cruces to tower on mountain above Hatch , NM.. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 3:47 PM Caleb Knauer wrote: >> >> The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been >> involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers >> and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big >> voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. >> But we shall see. >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof wrote: >> > >> > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on >> > rain fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just >> > saying your spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go >> > away, and the service carried on those existing links is often critical >> > traffic. >> > >> > >> > >> > From: AF On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser >> > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM >> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> > >> > >> > >> > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more >> > and more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better >> > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart >> > wrote: >> > >> > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it >> > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -Original Message- >> > From: "Matt Hoppes" >> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >> > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> > >> > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies >> > dropped that made it happen? >> > >> > >> > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: >> > >> > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name >> > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of >> > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power >> > (WiFi6) usage. >> > >> > >> > >> > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: >> > >> > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out >> > of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the >> > common man/small business. >> > >> > >> > >> > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: >> > >> > FCC has total authority over these bands. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser >> > wrote: >> > >> > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of >> > Congress? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser >> > wrote: >> > >> > yes you are right. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Erich Kaiser >> > >> > North Central Tower >> > >> > er...@northcentraltower.com >> > >> > Office: 815-570-3101 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >> > >> > More like 4.9 to 7. >> > >> > >> > >> > From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser >> > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> > >> > >> > >> > Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >> > heavily, so reall
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Yep...I help maintain two long 6GHz STLs for a Christian Radio station...El Paso to Las Cruces, Las Cruces to tower on mountain above Hatch , NM.. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 3:47 PM Caleb Knauer wrote: > The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been > involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers > and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big > voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. > But we shall see. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on > rain fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying > your spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and > the service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more > and more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart < > timreichh...@hometowncable.net> wrote: > > > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in > it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: "Matt Hoppes" > > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > dropped that made it happen? > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen > wrote: > > > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power > (WiFi6) usage. > > > > > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > > > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out > of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the > common man/small business. > > > > > > > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > > > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < > lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act > of Congress? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < > er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote: > > > > yes you are right. > > > > > > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > > > North Central Tower > > > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > > > More like 4.9 to 7. > > > > > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM > > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > > > > > Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean > heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum > proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability > standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. > What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able > to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > > > North Central Tower > > > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > >
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
The majority of broadcast TV and radio STL replacements I've been involved with have been 6Ghz due to distances to transmitter towers and fade margins. Those aren't going away, and they have a pretty big voice with the feds. AFC feels like it could be quite the boondoggle. But we shall see. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:39 AM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on rain > fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying your > spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and the > service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and > more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better > utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart > wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > dropped that made it happen? > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) > usage. > > > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of > the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common > man/small business. > > > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser > wrote: > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > Congress? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser > wrote: > > yes you are right. > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > North Central Tower > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > More like 4.9 to 7. > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, > so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed > will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint > it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about > the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the > entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > North Central Tower > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > > from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: > > > > "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard > Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that > determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have > geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client > AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the > licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of > companies have already been working on AFCs. > > > The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is > limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be weatherproof, > must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 dBm). Since those > can u
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
ULS is gonna have to get way more gerbils, it barely runs on a good day. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Tim Hardy wrote: > > Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their baby, but > if you really want to do know where the influence came from - follow the > lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple & Google > spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing didn't spring up over > night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five years is astronomical. It > took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and Congress just to get to the Rule > Making process that started on Oct 1, 2018, and the RM garnered over 700 > comments, reply comments and ex-parte filings. > > The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately protect > both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must check-in with > the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS (per FCC > requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major problems and > deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public Notice reminding > licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are complete and > accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and certification > process and this will further delay things. Its going to take some time for > all of this before devices that require the AFC to be used. > > FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes Apple, > Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices at 6 GHz. > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF wrote: > > After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the crusader. > Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. > https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 > > > > > On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > dropped that made it happen? > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) > usage. > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of > the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common > man/small business. > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser > wrote: > > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > Congress? > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser > wrote: > > yes you are right. > > > Erich Kaiser > North Central Tower > er...@northcentraltower.com > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: > > More like 4.9 to 7. > > > > From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, > so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed > will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint > it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about > the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the > entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... > > > > > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > North Central Tower > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > > from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: > > > > "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard > Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate dai
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Everyone on the unlicensed side is now claiming that this was their baby, but if you really want to do know where the influence came from - follow the lobbying and follow the money. Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple & Google spent over $16 million in 1st Qtr of 2020 - this thing didn't spring up over night and the $$$ spent on this over the last five years is astronomical. It took a ton of lobbying at both the FCC and Congress just to get to the Rule Making process that started on Oct 1, 2018, and the RM garnered over 700 comments, reply comments and ex-parte filings. The success / failure of this relies heavily on the AFC to adequately protect both existing and new incumbents. Standard power devices must check-in with the AFC at least once a day. The AFC will rely solely on ULS (per FCC requirement) and it is widely recognized that ULS has major problems and deficiencies - in fact, the WTB will be issuing a Public Notice reminding licensees of their duty to ensure that their licenses are complete and accurate. The AFC systems must go through a testing and certification process and this will further delay things. Its going to take some time for all of this before devices that require the AFC to be used. FYI - in a letter dated January 2018, the RLAN group that includes Apple, Broadcom, Cisco and HP projects over 958,062,017 unlicensed devices at 6 GHz. > On Apr 23, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Tim Withrow via AF wrote: > > After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the crusader. > Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. > https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 > > > > On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: > > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > -Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > dropped that made it happen? > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen <mailto:ericlniel...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name >> companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of >> them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) >> usage. >> >> I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout > <mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote: >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of >> the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common >> man/small business. >> >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy > <mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> FCC has total authority over these bands. >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser > <mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of >> Congress? >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser > <mailto:er...@northcentraltower.com>> wrote: >> yes you are right. >> >> >> Erich Kaiser >> North Central Tower >> er...@northcentraltower.com <mailto:er...@northcentraltower.com> >> Office: 815-570-3101 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof > <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote: >> More like 4.9 to 7. >> >> >> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On >> Behalf Of Erich Kaiser >> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> >> >> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, >> so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed >> will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint >> it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about >> the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the >> entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Erich Kaise
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Of course not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Tim Reichhart" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 9:29:29 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. -Original Message- From: "Matt Hoppes" < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped that made it happen? On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen < ericlniel...@gmail.com > wrote: The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) usage. I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout < t...@voltbb.com > wrote: There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common man/small business. So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy < thardy...@gmail.com > wrote: FCC has total authority over these bands. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < lists.wavel...@gmail.com > wrote: How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of Congress? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < er...@northcentraltower.com > wrote: yes you are right. Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: More like 4.9 to 7. From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, and ours, will be standard power. The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for AFC-controlled devices." On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza < losguyswirel...@gmail.com > wrote: Yep...lots of buzz from this On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF < af@af.afmug.com > wrote: I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 Gigahertz today. any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
It was a group effort by a big group of entities, WISPA had a lot of influence to make 850Mhz of the 1200mhz available for outdoor PMP. -Sean On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 8:14 PM Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote: > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > dropped that made it happen? > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you’ve heard of > them. They’re interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power > (WiFi6) usage. > > I’m certain they’ve dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out >> of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the >> common man/small business. >> >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: >> >>> FCC has total authority over these bands. >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < >>> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act >>>> of Congress? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < >>>> er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> yes you are right. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Erich Kaiser >>>>> North Central Tower >>>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> More like 4.9 to 7. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >>>>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >>>>>> heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum >>>>>> proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a >>>>>> reliability >>>>>> standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able >>>>>> to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Erich Kaiser >>>>>> >>>>>> North Central Tower >>>>>> >>>>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A >>>>>> Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with >>>>>> an >>>>>> AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It >>>>>> must >>>>>> have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the >>>>>> "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably >>>>>> conservative, >>>>>> so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole >>>>>> bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. >>>>>> >
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
But unlike 11/18/23 GHz it can be used for PTP links >10 miles based on rain fade characteristics. And there are many existing links. Just saying your spectrum would be nice for indoor WiFi doesn’t make them go away, and the service carried on those existing links is often critical traffic. From: AF On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:29 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart mailto:timreichh...@hometowncable.net> > wrote: I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. _ -Original Message- From: "Matt Hoppes" mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped that made it happen? On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen mailto:ericlniel...@gmail.com> > wrote: The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) usage. I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout mailto:t...@voltbb.com> > wrote: There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common man/small business. So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > wrote: FCC has total authority over these bands. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > wrote: How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of Congress? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser mailto:er...@northcentraltower.com> > wrote: yes you are right. Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com <mailto:er...@northcentraltower.com> Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote: More like 4.9 to 7. From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com <mailto:er...@northcentraltower.com> Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett mailto:af...@zirkel.us> > wrote: from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, and ours, will be standard power. The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for AFC-controlled devices." On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote: Yep...lots of
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Honestly I think that 6ghz licensed is becoming less practical. As more and more fiber is run to the tower the 6ghz band would be much more better utilized for last mile PTMP and indoor wifi. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:30 PM Tim Reichhart < timreichh...@hometowncable.net> wrote: > I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it > WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. > > > > > -- > -Original Message- > From: "Matt Hoppes" > To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" > Date: 04/23/20 10:14 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies > dropped that made it happen? > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of > them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power > (WiFi6) usage. > > I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out >> of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the >> common man/small business. >> >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: >> >>> FCC has total authority over these bands. >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser < >>> lists.wavel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act >>>> of Congress? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < >>>> er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> yes you are right. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Erich Kaiser >>>>> North Central Tower >>>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> More like 4.9 to 7. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* AF *On Behalf Of* Erich Kaiser >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >>>>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >>>>>> heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum >>>>>> proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a >>>>>> reliability >>>>>> standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able >>>>>> to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Erich Kaiser >>>>>> >>>>>> North Central Tower >>>>>> >>>>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A >>>>>> Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with >>>>>> an >>>>>> AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It >>>>&
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
After posting this I seen an article that said they (WFA) was the crusader. Wispa seems to be a member of that group as well. https://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-6 On Thursday, April 23, 2020 Tim Reichhart wrote: I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. -Original Message- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Date: 04/23/20 10:14 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped that made it happen? On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) usage. I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common man/small business. So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: FCC has total authority over these bands. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser wrote: How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of Congress? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser wrote: yes you are right. Erich Kaiser North Central Towererich@northcentraltower.comOffice: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: More like 4.9 to 7. From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, and ours, will be standard power. The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for AFC-controlled devices." On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza wrote: Yep...lots of buzz from this On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF wrote: I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 Gigahertz today. any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
I dont think it was WISPA I think other companies had there fingers in it WISPA isnt that big in DC like some of these other companies. -Original Message- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" Date: 04/23/20 10:14 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped that made it happen? On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you've heard of them. They're interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) usage. I'm certain they've dropped millions lobbying for this. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common man/small business. So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: FCC has total authority over these bands. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser wrote: How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of Congress? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser wrote: yes you are right. Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: More like 4.9 to 7. From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, and ours, will be standard power. The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for AFC-controlled devices." On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza wrote: Yep...lots of buzz from this On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF wrote: I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 Gigahertz today. any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- Eric Nielsen 571-508-7409 ericlniel...@gmail.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/m
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
So did WISPA make this happen? Or was it the millions these companies dropped that made it happen? > On Apr 23, 2020, at 9:51 PM, Eric Nielsen wrote: > > The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name > companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you’ve heard of > them. They’re interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) > usage. > > I’m certain they’ve dropped millions lobbying for this. > > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: >> There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of >> the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common >> man/small business. >> >> So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? >> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: >>> FCC has total authority over these bands. >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser >>>> wrote: >>>> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of >>>> Congress? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser >>>>> wrote: >>>>> yes you are right. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Erich Kaiser >>>>> North Central Tower >>>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>>> More like 4.9 to 7. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >>>>>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >>>>>> heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the >>>>>> spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a >>>>>> reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses >>>>>> AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are >>>>>> they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz >>>>>> efficiently? Just thinking... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Erich Kaiser >>>>>> >>>>>> North Central Tower >>>>>> >>>>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>>>> >>>>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A >>>>>> Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with >>>>>> an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. >>>>>> It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see >>>>>> how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably >>>>>> conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with >>>>>> it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It >>>>>> is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be >>>>>> weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 >>>>>> dBm). Since those can
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
The primary influencers behind the rule change are some small, no-name companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Broadcom. I doubt you’ve heard of them. They’re interested in unlicensed 6GHz for the indoor low power (WiFi6) usage. I’m certain they’ve dropped millions lobbying for this. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:45 PM TJ Trout wrote: > There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out > of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the > common man/small business. > > So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > >> FCC has total authority over these bands. >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser >> wrote: >> >>> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act >>> of Congress? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser < >>> er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote: >>> >>>> yes you are right. >>>> >>>> >>>> Erich Kaiser >>>> North Central Tower >>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>> >>>>> More like 4.9 to 7. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >>>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >>>>> heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum >>>>> proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability >>>>> standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. >>>>> What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able >>>>> to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Erich Kaiser >>>>> >>>>> North Central Tower >>>>> >>>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>>> >>>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A >>>>> Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with >>>>> an >>>>> AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It >>>>> must >>>>> have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the >>>>> "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably >>>>> conservative, >>>>> so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole >>>>> bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. >>>>> It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be >>>>> weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 >>>>> dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit >>>>> concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and >>>>> the >>>>> directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is >>>>> likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, >>>>> and ours, will be standard power. >>>>> >>>>> The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. >>>>> Like cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks ab
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
There must be some ulterior motive here there is no way that the FCC out of the goodness of their heart provided more unlicensed spectrum to the common man/small business. So the question is who can utilize this spectrum? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 6:35 PM Tim Hardy wrote: > FCC has total authority over these bands. > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser > wrote: > >> How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of >> Congress? >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser >> wrote: >> >>> yes you are right. >>> >>> >>> Erich Kaiser >>> North Central Tower >>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >>> >>>> More like 4.9 to 7. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >>>> heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum >>>> proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability >>>> standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. >>>> What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able >>>> to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Erich Kaiser >>>> >>>> North Central Tower >>>> >>>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>>> >>>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>>> >>>> from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A >>>> Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an >>>> AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must >>>> have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the >>>> "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, >>>> so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole >>>> bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. >>>> >>>> >>>> The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. >>>> It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be >>>> weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 >>>> dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit >>>> concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the >>>> directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is >>>> likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, >>>> and ours, will be standard power. >>>> >>>> The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like >>>> cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for >>>> AFC-controlled devices." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza < >>>> losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yep...lots of buzz from this >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>>> >>>> WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are >>>> hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 >>>> Gigahertz today. >>>> >>>> any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
FCC has total authority over these bands. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:29 PM Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of > Congress? > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser > wrote: > >> yes you are right. >> >> >> Erich Kaiser >> North Central Tower >> er...@northcentraltower.com >> Office: 815-570-3101 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >>> More like 4.9 to 7. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser >>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >>> >>> >>> >>> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >>> heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum >>> proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability >>> standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. >>> What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able >>> to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Erich Kaiser >>> >>> North Central Tower >>> >>> er...@northcentraltower.com >>> >>> Office: 815-570-3101 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>> >>> from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: >>> >>> >>> >>> "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A >>> Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an >>> AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must >>> have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the >>> "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, >>> so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole >>> bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. >>> >>> >>> The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It >>> is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be >>> weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 >>> dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit >>> concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the >>> directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is >>> likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, >>> and ours, will be standard power. >>> >>> The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like >>> cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for >>> AFC-controlled devices." >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza >>> wrote: >>> >>> Yep...lots of buzz from this >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >>> >>> WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are >>> hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF >>> wrote: >>> >>> I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 >>> Gigahertz today. >>> >>> any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
How can the FCC make spectrum available for un-licensed without an act of Congress? On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:30 PM Erich Kaiser wrote: > yes you are right. > > > Erich Kaiser > North Central Tower > er...@northcentraltower.com > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: > >> More like 4.9 to 7. >> >> >> >> *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM >> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum >> >> >> >> Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean >> heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum >> proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability >> standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. >> What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able >> to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Erich Kaiser >> >> North Central Tower >> >> er...@northcentraltower.com >> >> Office: 815-570-3101 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >> >> from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: >> >> >> >> "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A >> Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an >> AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must >> have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the >> "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, >> so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole >> bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. >> >> >> The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It >> is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be >> weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 >> dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit >> concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the >> directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is >> likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, >> and ours, will be standard power. >> >> The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like >> cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for >> AFC-controlled devices." >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza >> wrote: >> >> Yep...lots of buzz from this >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >> >> WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are >> hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF >> wrote: >> >> I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 >> Gigahertz today. >> >> any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
yes you are right. Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:12 PM Ken Hohhof wrote: > More like 4.9 to 7. > > > > *From:* AF *On Behalf Of *Erich Kaiser > *Sent:* Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum > > > > Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean > heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum > proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability > standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. > What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able > to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Erich Kaiser > > North Central Tower > > er...@northcentraltower.com > > Office: 815-570-3101 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > > from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: > > > > "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A > Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an > AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must > have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the > "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, > so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole > bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. > > > The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It > is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be > weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 > dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit > concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the > directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is > likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, > and ours, will be standard power. > > The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like > cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for > AFC-controlled devices." > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza > wrote: > > Yep...lots of buzz from this > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > > WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are > hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF > wrote: > > I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 > Gigahertz today. > > any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
More like 4.9 to 7. From: AF On Behalf Of Erich Kaiser Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 5:35 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com <mailto:er...@northcentraltower.com> Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett mailto:af...@zirkel.us> > wrote: from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, and ours, will be standard power. The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for AFC-controlled devices." On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote: Yep...lots of buzz from this On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett mailto:af...@zirkel.us> > wrote: WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > wrote: I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 Gigahertz today. any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Two of the UNII bands are heavily used for licensed PTP and I mean heavily, so really if the AFC system works correctly most of the spectrum proposed will likely be unuseable outdoor. I feel like from a reliability standpoint it will be tough to count on a system that uses AFC in general. What about the Antenna being used on these APs are they going to be able to cover the entire band from 5Ghz to 6Ghz efficiently? Just thinking... Erich Kaiser North Central Tower er...@northcentraltower.com Office: 815-570-3101 On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 5:24 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: > > "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A > Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an > AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must > have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the > "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, > so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole > bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. > > The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It > is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be > weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 > dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit > concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the > directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is > likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, > and ours, will be standard power. > > The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like > cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for > AFC-controlled devices." > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza > wrote: > >> Yep...lots of buzz from this >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: >> >>> WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are >>> hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF >>> wrote: >>> I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 Gigahertz today. any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
from Fred Goldstein via the wispa list: "There are really two different types of devices approved today. A Standard Power device, allowed +36 dBm EIRP, must communicate daily with an AFC that determines what frequencies are available at its location. It must have geolocation. (We are waiting to see the final Order to see how the "client AP" is handled.) The rules for the AFC are reasonably conservative, so the licensed PtP users are generally pretty happy with it. And a whole bunch of companies have already been working on AFCs. The Low Power Indoor device, on the other hand, does not require AFC. It is limited to indoor use only (must have mains power, may not be weatherproof, must be labeled) and is allowed +30 dBm EIRP (clients +24 dBm). Since those can use any frequency, the incumbents are a wee bit concerned. But between building entry losses (pretty high at 6 GHz) and the directionality of the FS dishes, harmful interference is unlikely. That is likely to be a volume market for Wi-Fi 6e. The higher-end business stuff, and ours, will be standard power. The FNPRM asks about Very Low Power outdoor operation without AFC. Like cell phones and small hotspots. It also asks about higher power for AFC-controlled devices." On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 4:07 PM Jaime Solorza wrote: > Yep...lots of buzz from this > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > >> WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are >> hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF >> wrote: >> >>> I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 >>> Gigahertz today. >>> >>> any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
Yep...lots of buzz from this On Thu, Apr 23, 2020, 3:47 PM Sean Heskett wrote: > WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are > hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF > wrote: > >> I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 >> Gigahertz today. >> >> any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
Re: [AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
WISPA said they are waiting for them to release the order. they are hoping it's 36db...there's a chance it's only 30db. On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:42 PM Tim Withrow via AF wrote: > I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 > Gigahertz today. > > any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
[AFMUG] New unlicensed spectrum
I learned that the FCC approved 1200Mhz of unlicensed spectrum in 6 Gigahertz today. any idea what Eirp they approved for fixed wireless? -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
