Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
At this point there is no petition for rulemaking, or even a draft. AFAIK at this point it’s still at the stage of figuring out who the incumbents in 5900-7200Mhz spectrum are and what their positions are likely to be. If the proposal even gets off the ground moving from this point to actual use is a multiple year process at best. 5 years would be moving quickly in FCC land, 10 years wouldn’t be odd. Details over who has priority are far in the future. Mark > On Jun 8, 2017, at 7:47 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > On 6/8/17 16:35, Mitch wrote: >> I here protect existing...What about new PtP priority over PtMP?? > > > New 6GHz licensed links must be continued to be allowed in my opinion, > even if it requires shutdown for someone's multipoint. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/8/17 16:35, Mitch wrote: > I here protect existing...What about new PtP priority over PtMP?? New 6GHz licensed links must be continued to be allowed in my opinion, even if it requires shutdown for someone's multipoint. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
I here protect existing...What about new PtP priority over PtMP?? On 6/7/2017 4:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system > planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS > would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >> >> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >> >> ~Seth >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Context context context ... do you know who much Freq is in 4.9 you are talking about ? :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Keefe John" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:46:09 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part > 101 spectrum > We should open up the 4.9 band. Hardly gov't agencies use it. > > Keefe > > > On 6/7/2017 4:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system >> planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS >> would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional >> installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of >> the >> potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty of >> other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens here >> isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. >> >> My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are >> other >> frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS type of >> system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, but they >> all >> have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are largely useless >> because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the rules make it very >> difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be shutting down >> anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be supporting >> proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways to reach >> customers. >> >> Mark Radabaugh >> Amplex >> 22690 Pemberville Rd >> Luckey, OH 43447 >> 419-261-5996 >> >>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >>> >>> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >>> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >>> >>> ~Seth >>> ___ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
We should open up the 4.9 band. Hardly gov't agencies use it. Keefe On 6/7/2017 4:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system > planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS > would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >> >> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >> >> ~Seth >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
No Omni's! 65deg max antenna beam pattern? That kills all the consumer gear right there... And cell phones. And kills the Cable Co hanging PoP's. NN... with the License # REQUIRED for a distributor to sell gear... With penalty's... say 200% of the gear sold without a license? How about the gear has to be unlocked, like Mimosa, but also requires your NN license number to unlock and register... -- On 6/7/2017 5:38 PM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it possible that it can be used for only PTMP / PTP and NOT consumer use > (i.e., wireless routers)? Thats my major complaint right now. My hilltop APs > see hundreds of comcast/xfinity APs along with everyones netgear home router. > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 14:34, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> >> For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system >> planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS >> would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a >> professional installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a >> small part of the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. >> There are plenty of other users that would need to be protected as well. >> Whatever happens here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. >> >> My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are >> other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS >> type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, >> but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are >> largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the >> rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should >> be shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead >> be supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional >> ways to reach customers. >> >> Mark Radabaugh >> Amplex >> 22690 Pemberville Rd >> Luckey, OH 43447 >> 419-261-5996 >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >>> >>> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >>> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >>> >>> ~Seth >>> ___ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
I'm for opening it up to PtMP use coupled with the SAS system. There's the potential for getting fancy and using your own PtP license for PtMP use within your part 101 protection zone (or whatever it's called). Someone else tried to make something like this happen with 11GHz a few years ago. You get a part 101 license for a 11GHz path, but you can use short-range PtMP on the same channel from the same tx site. I think this was hard/impractical to do at the time, but it might be possible/easier with the magical SAS running things in the background. -Kristian On 06/07/2017 02:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system > planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS > would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >> >> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >> >> ~Seth >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Is it possible that it can be used for only PTMP / PTP and NOT consumer use (i.e., wireless routers)? Thats my major complaint right now. My hilltop APs see hundreds of comcast/xfinity APs along with everyones netgear home router. > On Jun 7, 2017, at 14:34, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system > planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS > would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >>> >>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >> >> >> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >> >> ~Seth >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways to reach customers. Mark Radabaugh Amplex 22690 Pemberville Rd Luckey, OH 43447 419-261-5996 > On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? > > > I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band > should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: > If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have > problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
If not lightly licensed, keep it the way it is. > On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:23, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? > > CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up > licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 > in that? > > I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like Part > 15, you don’t like NN. > > What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the > spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only for > you is a non-starter. > > WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want > unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for > tiny slices. > > Mark > > >> On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >> On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of >>> part-15 would be a cluster f*ck. >> >> >> Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated. >> >> ~Seth >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 6/7/17 11:23, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? > > > > CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up > licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 > in that? > > > > I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like > Part 15, you don’t like NN. > > > > What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the > spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only > for you is a non-starter. > > > > WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want > unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for > tiny slices. > > > > > Keep the 6GHz part 101 licensed as is. No changes. There are a lot of > 6GHz links where I am, it's hardly legacy or unused. Other WISPs have > already said they use 6GHz. I mentioned that I recently spoke with a > WISP about a long link that would be a good fit for a new 6GHz (if there > are available channels of course). > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- David Jones NGL Connection 307-288-5491 ext 702 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/7/17 11:23, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? > > CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up > licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 > in that? > > I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like Part > 15, you don’t like NN. > > What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the > spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only for > you is a non-starter. > > WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want > unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for > tiny slices. Keep the 6GHz part 101 licensed as is. No changes. There are a lot of 6GHz links where I am, it's hardly legacy or unused. Other WISPs have already said they use 6GHz. I mentioned that I recently spoke with a WISP about a long link that would be a good fit for a new 6GHz (if there are available channels of course). ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 in that? I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like Part 15, you don’t like NN. What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only for you is a non-starter. WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for tiny slices. Mark > On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: >> Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of >> part-15 would be a cluster f*ck. > > > Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
I'd like to see a lite-licensed version but must be better than what happened on 3.x gHz. We can not have proliferation of generic consumer equipment here like others have said. I see too many Xifinity and other ISP provided devices all over polluting the place. my $0.02. Leon On 6/5/2017 12:29 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: There are $100 6 GHz radios now. I see them getting into the US space regardless. https://routerboard.com/RBSXTG-6HPnD - 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: *"Seth Mattinen" *To: *wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Monday, June 5, 2017 11:24:39 AM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: > Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of > part-15 would be a cluster f*ck. Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
There are $100 6 GHz radios now. I see them getting into the US space regardless. https://routerboard.com/RBSXTG-6HPnD - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Seth Mattinen" To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 11:24:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: > Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of > part-15 would be a cluster f*ck. Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/5/17 09:13, Chuck Hogg wrote: > I think so long as we protect existing uses of 6GHz, I'd be open to more > unlicensed spectrum. Future use of 6GHz as it's currently used should also be protected. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: > Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of > part-15 would be a cluster f*ck. Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Hi Mark: I just wanted to give my input. I think in general, access to more spectrum is a good thing. It's my understanding that the existing users of 6GHz would be unaffected and protected. Given that, there are huge swaths of spectrum not in use in rural America. Matt Larsen and I discussed at length over the years on ways to use spectrum that isn't being used today because of the rules surrounding it or exclusivity because of ownership...not because it's being used in given areas. I know that there is not that much use of 6GHz in my area. There are plenty of PtP links, but in general, there is nothing in PtMP and given that in some areas you can barely get a cell signal, let alone a TV signal, why can't we be able to use it. I think so long as we protect existing uses of 6GHz, I'd be open to more unlicensed spectrum. Regards, Chuck On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore > unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The idea is to > increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII > rules, along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., > sensing, database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users > (other than PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is > potentially considerably simpler to implement. > > The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high > power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of > geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in > exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms > over time. > > I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > Mark > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > 419-261-5996 <(419)%20261-5996> > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of part-15 would be a cluster f*ck. > On Jun 5, 2017, at 09:05, David Jones wrote: > > Wouldn't it be best to have it ruled as some form of intelligent design and > not a free for all part 15? > > We are all for more spectrum to USE However, most of us have seen useful > spectrum become completely useless by a mass of wifi that was not designed to > scale well or play nice with others. > > wouldn't it be in everyone best interest to have some system of coordination > so the use of the spectrum can scale? > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM, wrote: >> And also non-WISPS, such as Comcast/Xfinity and every tom, dick and harry >> router manafacturer. It'll end up heavily congested with crap, just like 5 >> Ghz, and become useless. >> >> We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did that. >> >> -Mike >> >> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:17, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> > >> >> On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> >> >> >> Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to >> >> be protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is >> >> how new PTP links would be established. >> >> >> >> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more >> >> unlicensed spectrum. It has to come from somewhere, >> > >> > >> > What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use >> > 6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz >> > PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox. >> > >> > That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not >> > support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or >> > in the future. >> > >> > ~Seth >> > ___ >> > Wireless mailing list >> > Wireless@wispa.org >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > -- > David Jones > NGL Connection > 307-288-5491 ext 702 > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Wouldn't it be best to have it ruled as some form of intelligent design and not a free for all part 15? We are all for more spectrum to *USE *However, most of us have seen useful spectrum become completely useless by a mass of wifi that was not designed to scale well or play nice with others. wouldn't it be in everyone best interest to have some system of coordination so the use of the spectrum can scale? On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM, wrote: > And also non-WISPS, such as Comcast/Xfinity and every tom, dick and harry > router manafacturer. It'll end up heavily congested with crap, just like 5 > Ghz, and become useless. > > We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did that. > > -Mike > > > On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:17, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > > >> On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > >> > >> Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to > be protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how > new PTP links would be established. > >> > >> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more > unlicensed spectrum. It has to come from somewhere, > > > > > > What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use > > 6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz > > PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox. > > > > That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not > > support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or > > in the future. > > > > ~Seth > > ___ > > Wireless mailing list > > Wireless@wispa.org > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- David Jones NGL Connection 307-288-5491 ext 702 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
And also non-WISPS, such as Comcast/Xfinity and every tom, dick and harry router manafacturer. It'll end up heavily congested with crap, just like 5 Ghz, and become useless. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did that. -Mike > On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:17, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> >> Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be >> protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new >> PTP links would be established. >> >> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more >> unlicensed spectrum. It has to come from somewhere, > > > What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use > 6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz > PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox. > > That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not > support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or > in the future. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> >> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of >> clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using >> it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP >> use how do you propose to serve the demands of your customers without >> obtaining additional spectrum? >> > > Smaller sites closer to your customers. How does that work with the existing spectrum when your competitors also do the same? > > >> You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe >> that is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely >> used (in our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly >> important where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at >> the numbers the band shows pretty light usage. > > > If you take away one licensed band it could set a precedent to take > more. I think this proposal is too short sighted to say that nobody uses > it or that it's legacy. It's used. I just talked with a WISP about a > potential 26 mile link and that's territory for considering 6GHz. > > I ask the parties that support killing 6GHz with unlicensed use: what > replaces it? > Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new PTP links would be established. WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more unlicensed spectrum. It has to come from somewhere, Mark ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be > protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new > PTP links would be established. > > WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more > unlicensed spectrum. It has to come from somewhere, What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use 6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox. That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or in the future. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
You are assuming the competitors do the same... > On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:04, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > >> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >> On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >>> >>> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of >>> clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using >>> it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP >>> use how do you propose to serve the demands of your customers without >>> obtaining additional spectrum? >>> >> >> Smaller sites closer to your customers. > > > How does that work with the existing spectrum when your competitors also do > the same? > > >> >> >>> You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe >>> that is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely >>> used (in our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly >>> important where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at >>> the numbers the band shows pretty light usage. >> >> >> If you take away one licensed band it could set a precedent to take >> more. I think this proposal is too short sighted to say that nobody uses >> it or that it's legacy. It's used. I just talked with a WISP about a >> potential 26 mile link and that's territory for considering 6GHz. >> >> I ask the parties that support killing 6GHz with unlicensed use: what >> replaces it? >> > > > Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be > protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new > PTP links would be established. > > WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more > unlicensed spectrum. It has to come from somewhere, > > Mark > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of > clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using > it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP > use how do you propose to serve the demands of your customers without > obtaining additional spectrum? > Smaller sites closer to your customers. > You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe > that is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely > used (in our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly > important where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at > the numbers the band shows pretty light usage. If you take away one licensed band it could set a precedent to take more. I think this proposal is too short sighted to say that nobody uses it or that it's legacy. It's used. I just talked with a WISP about a potential 26 mile link and that's territory for considering 6GHz. I ask the parties that support killing 6GHz with unlicensed use: what replaces it? ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Agreed that 6Ghz is far from "legacy". We sell and install a ton of it for rural and semi-rural ISP's, broadcast industry, and other customers. 11Ghz can't do the distance for a lot of links. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM, wrote: > > > It's not that I don't want the band used by my competitors, I just want > it to remain a useful spectrum for what its best at: long range PtP > communications. Our competitors have access to the band the same way we do > and that's a good thing. > > > > We absolutely need the part 101 bands to guarantee our towers have enough > future capacity where the fiber doesn't run. And 6 Ghz is the only band > with the reach for many of our locations. There's just no replacement for > long links. *It's not "legacy" its vital.* > > > > And yes we would gladly forgo unlicensed use of the band if it meant 6 > Ghz stayed useful as PtP spectrum, for everyone. We're open to lightly > licensing or secondary use licensing options but only if the band remains > PtP oriented. > > > > > > Garrett Shankle > > Senior Field Technician > > Virginia Broadband LLC. > > (540)-829-1700 <(540)%20829-1700> > > > > > > -Original Message----- > From: "Mike Hammett" > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz > Part 101 spectrum > > There are plenty of paths around here where you can't get any 6 GHz > licenses in any meaningful capacity. > > > > - > 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: *"Mark Radabaugh" > *To: *"WISPA General List" > *Sent: *Monday, June 5, 2017 6:04:18 AM > *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in > 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum > > The proposals protect Part 101 links using a database system. > It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of > clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using it. > Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP use how do > you propose to serve the demands of your customers without obtaining > additional spectrum? > You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe that > is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely used (in > our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly important > where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at the numbers > the band shows pretty light usage. > How much of the 6Ghz spectrum are you currently using for PTP links? > Mark > > > On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:45 PM, garrettshan...@vabb.com wrote: > I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band > sharing I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs > any benefit of moving the band completely to part 15. > > > Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all > installations should require registration and professional installation. As > for higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some > updates. But not at the expense of the current links. > > > We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as > certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's > in 6ghz as well. > > > While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, > you can count us as "significantly opposed". > > > > > Garrett Shankle > Senior Field Technician > Virginia Broadband LLC. > (540)-829-1700 <(540)%20829-1700> > > > > > -Original Message- > From: mike.l...@gmail.com > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz > Part 101 spectrum > > +1000 > > > On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
It's not that I don't want the band used by my competitors, I just want it to remain a useful spectrum for what its best at: long range PtP communications. Our competitors have access to the band the same way we do and that's a good thing. We absolutely need the part 101 bands to guarantee our towers have enough future capacity where the fiber doesn't run. And 6 Ghz is the only band with the reach for many of our locations. There's just no replacement for long links. It's not "legacy" its vital. And yes we would gladly forgo unlicensed use of the band if it meant 6 Ghz stayed useful as PtP spectrum, for everyone. We're open to lightly licensing or secondary use licensing options but only if the band remains PtP oriented. Garrett Shankle Senior Field Technician Virginia Broadband LLC. (540)-829-1700 -Original Message- From: "Mike Hammett" Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum There are plenty of paths around here where you can't get any 6 GHz licenses in any meaningful capacity. -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: "Mark Radabaugh" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 6:04:18 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum The proposals protect Part 101 links using a database system. It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP use how do you propose to serve the demands of your customers without obtaining additional spectrum? You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe that is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely used (in our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly important where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at the numbers the band shows pretty light usage. How much of the 6Ghz spectrum are you currently using for PTP links? Mark On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:45 PM, [ garrettshan...@vabb.com ]( mailto:garrettshan...@vabb.com ) wrote: I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band sharing I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs any benefit of moving the band completely to part 15. Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all installations should require registration and professional installation. As for higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some updates. But not at the expense of the current links. We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's in 6ghz as well. While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, you can count us as "significantly opposed". Garrett Shankle Senior Field Technician Virginia Broadband LLC. (540)-829-1700 -Original Message-From: [ mike.l...@gmail.com ]( mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com )Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pmTo: "WISPA General List" <[ wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:wireless@wispa.org )>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum +1000> On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen <[ se...@rollernet.us ]( mailto:se...@rollernet.us )> wrote:> >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.> > > I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any > indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing > substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being > forced offline.> > ~Seth> ___> Wireless mailing list> [ Wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:Wireless@wispa.org )> [ http://l
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
There are plenty of paths around here where you can't get any 6 GHz licenses in any meaningful capacity. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Mark Radabaugh" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 6:04:18 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum The proposals protect Part 101 links using a database system. It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP use how do you propose to serve the demands of your customers without obtaining additional spectrum? You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe that is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely used (in our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly important where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at the numbers the band shows pretty light usage. How much of the 6Ghz spectrum are you currently using for PTP links? Mark On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:45 PM, garrettshan...@vabb.com wrote: I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band sharing I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs any benefit of moving the band completely to part 15. Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all installations should require registration and professional installation. As for higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some updates. But not at the expense of the current links. We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's in 6ghz as well. While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, you can count us as "significantly opposed". Garrett Shankle Senior Field Technician Virginia Broadband LLC. (540)-829-1700 -Original Message- From: mike.l...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum +1000 > On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: > >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > > I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any > indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing > substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being > forced offline. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Agreed. +1 David On 06/04/2017 07:35 PM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: > +1000 > >> On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >>> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >>> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. >> >> I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any >> indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing >> substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being >> forced offline. >> >> ~Seth >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Regards, David Funderburk GlobalVision 864-569-0703 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
The proposals protect Part 101 links using a database system. It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP use how do you propose to serve the demands of your customers without obtaining additional spectrum? You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe that is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely used (in our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly important where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at the numbers the band shows pretty light usage. How much of the 6Ghz spectrum are you currently using for PTP links? Mark > On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:45 PM, garrettshan...@vabb.com wrote: > > I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band sharing > I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs any > benefit of moving the band completely to part 15. > > Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all > installations should require registration and professional installation. As > for higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some > updates. But not at the expense of the current links. > > We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as > certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's in > 6ghz as well. > > While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, you > can count us as "significantly opposed". > > > Garrett Shankle > Senior Field Technician > Virginia Broadband LLC. > (540)-829-1700 > > > > -Original Message- > From: mike.l...@gmail.com > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part > 101 spectrum > > +1000 > > > On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > > >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > >> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > >> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > >> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > > > > > I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any > > indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing > > substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being > > forced offline. > > > > ~Seth > > ___ > > Wireless mailing list > > Wireless@wispa.org > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
+1000 Us too On 6/4/2017 7:45 PM, garrettshan...@vabb.com wrote: I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band sharing I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs any benefit of moving the band completely to part 15. Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all installations should require registration and professional installation. As for higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some updates. But not at the expense of the current links. We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's in 6ghz as well. While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, you can count us as "significantly opposed". Garrett Shankle Senior Field Technician Virginia Broadband LLC. (540)-829-1700 -Original Message- From: mike.l...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum +1000 > On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > > I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any > indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing > substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being > forced offline. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band sharing I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs any benefit of moving the band completely to part 15. Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all installations should require registration and professional installation. As for higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some updates. But not at the expense of the current links. We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's in 6ghz as well. While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition, you can count us as "significantly opposed". Garrett Shankle Senior Field Technician Virginia Broadband LLC. (540)-829-1700 -Original Message- From: mike.l...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum +1000 > On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > > I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any > indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing > substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being > forced offline. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
+1000 > On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > > I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any > indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing > substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being > forced offline. > > ~Seth > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being forced offline. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
On 6/4/17 2:00 PM, Keefe John wrote: > Count me in. The channel sizes available in 6 GHz don't allow enough > bandwidth for current applications. I hardly see 6 GHz PCNs anymore. 60MHz channels are still serviceable. ~Seth ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Count me in. The channel sizes available in 6 GHz don't allow enough bandwidth for current applications. I hardly see 6 GHz PCNs anymore. Keefe On June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM CDT, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to >explore unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The >idea is to increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to >bring in UNII rules, along with additional mitigations currently under >study (e.g., sensing, database) to protect incumbents. As there are no >federal users (other than PTP) this would not require the ESC system of >CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler to implement. > >The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high >power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of >geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links >in exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing >mechanisms over time. > >I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >membership and for those who use them if there would be significant >opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > >Mark > >Mark Radabaugh >WISPA FCC Committee Chair >419-261-5996 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
You have my vote of yes, proceed with cautious optimism Hopefully others will chime in with their thoughts as well. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Mark Radabaugh" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 10:52:18 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part > 101 spectrum > Faisel, > Thanks for the input. An industry group (who wishes to remain anonymous at > this > point) approached WISPA to see if we would be an opponent of this proposal > since we are essentially the incumbents in the 6Ghz Part 101 space, or a > supporter. > My thought is that we have far more to gain from supporting the (admittedly > incomplete) proposal by obtaining far more PTMP spectrum than we lose. I would > like to respond on behalf of WISPA with enthusiastic support for the idea but > I > want to get a feel from the membership before endorsing the concept. > Mark >> On Jun 3, 2017, at 5:19 AM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote: >> This can be rather interesting >> My personal opinion is that the current part 101 is very 'wasteful' of >> spectrum, >> due to how the links are coordinated, while it is completely understandable >> that the part 101 rules favor the license holder in protecting their links. >> I would be very much interested in knowing the exact functioning on the >> mechanism to protect the current PTP license holder. The ability to use the >> rest of un-used spectrum for PTMP at such sites would be very much welcomed >> relief for severely disadvantaged areas such as South Florida, (no 3.65 due >> to >> earth stations, no extended 5x due to coastal radar etc etc).. >> Regards. >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> 7266 SW 48 Street >> Miami, FL 33155 >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net >>> From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net > >>> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > >>> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 6:01:57 PM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz >>> Part >>> 101 spectrum >>> There is 1325 Mhz of spectrum potentially available between 5925 to 7250Mhz. >>> Existing 6GHz PTP links would need to be protected, as well as satellite >>> links, >>> and some federal users. >>> Mark >>>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > >>>> wrote: >>>> I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this. >>>> - >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> Midwest Internet Exchange >>>> The Brothers WISP >>>> From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net > >>>> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > >>>> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM >>>> Subject: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part >>>> 101 >>>> spectrum >>>> WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore >>>> unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum. The idea is to >>>> increase >>>> the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, along >>>> with >>>> additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, database) to >>>> protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than PTP) this >>>> would >>>> not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler >>>> to >>>> implement. >>>> The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high >>>> power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of >>>> geographic >>>> exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in exchange for >>>> greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over time. >>>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >>>> membership >>>> and for those who use them if there would be significant opposition to >>>> using >>>> the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. >>>> Mark >>>> Mark Radabaugh >>>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair &
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Faisel, Thanks for the input. An industry group (who wishes to remain anonymous at this point) approached WISPA to see if we would be an opponent of this proposal since we are essentially the incumbents in the 6Ghz Part 101 space, or a supporter. My thought is that we have far more to gain from supporting the (admittedly incomplete) proposal by obtaining far more PTMP spectrum than we lose. I would like to respond on behalf of WISPA with enthusiastic support for the idea but I want to get a feel from the membership before endorsing the concept. Mark > On Jun 3, 2017, at 5:19 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > > This can be rather interesting > > My personal opinion is that the current part 101 is very 'wasteful' of > spectrum, due to how the links are coordinated, while it is completely > understandable that the part 101 rules favor the license holder in protecting > their links. > > I would be very much interested in knowing the exact functioning on the > mechanism to protect the current PTP license holder. The ability to use the > rest of un-used spectrum for PTMP at such sites would be very much welcomed > relief for severely disadvantaged areas such as South Florida, (no 3.65 due > to earth stations, no extended 5x due to coastal radar etc etc).. > > Regards. > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet & Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, FL 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > > From: "Mark Radabaugh" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 6:01:57 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part > 101 spectrum > There is 1325 Mhz of spectrum potentially available between 5925 to 7250Mhz. > Existing 6GHz PTP links would need to be protected, as well as satellite > links, and some federal users. > > Mark > > On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett <mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>> wrote: > I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this. > > > > - > 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: "Mark Radabaugh" mailto:m...@amplex.net>> > To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>> > Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part >101 spectrum > > > WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore > unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The idea is to > increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, > along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, > database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than > PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially > considerably simpler to implement. > > The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high > power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of > geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in > exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over > time. > > I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > Mark > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > 419-261-5996 > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
This can be rather interesting My personal opinion is that the current part 101 is very 'wasteful' of spectrum, due to how the links are coordinated, while it is completely understandable that the part 101 rules favor the license holder in protecting their links. I would be very much interested in knowing the exact functioning on the mechanism to protect the current PTP license holder. The ability to use the rest of un-used spectrum for PTMP at such sites would be very much welcomed relief for severely disadvantaged areas such as South Florida, (no 3.65 due to earth stations, no extended 5x due to coastal radar etc etc).. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net > From: "Mark Radabaugh" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 6:01:57 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part > 101 spectrum > There is 1325 Mhz of spectrum potentially available between 5925 to 7250Mhz. > Existing 6GHz PTP links would need to be protected, as well as satellite > links, > and some federal users. > Mark >> On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > wrote: >> I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this. >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> Midwest Internet Exchange >> The Brothers WISP >> From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net > >> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > >> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM >> Subject: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 >> spectrum >> WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore >> unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum. The idea is to increase >> the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, along >> with >> additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, database) to >> protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than PTP) this would >> not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler to >> implement. >> The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high >> power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of geographic >> exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in exchange for >> greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over time. >> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the >> membership >> and for those who use them if there would be significant opposition to using >> the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. >> Mark >> Mark Radabaugh >> WISPA FCC Committee Chair >> 419-261-5996 >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
There is 1325 Mhz of spectrum potentially available between 5925 to 7250Mhz. Existing 6GHz PTP links would need to be protected, as well as satellite links, and some federal users. Mark > On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this. > > > > - > 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: "Mark Radabaugh" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part >101 spectrum > > WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore > unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The idea is to > increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, > along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, > database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than > PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially > considerably simpler to implement. > > The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high > power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of > geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in > exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over > time. > > I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > Mark > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > 419-261-5996 > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
If the sensing database works then I’d be ok with it. We have five 6Ghz paths, 40 miles between islands, so it is important to us that those paths are protected. But we also need more unlicensed spectrum. Mike Meluskey Broadband VI > On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore > unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The idea is to > increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, > along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, > database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than > PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially > considerably simpler to implement. > > The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high > power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of > geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in > exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over > time. > > I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > Mark > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > 419-261-5996 > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
6 Ghz PTP is HEAVILY used out here in the SF Bay Area. If I have to see see more Comcast/Xfinity crap show up in newly unlicensed 6 Ghz, I think I would shit myself. -Mike On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore > unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The idea is to > increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII > rules, along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., > sensing, database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users > (other than PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is > potentially considerably simpler to implement. > > The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high > power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of > geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in > exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms > over time. > > I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > Mark > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > 419-261-5996 <(419)%20261-5996> > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > -- Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Mark Radabaugh" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum. The idea is to increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler to implement. The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over time. I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the membership and for those who use them if there would be significant opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. Mark Mark Radabaugh WISPA FCC Committee Chair 419-261-5996 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
I would rather have more unlicensed spectrum. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jun 2, 2017 5:13 PM, "Mark Radabaugh" wrote: > WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore > unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The idea is to > increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII > rules, along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., > sensing, database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users > (other than PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is > potentially considerably simpler to implement. > > The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high > power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of > geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in > exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms > over time. > > I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the > membership and for those who use them if there would be significant > opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. > > Mark > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > 419-261-5996 <(419)%20261-5996> > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum.The idea is to increase the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, along with additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, database) to protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than PTP) this would not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler to implement. The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of geographic exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in exchange for greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over time. I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the membership and for those who use them if there would be significant opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint. Mark Mark Radabaugh WISPA FCC Committee Chair 419-261-5996 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless