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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Maxxwave x86 router ethernet port problem

We had the exact same problem. MT really doesn't keep up on the x86 stuff. What we did to patch it was set both sides to 1g full and turn off auto negotiate. Seemed to get us by. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > I have not seen this issue on any

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

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

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"