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

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

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

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 - >

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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] 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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

+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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

[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.,