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
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
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 user
sage -
> 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 i
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
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 g
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.
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 6Gh
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
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 ha
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 c
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?
> >
> >
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 su
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
*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. B
: 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-
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
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@wis
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 a
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
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.
wou
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
> 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 sp
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
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
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 th
enior 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: [W
ginal 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 i
t;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 clea
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
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
ior 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
-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
+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
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 unlicen
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
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 th
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 indu
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
&g
: "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
x>
> 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
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
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
17 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 lim
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 curre
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,
46 matches
Mail list logo
