Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Mark Radabaugh]

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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Mitch]

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

[Faisal Imtiaz]

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

[Keefe John]

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

[Blair Davis]

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

[Kristian Hoffmann]

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

[mike . lyon]

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

[Mark Radabaugh]

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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[mike . lyon]

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

[David Jones]

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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Mark Radabaugh]

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

[Leon Zetekoff]

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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 


*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

[Mike Hammett]

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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Chuck Hogg]

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

[mike . lyon]

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

[David Jones]

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

[mike . lyon]

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

[Mark Radabaugh]

> 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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[mike . lyon]

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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Caleb Knauer]

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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *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, 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 

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[garrettshankle]

 
 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://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ]( 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Mike Hammett]

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

[David Funderburk]

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

[Mark Radabaugh]

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

[Mitch]

+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

[garrettshankle]

  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

[mike . lyon]

+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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Seth Mattinen]

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

[Keefe John]

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

[Faisal Imtiaz]

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
 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

> ___
> 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

[Mark Radabaugh]

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  > 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" >
> 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
> ___
> 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

[Faisal Imtiaz]

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

[Mark Radabaugh]

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 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>   
>  
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
>   
> 
> 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

[Mike Meluskey]

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

[Mike Lyon]

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

[Josh Luthman]

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