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" <firstname.lastname@example.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" < email@example.com > >> 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