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" <wispawirel...@ics-il.net>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
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" <m...@amplex.net>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
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 
)_______________________________________________Wireless mailing list[ 
Wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto:Wireless@wispa.org 
)http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless_______________________________________________Wireless
 mailing list[ Wireless@wispa.org ]( mailto: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

Reply via email to