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, <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> > *To: *"WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > *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, [email protected] 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: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
