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, <garrettshan...@vabb.com> 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" <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 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" <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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Reply via email to