I don't think anyone WANTS to stick with Part 90, it's just that 2 months isn't enough time to transition a bunch of sites and customers. The starting line moved like 5 years and the finish line didn't move.
-----Original Message----- From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 1:20 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105 In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum. Overall you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for the SAS. In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment in that case. If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more db in the link budget. In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific license expires. RIP NN On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got > expiration dates out to like 2025. See for example WQVI696. I'm a little > unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April > regardless of whether your NN license expires. Ours was renewed in October > 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension. But I > know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their > license doesn't expire until 2024. > > That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this. A license > acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in 2015 runs > the full 10 years to 2025? That's just random. How can they not grant > extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of David Coudron > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105 > > Yes, that is our understanding. > > David Coudron > david.coud...@advantenon.com | Mobile: 612-991-7474 > > Advantenon, Inc. > i...@advantenon.com | 3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN > 55447 | www.advantenon.com | Phone: 800-704-4720 | Local: > 612-454-1545 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM > To: af@af.afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105 > > On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC. The FCC >> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using >> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire >> registration process. >> >> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band. Uh, yeah. >> > > Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020? > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
