Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Mark Radabaugh]

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  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" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> 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

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Mike Meluskey]

If the sensing database works then I’d be ok with it.
We have five 6Ghz paths, 40 miles between islands, so it is important to us 
that those paths are protected.
But we also need more unlicensed spectrum.

Mike Meluskey
Broadband VI

> On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
> 
> 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

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Mike Lyon]

6 Ghz PTP is HEAVILY used out here in the SF Bay Area. If I have to see see
more Comcast/Xfinity crap show up in newly unlicensed 6 Ghz, I think I
would shit myself.

-Mike


On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> 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 <(419)%20261-5996>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>


-- 
Mike Lyon
mike.l...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Mike Hammett]

I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Radabaugh"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
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

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Josh Luthman]

I would rather have more unlicensed spectrum.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Jun 2, 2017 5:13 PM, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:

> 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 <(419)%20261-5996>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Mark Radabaugh]

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