Re: [WISPA] Maxxwave x86 router ethernet port problem

[David Jones]

We had the exact same problem. MT really doesn't keep up on the x86 stuff.
What we did to patch it was set both sides to 1g full and turn off auto
negotiate. Seemed to get us by.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> I have not seen this issue on any of our i7 x86 routers...
>
> A few questions:-
>
> What is connected to these Ethernet ports ?  any surge protectors in the
> middle ?
> Disabling them and enabling them have any effect ?
> Doing a physical disconnect or reconnect have any affect ?
>
>
> When did the problem start ?
>
> This sounds like a hardware problem more than anything else (i.e. not a
> software issue).
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <(305)%20663-5518>
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chris Fabien" 
> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, June 1, 2017 4:28:53 PM
> *Subject: *[WISPA] Maxxwave x86 router ethernet port problem
>
> We have a maxxwave i7 x86 router from Baltic Networks. What I'm seeing is
> a problem where the ethernet ports stop working one at a time. The remote
> side will still show a 1G link but the router either shows 10Meg or No Link
> and no traffic will pass.
> This happens to the ports one at a time maybe once a week or so, until
> several are not working. Then I have to power cycle the router to get them
> all back working again.
>
> Running 6.32.3
>
> Is this just faulty hardware that I need to replace, or any other
> suggestions?
>
> Thanks
> Chris Fabien
> LakeNet LLC
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 
David Jones
NGL Connection
307-288-5491 ext 702
___
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]

There are $100 6 GHz radios now. I see them getting into the US space 
regardless. 

https://routerboard.com/RBSXTG-6HPnD 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Seth Mattinen"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 11:24:39 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 
101 spectrum 

On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: 
> Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of 
> part-15 would be a cluster f*ck. 


Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated. 

~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

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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/5/17 09:13, Chuck Hogg wrote:
> I think so long as we protect existing uses of 6GHz, I'd be open to more 
> unlicensed spectrum.


Future use of 6GHz as it's currently used should also be protected.

~Seth
___
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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of 
> part-15 would be a cluster f*ck.


Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated.

~Seth
___
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

[Chuck Hogg]

Hi Mark:

I just wanted to give my input.  I think in general, access to more
spectrum is a good thing.  It's my understanding that the existing users of
6GHz would be unaffected and protected.

Given that, there are huge swaths of spectrum not in use in rural America.
Matt Larsen and I discussed at length over the years on ways to use
spectrum that isn't being used today because of the rules surrounding it or
exclusivity because of ownership...not because it's being used in given
areas.

I know that there is not that much use of 6GHz in my area.  There are
plenty of PtP links, but in general, there is nothing in PtMP and given
that in some areas you can barely get a cell signal, let alone a TV signal,
why can't we be able to use it.

I think so long as we protect existing uses of 6GHz, I'd be open to more
unlicensed spectrum.

Regards,
Chuck

On Fri, 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 <(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

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

[mike . lyon]

Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of part-15 
would be a cluster f*ck.

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 09:05, David Jones  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't it be best to have it ruled as some form of intelligent design and 
> not a free for all part 15?
> 
> We are all for more spectrum to USE However, most of us have seen useful 
> spectrum become completely useless by a mass of wifi that was not designed to 
> scale well or play nice with others.
> 
> wouldn't it be in everyone best interest to have some system of coordination 
> so the use of the spectrum can scale?
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM,  wrote:
>> And also non-WISPS, such as Comcast/Xfinity and every tom, dick and harry 
>> router manafacturer. It'll end up heavily congested with crap, just like 5 
>> Ghz, and become useless.
>> 
>> We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did that.
>> 
>> -Mike
>> 
>> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:17, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Read it again.   PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to 
>> >> be protected.   Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is 
>> >> how new PTP links would be established.
>> >>
>> >> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more 
>> >> unlicensed spectrum.   It has to come from somewhere,
>> >
>> >
>> > What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use
>> > 6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz
>> > PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox.
>> >
>> > That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not
>> > support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or
>> > in the future.
>> >
>> > ~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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Jones
> NGL Connection
> 307-288-5491 ext 702
> ___
> 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

[David Jones]

Wouldn't it be best to have it ruled as some form of intelligent design and
not a free for all part 15?

We are all for more spectrum to *USE *However, most of us have seen useful
spectrum become completely useless by a mass of wifi that was not designed
to scale well or play nice with others.

wouldn't it be in everyone best interest to have some system of
coordination so the use of the spectrum can scale?

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:28 AM,  wrote:

> And also non-WISPS, such as Comcast/Xfinity and every tom, dick and harry
> router manafacturer. It'll end up heavily congested with crap, just like 5
> Ghz, and become useless.
>
> We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did that.
>
> -Mike
>
> > On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:17, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> >>
> >> Read it again.   PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to
> be protected.   Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how
> new PTP links would be established.
> >>
> >> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more
> unlicensed spectrum.   It has to come from somewhere,
> >
> >
> > What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use
> > 6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz
> > PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox.
> >
> > That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not
> > support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or
> > in the future.
> >
> > ~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
>



-- 
David Jones
NGL Connection
307-288-5491 ext 702
___
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]

And also non-WISPS, such as Comcast/Xfinity and every tom, dick and harry 
router manafacturer. It'll end up heavily congested with crap, just like 5 Ghz, 
and become useless.

We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did that.

-Mike

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:17, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
>> On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> 
>> Read it again.   PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be 
>> protected.   Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new 
>> PTP links would be established.
>> 
>> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more 
>> unlicensed spectrum.   It has to come from somewhere,
> 
> 
> What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use 
> 6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz 
> PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox.
> 
> That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not 
> support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or 
> in the future.
> 
> ~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

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

[Mark Radabaugh]

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
> On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> Smaller sites closer to your customers.


How does that work with the existing spectrum when your competitors also do the 
same?


> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> If you take away one licensed band it could set a precedent to take 
> more. I think this proposal is too short sighted to say that nobody uses 
> it or that it's legacy. It's used. I just talked with a WISP about a 
> potential 26 mile link and that's territory for considering 6GHz.
> 
> I ask the parties that support killing 6GHz with unlicensed use: what 
> replaces it?
> 


Read it again.   PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be 
protected.   Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new 
PTP links would be established.

WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more unlicensed 
spectrum.   It has to come from somewhere,

Mark



___
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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> 
> Read it again.   PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be 
> protected.   Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new 
> PTP links would be established.
> 
> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more 
> unlicensed spectrum.   It has to come from somewhere,


What's going to happen here is you will have two groups: WISPs that use 
6GHz PTP that appreciate part 101, and WISPs that don't care about 6GHz 
PTP and just want more unlicensed sandbox.

That's fine that it has to come from somewhere, but WISPA should not 
support taking it from places where harm will be made to WISPs, now or 
in the future.

~Seth
___
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]

You are assuming the competitors do the same... 

> On Jun 5, 2017, at 08:04, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>> 
>> On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>> 
>> Smaller sites closer to your customers.
> 
> 
> How does that work with the existing spectrum when your competitors also do 
> the same?
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> If you take away one licensed band it could set a precedent to take 
>> more. I think this proposal is too short sighted to say that nobody uses 
>> it or that it's legacy. It's used. I just talked with a WISP about a 
>> potential 26 mile link and that's territory for considering 6GHz.
>> 
>> I ask the parties that support killing 6GHz with unlicensed use: what 
>> replaces it?
>> 
> 
> 
> Read it again.   PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be 
> protected.   Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new 
> PTP links would be established.
> 
> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more 
> unlicensed spectrum.   It has to come from somewhere,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

Smaller sites closer to your customers.


> 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.


If you take away one licensed band it could set a precedent to take 
more. I think this proposal is too short sighted to say that nobody uses 
it or that it's legacy. It's used. I just talked with a WISP about a 
potential 26 mile link and that's territory for considering 6GHz.

I ask the parties that support killing 6GHz with unlicensed use: what 
replaces it?

~Seth
___
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

[Caleb Knauer]

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,  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" 
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mark Radabaugh" 
> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
> *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" 
> 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  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 

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

[garrettshankle]

 
 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" 
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am
To: "WISPA General List" 
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" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
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 

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

[Mike Hammett]

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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

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



-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

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

[David Funderburk]

Agreed. +1

David


On 06/04/2017 07:35 PM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> +1000
>
>> On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen  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

-- 
Regards,

David Funderburk
GlobalVision
864-569-0703

___
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

[Mark Radabaugh]

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
>  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: mike.l...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> 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  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