Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
We should open up the 4.9 band. Hardly gov't agencies use it. Keefe On 6/7/2017 4:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system > planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS > would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >> >> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >> >> ~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
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
No Omni's! 65deg max antenna beam pattern? That kills all the consumer gear right there... And cell phones. And kills the Cable Co hanging PoP's. NN... with the License # REQUIRED for a distributor to sell gear... With penalty's... say 200% of the gear sold without a license? How about the gear has to be unlocked, like Mimosa, but also requires your NN license number to unlock and register... -- On 6/7/2017 5:38 PM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it possible that it can be used for only PTMP / PTP and NOT consumer use > (i.e., wireless routers)? Thats my major complaint right now. My hilltop APs > see hundreds of comcast/xfinity APs along with everyones netgear home router. > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 14:34, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> >> For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system >> planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS >> would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a >> professional installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a >> small part of the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. >> There are plenty of other users that would need to be protected as well. >> Whatever happens here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. >> >> My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are >> other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS >> type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, >> but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are >> largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the >> rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should >> be shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead >> be supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional >> ways to reach customers. >> >> Mark Radabaugh >> Amplex >> 22690 Pemberville Rd >> Luckey, OH 43447 >> 419-261-5996 >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >>> >>> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >>> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >>> >>> ~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 > -- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC ___ 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
I'm for opening it up to PtMP use coupled with the SAS system. There's the potential for getting fancy and using your own PtP license for PtMP use within your part 101 protection zone (or whatever it's called). Someone else tried to make something like this happen with 11GHz a few years ago. You get a part 101 license for a 11GHz path, but you can use short-range PtMP on the same channel from the same tx site. I think this was hard/impractical to do at the time, but it might be possible/easier with the magical SAS running things in the background. -Kristian On 06/07/2017 02:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system > planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS > would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >> >> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >> >> ~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
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
Is it possible that it can be used for only PTMP / PTP and NOT consumer use (i.e., wireless routers)? Thats my major complaint right now. My hilltop APs see hundreds of comcast/xfinity APs along with everyones netgear home router. > On Jun 7, 2017, at 14:34, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system > planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS > would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >>> >>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? >> >> >> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band >> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. >> >> ~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
Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion. The coordination from the SAS would protect existing users and links. I would expect to see a professional installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways to reach customers. Mark Radabaugh Amplex 22690 Pemberville Rd Luckey, OH 43447 419-261-5996 > On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: >> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have >> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? > > > I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band > should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. > > ~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
On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote: > If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have > problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links. ~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
If not lightly licensed, keep it the way it is. > On Jun 7, 2017, at 11:23, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? > > CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up > licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 > in that? > > I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like Part > 15, you don’t like NN. > > What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the > spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only for > you is a non-starter. > > WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want > unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for > tiny slices. > > Mark > > >> On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >> 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 ___ 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
If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care? On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 6/7/17 11:23, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? > > > > CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up > licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 > in that? > > > > I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like > Part 15, you don’t like NN. > > > > What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the > spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only > for you is a non-starter. > > > > WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want > unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for > tiny slices. > > > > > Keep the 6GHz part 101 licensed as is. No changes. There are a lot of > 6GHz links where I am, it's hardly legacy or unused. Other WISPs have > already said they use 6GHz. I mentioned that I recently spoke with a > WISP about a long link that would be a good fit for a new 6GHz (if there > are available channels of course). > > ~Seth > ___ > 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
On 6/7/17 11:23, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? > > CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up > licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 > in that? > > I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like Part > 15, you don’t like NN. > > What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the > spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only for > you is a non-starter. > > WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want > unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for > tiny slices. Keep the 6GHz part 101 licensed as is. No changes. There are a lot of 6GHz links where I am, it's hardly legacy or unused. Other WISPs have already said they use 6GHz. I mentioned that I recently spoke with a WISP about a long link that would be a good fit for a new 6GHz (if there are available channels of course). ~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
What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with? CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4 in that? I’m not sure what WISPA is supposed to do for you here. You don’t like Part 15, you don’t like NN. What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only for you is a non-starter. WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for tiny slices. Mark > On Jun 5, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > 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
