+1000
Us too
On 6/4/2017 7:45 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 Pt
For those of you that are doing (and terminating your own) fiber, where are you
buying your bulk (1000ft+) single mode fiber from?
Thanks,
Mike
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
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
+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
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 unlicen
On 6/4/17 2:00 PM, Keefe John wrote:
> Count me in. The channel sizes available in 6 GHz don't allow enough
> bandwidth for current applications. I hardly see 6 GHz PCNs anymore.
60MHz channels are still serviceable.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Count me in. The channel sizes available in 6 GHz don't allow enough bandwidth
for current applications. I hardly see 6 GHz PCNs anymore.
Keefe
On June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM CDT, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to
>explore unlicensed use in th