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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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