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 <m...@amplex.net> 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
