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
