> On Jun 5, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: > > On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: >> >> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of >> clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using >> it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP >> use how do you propose to serve the demands of your customers without >> obtaining additional spectrum? >> > > Smaller sites closer to your customers.
How does that work with the existing spectrum when your competitors also do the same? > > >> You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”. I don’t believe >> that is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely >> used (in our industry) for long range legacy PTP links. It’s certainly >> important where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at >> the numbers the band shows pretty light usage. > > > If you take away one licensed band it could set a precedent to take > more. I think this proposal is too short sighted to say that nobody uses > it or that it's legacy. It's used. I just talked with a WISP about a > potential 26 mile link and that's territory for considering 6GHz. > > I ask the parties that support killing 6GHz with unlicensed use: what > replaces it? > Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new PTP links would be established. WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate for more unlicensed spectrum. It has to come from somewhere, Mark _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
