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 <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: > 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 supposed to do for you here. You don’t like > Part 15, you don’t like NN. > > > > What exactly is it you want that is obtainable given the value of the > spectrum? Handing it over for exclusive use of fixed wireless, and only > for you is a non-starter. > > > > WISPA is trying to help you but it’s pretty hard when you don’t want > unlicensed, lightly licensed, and licensed spectrum sells for billions for > tiny slices. > > > > > Keep the 6GHz part 101 licensed as is. No changes. There are a lot of > 6GHz links where I am, it's hardly legacy or unused. Other WISPs have > already said they use 6GHz. I mentioned that I recently spoke with a > WISP about a long link that would be a good fit for a new 6GHz (if there > are available channels of course). > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > -- David Jones NGL Connection 307-288-5491 ext 702
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
