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. You get a part 101 license for a 11GHz path, but you can use short-range PtMP on the same channel from the same tx site. I think this was hard/impractical to do at the time, but it might be possible/easier with the magical SAS running things in the background.
-Kristian On 06/07/2017 02:34 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 users and links. I would expect to see a professional > installer requirement similar to CBRS rules. Part 101 is a small part of > the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200. There are plenty > of other users that would need to be protected as well. Whatever happens > here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum. > > My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space. There are > other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS > type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, > but they all have some form of incumbent. The TV Whitespace rules are > largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the > rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP. I don't believe we should be > shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be > supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways > to reach customers. > > Mark Radabaugh > Amplex > 22690 Pemberville Rd > Luckey, OH 43447 > 419-261-5996 > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: >> >>> 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 have for licensed links. >> >> ~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
