No Omni's! 65deg max antenna beam pattern?
That kills all the consumer gear right there... And cell phones. And kills the Cable Co hanging PoP's. NN... with the License # REQUIRED for a distributor to sell gear... With penalty's... say 200% of the gear sold without a license? How about the gear has to be unlocked, like Mimosa, but also requires your NN license number to unlock and register... -- On 6/7/2017 5:38 PM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it possible that it can be used for only PTMP / PTP and NOT consumer use > (i.e., wireless routers)? Thats my major complaint right now. My hilltop APs > see hundreds of comcast/xfinity APs along with everyones netgear home router. > >> On Jun 7, 2017, at 14:34, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> 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 > -- West Michigan Wireless ISP Allegan, Michigan 49010 269-686-8648 A Division of: Camp Communication Services, INC _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
