Context context context ... do you know who much Freq is in 4.9 you are talking about ? :)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keefe John" <keefe...@ethoplex.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:46:09 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part > 101 spectrum > We should open up the 4.9 band. Hardly gov't agencies use it. > > Keefe > > > On 6/7/2017 4:34 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 _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
