Canadian AFC system options for 6GHz

ISED released some new information regarding use of 6GHz.

I put this topic in CBRS which sort of applies, and sort of doesn’t.

I assume the Canadian market would be using a system that matches closely to existing CBRS? Including using existing operators?

Is Cambium doing something similar for the 6GHz deployment in the USA?

1 Like

Most certainly! However the 6GHz SAS being developed is far more simple than FCC’s 3GHz CBRS SAS. The main hold up has been the FCC finalizing the AFC rules. It keeps getting pushed back. Best guess is Q1 2023 now? That being said there are multiple operators beta testing ePMP 4600 now (including myself). I know that there’s a 6GHz roadmap for PMP450m(v), but I don’t have any updates on the timeline for those radios.

1 Like

Looking forward to seeing some equipment using this database. I think it really has the ability to improve rural broadband by dynamically modifying power levels as the database gets more built out.

Just briefly reading over the DBS-06 doc provided, it seems similar to what the FCC is working towards. You may be a bit disappointed to know that EIRP is limited to a max of 36dBm (low of 21dBm) for both AP and clients and this is contingent upon adjacent incumbent licensed users and NOT other users using the AFC database (from what I understand). This basically drastically reduces the uplink EIRP from FCC american rules that classify AP’s under PtMP EIRP rules (36dBm), and the client under PtP EIRP rules (like 51dBm IIRC?). So on the plus side… you’ll (at least initially) have nice clean 6GHz spectrum to choose from, but on the bad side, you’ll have lower total link budget then with traditional 5.8GHz devices.

WARNING! I’m not an EIRP expert, please do your own research. I’m sure someone will follow up with a “Well, technically speaking…” addendum to what I’ve said.

You are correct. I am hoping we can get authorizations for remote areas for a higher eirp, it should be pretty trivial with the system. Some of these areas would literally have nobody else using the spectrum for 100+km.

US rules for 6 GHz do not permit clients to go higher than 36 dBm. Clients and Fixed Client Devices (which use the AFC) are both limited to 36 dBm EIRP, and the AFC is not currently allowed to take antenna directionality into account. We at WISPA have asked for those changes, which the FCC resisted in the initial order, but it will require a further round of rulemaking after the band is up and running, which looks now to be maybe next summer (due to all of the AFC testing, lab and field, the FCC requires).

Canada’s rules mirror the US rules rather closely.

Thanks for the commentary Fred. We at Cambium are also lobbying and working with WInnForum and the FCC to get the rules updated to properly account for antenna directionality at a minimum, and perhaps even allowing higher EIRP for client devices (though I believe that one is a tougher sell).

Can Cambium clarify the requirements of GPS on the 6ghz clients. In the CDN docs it appears to require GPS at both the AP and SM.
If that is the case, will 6ghz SMs have built in GPS or what is the plan.

I can’t speak to the 450 SM GPS support, but I know that on the ePMP 4625 SM’s have a USB port where a GPS sync radio and puck can be added. Optional external USB GPS antenna -
GPS Puck Antenna: Part # N000940L001A

I would imagine that Cambium will do something similar for the 450 6GHz SM.

First test of 4600 AP and 4625 SM.
160mhz channel. Not optimized


Awesome! Glad to see some people finally posting results for 6GHz! So I take it you’re in Canada? Can you share any details of the link? ALSO, what firmware are you running?

Also distance, link quality, other sm on the sector?

give me a second - I don’t want to sound rough, but this is sub-par result especially for 160MHz channel. We’ve been doing 600Mbit/s at 80Mhz channel years and years ago… Almost 900Mbit/s on 80MHz channel with Force400 (something to the tune of 840Mbit/s download + 35or40Mbit upload channel)

THIS is how 160Mhz works : Force 4600C or other 6GHz product in PTP mode ? (Force 400c equivalent) - #5 by Lubomir_Zaciatocny

It really depends on his test conditions, and PtMP results will always be lower then for instance ePTP results. That’s why I was asking him for test details.

Yes, this is a Canadian deployment (experimental License)
Quick and dirty test.
600 meters near line of sight shooting through some pines.
Also capped out the total ISP bandwidth so not a true test.
However, still very solid performance considering the conditions.
FW 5.4.1-RC4FCC
Single SM.
-66/-65 RSSI, SNR 33/31, SS 8/DS 4

Working on setting it up properly with multiple SM’s


why don’t you say A but don’t mention restrictive B in the first place ? For example when I have 400Mbit ISP bandwidth, it’s not necessary to use 160MHz channel :slight_smile: