I'm currently dealing with this exact scenario. Analyzing the FCC database was a waste of time for me. I simply called all other wireless operators in the area and confirmed their frequencies. That also lead to a dead end. I ended up swapping frequencies and calling it a day.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:03 AM, That One Guy via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > you are assuming that the offender is even registered, and thats a pretty > big leap of faith. Youre better off going out with a cheap ubnt in SA mode > and drive sourcing it, but what good will it do, even if its an > unregistered base station, you have no fcc recourse. > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Adam Moffett via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > >> So registering everyone's locations sounds great in theory because in >> theory you could then determine who's interfering with you and get a hold >> of them. >> >> My 320 AP sees a -79 on the exact channel I've been using for a few >> years. Not sure exactly when it showed up. If it was a base station >> antenna pointed at my base station antenna, then it could be up to 40km >> away. So I do a geo search in ULS for NN licenses with a location within >> 40km. It shows me 5 license holders who each have many locations.....it >> doesn't actually tell me which locations triggered the search hit. >> >> So I'm thinking I could spend hours putting every location in Google >> Earth to see where they land.....and I could pre-filter locations where the >> lat/long looks way too far off. That's still going to take hours, and if >> they didn't register their location anyway then it might end up being a >> waste of time. >> >> Is there a way to see which *locations *matched the 40km search RADIUS >> rather than seeing only the license holder and having to look through a >> zillion locations for each one? If so, I'm not seeing it....please tell me >> I'm missing it. >> > > > > -- > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >
