Are you sure about that? I thought they were still operating under the old rules for 5.8ghz... everything in 5150-5250 already has to use the new rules (which MImosa does), but my understanding is that the new rules would basically limit 5.8ghz to what 5.1ghz is doing now, and on a Mimosa B5 (integrated) I can set the Tx power to 17db in 5.8ghz, but only 7db in 5.1ghz.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Rory Conaway <[email protected]> wrote: > The Mimosa B5’s already meet the current spec that the FCC proposed. > The problem is that the rules were like using a hammer to break an egg. > > > > Rory > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:28 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP > > > > My worry would be that manufacturers decide the redesign effort, higher > prices, and lower performance makes the WISP market not worthwhile and they > just walk away and don’t make long range equipment for the 5 GHz band. And > decide the money is in small cell WiFi equipment, for the guys who wanted > the rules change. > > > > The other possible outcome is manufacturers sell equipment authorized for > low gain antennas but that can be operated illegally with high gain > antennas, leaving WISPs with the choice of going out of business or > operating illegally. Kind of a Walter White choice. > > > > It’s good to hear the manufacturers are developing a proposal that will > hopefully appease the FCC and FAA, I assume they are proposing something > they believe they can actually design, manufacture and sell to the WISP > market. > > > > > > > > *From:* John Woodfield <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:53 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP > > > > But will they enforce it with all the amateurs running around throwing up > UBNT stuff everywhere? Its gotten really bad around here. Nobody even > bothers to do spectrum analysis. Heck the county government starting > throwing up rocket dishes at full power blasting 40mhz channels all over > the place... > > > > > > > > John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi http://www.delmarvawifi.com cell (410) > 708-1937 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:49am > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP > > > > Oh you missed that? Out of band emissions limits will be based on EIRP > instead of Tx power. So a linksys router with a 3db antenna probably > doesn't have to change anything, but anything with big > panels/dishes/sectors has to reduce their OOB emissions accordingly. The > end result is staying legal in 5ghz will require expensive filters added to > the equipment, or a reduction in tx power, or a reduction in antenna gain, > or a combination of the three. > > I think that's about the size of it. > > Ok What did I miss. New 5ghz rules??? > > > > > > > > John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi http://www.delmarvawifi.com cell (410) > 708-1937 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:28am > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP > > So did all you folks stop worrying about the 5 GHz rules? They are already > a done deal, the end of new equipment authorization is coming soon, to be > followed by end of sale. > > Seems like this is as big an issue if not bigger than having to pay into > USF > which, let's face it, we just turn around and add as a below-the-line > charge > on customer bills. Customers have already proved they don't pay attention > to below-the-line charges, plus all the competition would be doing it as > well. The main downside I see is if they increase the size of the CAF fund > and our big competition gets even more subsidies to overbuild us. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rory Conaway > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:14 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP > > You should change it to, "when required by corrupt, geriatric, ignorant, > and > moronic government politicians". There is no question why Obama is pushing > this, he is an ideological idiot with absolutely no management or economic > skills. Add to that his feelings are hurt that the rest of the country is > now seeing him for the egomaniac immature child that he is. Wheeler is now > just trying to keep his job temporarily but I guarantee is trying to find > a > way out of this that preserves his lobbying business. The second he can > get out, preserve his reputation, and probably not let his boss destroy > the > country and his future/former clients any further economically than he > already has, including the 1200 new regulations taking effect now that > will > cost at least $200B this year alone, he's gone. > > All I know is I didn't go far enough with my Tom Wheeler article. Obama > blindsided me on his need to destroy another industry and make government > bigger. > > Rory > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On Behalf > Of Bill Prince > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP > > We have always had the disclaimer in our service agreement that it would > include taxes/surcharges if/when required by the government. Doesn't make > it taste any better, but it covers the reality. > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 1/21/2015 6:23 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > On 1/21/15 18:07, Rory Conaway wrote: > >> I think we need to tell every single customer why the rates went up. > >> There is another election in 2 years. > >> > > > > > > Your rates aren't going up. The explanation to the customer is simple: > > "the total bill is higher because the government added a new tax. The > > pre-tax price of service hasn't changed. We're not making any money > > off this, if anything it adds more overhead to collect it. If you're > > unhappy with this tax then call/write your representatives in congress." > > > > ~Seth > >
