I am far from a lawyer (I don’t even play one on TV 😊 ) however, I can’t imagine this would go very far. By definition, the unlicensed band does not require coordination or avoidance of anyone else’s use of band as I far as I know. What is considered to be neighborly isn’t required by any means. While there may be an inkling of an argument about contract interference, I would find that analogous to a business claiming that someone else’s use of the interstate highway in a legal manner interferes with their ability to deliver goods on time. As far as I know there certainly isn’t a legal precedent for that kind of claim.
However, if the interfering party is outside of FCC limits for EIRP or something like that, the validity of the contract interference claim may change….. Regards, David Coudron From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:01 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet Hmm...If I made a contract saying I'd deliver 'X' performance to a business, and I used a part-15 unlicensed radio, and someone came along and their radio reduced my SNR; then yeah I suppose the radio interfering party is also "interfering" with my contract. I could also switch that client to another band (2.4ghz, 24ghz, etc) to meet the obligations in my contract. If all else failed I could meet my obligations by buying them cable or fiber. It would suck, and I'd lose money on the deal, but I could do it. The terms of my contract can't alter FCC rules for radios. Just as an example, a contract between Adam Moffett and Verizon couldn't compel Mike Hammett to alter his otherwise perfectly legal behavior. Now suppose forcing Mike Hammett to alter his behavior would give Verizon a competitive advantage in gaining and retaining me as a customer. I think I see what you're saying w/ regards to what they are saying about contract interference. I should hope no court sees it their way. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: 3/2/2018 1:47:51 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference case. The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png] <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ________________________________ From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM Subject: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just fishing. I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s office tomorrow. Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO 4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040 602-426-0542 r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net> www.triadwireless.net<http://www.triadwireless.net/> “Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”
