So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi
spectrum is NOT a licensed
band and therefore does not fall under the interference regulations
unless they are interfering with
a licensed band?
I think the first sentence below says a lot to that.
The basic premise of all Part 15 unlicensed operation is that
unlicensed devices cannot cause interference to licensed operations
nor are they protected from any interference received. The
operational parameters for unlicensed operation are set forth in
Section 15.5 of the rules, as follows:
(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall
not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued
use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or
certification of equipment,
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by
the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional
or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM)
equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.
http://transition.fcc.gov/sptf/files/E&UWGFinalReport.doc
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:34:40 -0700
Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger
<rbf+na...@panix.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an
area
where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that
what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted
it
was and Mariott decided to settle rather than litigate the matter.
And
that was an extreme case -- Marriott was making transmissions for
the
*sole purpose of preventing others from using the spectrum*.
I don't see a lot of ambiguity in a plain text reading of part 15.
Could you please read part 15 and tell me what you think is
ambiguous?
Marriott was actually accused of violating 47 USC 333:
No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
interference to any radio communications of any station licensed
or
authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United
States
Government.
In cases like the Marriott case, where the sole purpose of the
transmission is to interfere with other usage of the transmission,
there's not much ambiguity. But other cases aren't clear from the
text.
For example, you've asserted that if I've been using "ABCD" as my
SSID
for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
that, that I have to change. But that if, instead of duplicating my
new neighbor's pre-existing SSID, I operate with a different SSID
but
on the same channel, I don't have to change. I'm not saying your
position is wrong, but it's certainly not clear from the text above
that that's where the line is. That's what I meant by ambiguity.
True, but if you read the rest of Part 15, you’ll also find these
gems:
(From http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=47:1.0.1.1.16)
§15.3 Definitions.
...
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that
endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other
safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly
interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with
this chapter.
§15.5 General conditions of operation.
(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall
not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued
use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or
certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on
the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this
chapter.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by
the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional
or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical
(ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.
(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped
wave) are prohibited.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 75 FR 63031, Oct. 13,
2010]
It seems to me that if you deploy something new in such a way that
it causes harmful interference to an operating service, you’ve run
afoul of 15.5 as defined in 15.3.
(What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p
system
that won't share the spectrum? Illegal or Legal? And do you think
the
text above is unambiguous on that point?)
-- Brett
