Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Jaime Solorza]

I have seen some international Cambium radios the go from 4.9 to 6 4GHz
I think I asked about the 6Ghz versions on list oncehave never seen the
Cambium 3GHz stuff.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 12:41 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the spectrum
> analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using
> some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 3.55-3.8ghz
> variety.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.
>>
>> On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
>> PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
>> with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
>> them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
>>> high?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
>>> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>>>
>>> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>>>
>>> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>>
>>> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>>
>>> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
>>> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
>>> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
>>> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
>>> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
>>> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
>>> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems
>>> kind of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to
>>> assume the second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it
>>> was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check
>>> for earth stations you never know what they've done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jamming C band CATV...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mathew Howard
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
>>> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license"
>>> holders had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>>
>>> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
>>> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
>>> agrees to $16,

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, well, if they did actually have a radio set to use 3723-3732, I don't
have much sympathy for them anyway. I suppose, one could accidentally get
international radios, and then accidentally, set it to the wrong channel...
but most likely, they were either completely aware they were using a
channel they weren't supposed to be on, and didn't care, or they hadn't
bothered to learn enough about the rules to know they were supposed to be
doing.

On the other hand, if they were just running it at the top end of the band,
and it was causing too much out of band noise for whatever reason, that's a
different story.

There are radios out there (like Baicells, for example), that will let you
use frequencies below 3650, where I could see that easily happening by
accident, but I don't know of any radios sold for US market that allow you
to go above 3700mhz.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:05 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I have less sympathy for them if they went out of their way to get an
> international AP because the US model wouldn't let them cheat.  It's harder
> to believe it was just ignorance at that point.
>
> I knew a guy who used to set all his Ubqiuiti's to "Hong Kong" so he could
> use DFS bands without DFS and ignore the EIRP limit.  I'm like bruh you
> can't even pretend that was an accident.
>
>
>
> On 1/24/2020 2:40 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the spectrum
> analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using
> some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 3.55-3.8ghz
> variety.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.
>>
>> On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
>> PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
>> with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
>> them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
>>> high?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
>>> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>>>
>>> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>>>
>>> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>>
>>> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>>
>>> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
>>> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
>>> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
>>> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
>>> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
>>> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
>>> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems
>>> kind of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to
>>> assume the second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it
>>> was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check
>>> for earth stations you never know what they've done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jamming C band CATV...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>&g

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Adam Moffett]

I have less sympathy for them if they went out of their way to get an 
international AP because the US model wouldn't let them cheat.  It's 
harder to believe it was just ignorance at that point.


I knew a guy who used to set all his Ubqiuiti's to "Hong Kong" so he 
could use DFS bands without DFS and ignore the EIRP limit.  I'm like 
bruh you can't even pretend that was an accident.




On 1/24/2020 2:40 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the 
spectrum analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they 
were using some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 
3.55-3.8ghz variety.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:


US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.


On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:

I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're
mostly PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since
I've done anything with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me
like you might be able to set them that high... or maybe they
have some non-US radios...

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF
mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> wrote:

Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to
transmit that high?

*LTI-Full_175px*

*Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage,
Cambium ePMP Certified *

Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”

*Link Technologies, Inc*-- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

*Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>

Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com>

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be
operating on 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of
1.903 and you’re right that this is how they got caught.  No
question that had they not interfered with the ground
station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s
how the unregistered locations ended up part of this.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations
which seems kind of petty, the other is transmitting
above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the second one got
them in trouble and led to finding the first one?

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions -
unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the
oob so if it was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that
don't even make a cursory check for earth stations you
never know what they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Jamming C band CATV...

*From:*Mathew Howard

*Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM

        *To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions -
unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were
interfering with was in the 3700-4200mhz band. I
wonder what they were doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said
other "license" holders had no recourse, it took
a fixed station to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy
mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote:

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED
INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION WQMJ660.
Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed
Internet agrees to $16,000 settlement and
 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the spectrum
analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using
some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 3.55-3.8ghz
variety.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.
>
> On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
> PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
> with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
> them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
> wrote:
>
>> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
>> high?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>>
>>
>> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
>> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>>
>> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>>
>> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>
>> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>
>> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
>> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
>> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
>> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
>> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
>> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind
>> of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the
>> second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>
>>
>>
>> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was
>> low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for
>> earth stations you never know what they've done.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>>
>> Jamming C band CATV...
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Mathew Howard
>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>>
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>
>>
>>
>> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
>> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
>> had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>
>> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
>> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
>> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
>> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy
>> Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
>> No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
>> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx> DA-20-46A1.pdf
>> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf>DA-20-46A1.txt
>> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Adam Moffett]

US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.


On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're 
mostly PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've 
done anything with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you 
might be able to set them that high... or maybe they have some non-US 
radios...


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> wrote:


Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit
that high?

*LTI-Full_175px*

*Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium
ePMP Certified *

Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”

*Link Technologies, Inc*-- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

*Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>

Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com>

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be
operating on 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903
and you’re right that this is how they got caught.  No question
that had they not interfered with the ground station, this
wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one thing, they’re
going to look at everything else and that’s how the unregistered
locations ended up part of this.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which
seems kind of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz. 
I’m going to assume the second one got them in trouble and led
to finding the first one?

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob
so if it was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even
make a cursory check for earth stations you never know what
they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Jamming C band CATV...

*From:*Mathew Howard

*Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM

*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions -
unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering
with was in the 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were
doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said
other "license" holders had no recourse, it took a
fixed station to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy
mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote:

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED
INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION WQMJ660. Brevard
Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan
resolving investigation into unauthorized
operation in the 3650-3700 MHz band
. Action by: Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau.
Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx

<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx>DA-20-46A1.pdf

<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf>DA-20-46A1.txt
<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt>

Sent from my iPad

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

   

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Mathew Howard]

I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
wrote:

> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
> high?
>
>
>
>
>
> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>
> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>
> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>
> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>
> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind
> of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the
> second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was
> low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for
> earth stations you never know what they've done.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>
> Jamming C band CATV...
>
>
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>
>
>
> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
> had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy
> Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
> No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx> DA-20-46A1.pdf
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf>DA-20-46A1.txt
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Dennis Burgess via AF]

Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that high?


[LTI-Full_175px]
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/>
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

From: AF  On Behalf Of Tim Hardy
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on 3723 - 
3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that this is how 
they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with the ground 
station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one thing, they’re 
going to look at everything else and that’s how the unregistered locations 
ended up part of this.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind of 
petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the second 
one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was low 
3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for earth 
stations you never know what they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
Jamming C band CATV...

From: Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the 
3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders had 
no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy 
mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote:
BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION 
WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet agrees to 
$16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation into 
unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: 
Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. 
(DA No. 20-46). EB. 
DA-20-46A1.docx<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx> 
DA-20-46A1.pdf<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf>DA-20-46A1.txt<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt>
Sent from my iPad
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Adam Moffett]

Some vendors (esp with LTE) allow you to type in a frequency rather than 
pick from a list.  It was up to the operator to stay compliant.  In an 
unlicensed (or lightly licensed) band the temptation will always be 
there to avoid interference by moving to one of those nice quiet 
channels that nobody else appears to be using.  One little cheat and the 
customers are suddenly happy.


Manufacturers should just take the option awayat least in Band 42.  
Someone will always use it if it's there.



On 1/23/2020 8:20 PM, Tim Hardy wrote:
According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating 
on 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re 
right that this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not 
interfered with the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once 
the FCC finds one thing, they’re going to look at everything else and 
that’s how the unregistered locations ended up part of this.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:


There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which
seems kind of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m
going to assume the second one got them in trouble and led to
finding the first one?

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if
it was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a
cursory check for earth stations you never know what they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Jamming C band CATV...

*From:*Mathew Howard

*Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM

*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group

        *Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with
was in the 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other
"license" holders had no recourse, it took a fixed station
to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy
mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote:

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED
INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION WQMJ660. Brevard
Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet agrees
to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving
investigation into unauthorized operation in the
3650-3700 MHz band . Action by: Deputy
Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by
Order/Consent Decree. (DA No. 20-46). EB.
DA-20-46A1.docx

<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx>DA-20-46A1.pdf

<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf>DA-20-46A1.txt
<https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt>

Sent from my iPad

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Tim Hardy]

According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
unregistered locations ended up part of this.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind
> of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the
> second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was
> low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for
> earth stations you never know what they've done.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>
> Jamming C band CATV...
>
>
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>
>
>
> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
> had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy
> Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
> No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx> DA-20-46A1.pdf
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf>DA-20-46A1.txt
> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Ken Hohhof]

There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind of 
petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the second 
one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

 

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was low 
3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for earth 
stations you never know what they've done. 

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > wrote:

Jamming C band CATV...

 

From: Mathew Howard 

Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM

To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

 

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the 
3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Isnt that the first 3ghz one? 

 

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders had 
no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy mailto:thardy...@gmail.com> > wrote:

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION 
WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet agrees to 
$16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation into 
unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700  MHz band . Action by: 
Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. 
(DA No. 20-46). EB.  <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx> 
DA-20-46A1.docx  <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf> 
DA-20-46A1.pdf <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt> 
DA-20-46A1.txt

Sent from my iPad

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


  _  


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Steve Jones]

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was
low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for
earth stations you never know what they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:

> Jamming C band CATV...
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>>
>> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
>> had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>
>>> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
>>> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
>>> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
>>> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by:
>>> Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent
>>> Decree. (DA No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
>>> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.docx> DA-20-46A1.pdf
>>> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.pdf>DA-20-46A1.txt
>>> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-46A1.txt>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[chuck]

Jamming C band CATV...

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the 
3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

  Isnt that the first 3ghz one? 

  I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders had 
no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with

  On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION 
WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet agrees to 
$16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation into 
unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA No. 
20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx DA-20-46A1.pdfDA-20-46A1.txt


Sent from my iPad
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Mathew Howard]

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>
> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
> had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
>> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
>> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
>> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
>> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy
>> Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
>> No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
>>  DA-20-46A1.pdf
>> DA-20-46A1.txt
>> 
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Steve Jones]

Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:

> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy
> Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
> No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
>  DA-20-46A1.pdf
> DA-20-46A1.txt
> 
>
> Sent from my iPad
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Tim Hardy]

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION 
WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet agrees to 
$16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation into 
unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA No. 
20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx DA-20-46A1.pdfDA-20-46A1.txt

Sent from my iPad-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Steve Jones]

I finished our draft today. Having reviewed a ton, either there was a
boilerplate or everybody copied rises since half of the ones I went through
were the same as theirs

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 1:30 PM  wrote:

> One thing about it, if they do a great job, then it is one more reason to
> belong to WISPA.
>
> *From:* Ken Hohhof
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:25 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions
>
>
> Several years back on the first version of the FCC transparency
> requirements, I paid a telecom law firm to  draft disclosure documents for
> us.  It was a disaster and I just walked away from it.  Typical lawyers,
> they wanted to do very extensive questionnaires and interviews basically to
> find all the devious things we were doing so we could disclose them in
> infinite detail and proper legalese.  It was crazy.  I couldn’t get across
> that we probably didn’t do any of that stuff, we just wanted a very basic
> disclosure document to satisfy the FCC requirements.  Lawyers don’t
> understand simple, and they don’t understand the difference between evil
> empires like AT or Comcast, and some little WISP just trying to deliver
> Internet to local folks.
>
>
>
> I’m expecting WISPA will do better.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Daniel White
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:54 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions
>
>
>
> WISPA will be adding a lot of boiler-plate documents like this once the
> new AMS platform is launched by the end of the month.
>
> 2020 is going to be an exciting year for the organization.
>
>
>
> [image: photograph]
>
>
> *Daniel White*Co-Founder & Managing Director of Operations
>
> *phone:* +1 (702) 470-2766
> *direct:* +1 (702) 470-2770
>
> ch...@wbmfg.com wrote on 12/11/19 08:56:
>
> One would think that WISPA could provide some boilerplate that gives
> everyone the maximum latitude to do what they want while providing
> letter-of-the-law coverage of the compliance requirements.
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:28 AM
>
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions
>
>
>
> Yes.  And I bet a lot of WISPs comply by using some copy-pasta from
> someone else's website and just change the name.  Big providers will comply
> by having the disclosure *somewhere* on their website but buried under a
> nest of links that nobody will follow.
>
> Most consumers will be too lazy to find these factual disclosures, and the
> ones that do seek them will have trouble finding them, and the ones that
> find something will find boiler-plate wishy washy legalese saying "I'll
> manage my network both neutrally and also however I want to".
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2019 10:21 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of
> service, and probably only one of them would read the disclosure
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
> I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated
> disclosures.
>
> but I can't claim to understand humans.
>
>
>
> On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:
>
> I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency Rule,
> the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be
> available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the
> Commission has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
> well-informed choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet
> access services."
>
>
>
> If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you were
> looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider?
> If they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[chuck]

One thing about it, if they do a great job, then it is one more reason to 
belong to WISPA.

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:25 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

Several years back on the first version of the FCC transparency requirements, I 
paid a telecom law firm to  draft disclosure documents for us.  It was a 
disaster and I just walked away from it.  Typical lawyers, they wanted to do 
very extensive questionnaires and interviews basically to find all the devious 
things we were doing so we could disclose them in infinite detail and proper 
legalese.  It was crazy.  I couldn’t get across that we probably didn’t do any 
of that stuff, we just wanted a very basic disclosure document to satisfy the 
FCC requirements.  Lawyers don’t understand simple, and they don’t understand 
the difference between evil empires like AT or Comcast, and some little WISP 
just trying to deliver Internet to local folks.

 

I’m expecting WISPA will do better.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Daniel White
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:54 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

 

WISPA will be adding a lot of boiler-plate documents like this once the new AMS 
platform is launched by the end of the month.

2020 is going to be an exciting year for the organization.

 


 Daniel White
Co-Founder & Managing Director of Operations
   
phone: +1 (702) 470-2766
direct: +1 (702) 470-2770
   
 
 

ch...@wbmfg.com wrote on 12/11/19 08:56:



  One would think that WISPA could provide some boilerplate that gives everyone 
the maximum latitude to do what they want while providing letter-of-the-law 
coverage of the compliance requirements.  

   

  From: Adam Moffett 

  Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:28 AM

  To: af@af.afmug.com 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

   

  Yes.  And I bet a lot of WISPs comply by using some copy-pasta from someone 
else's website and just change the name.  Big providers will comply by having 
the disclosure somewhere on their website but buried under a nest of links that 
nobody will follow. 

  Most consumers will be too lazy to find these factual disclosures, and the 
ones that do seek them will have trouble finding them, and the ones that find 
something will find boiler-plate wishy washy legalese saying "I'll manage my 
network both neutrally and also however I want to".

  

   

  On 12/11/2019 10:21 AM, Steve Jones wrote:

THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.

 

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones  
wrote:

  I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of 
service, and probably only one of them would read the disclosure

   

  On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated 
disclosures.

but I can't claim to understand humans.

 

On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:

  I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency 
Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be 
available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the Commission 
has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make well-informed 
choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet access services."

   

  If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you 
were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider? 
If they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?

   

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com






--

  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

 




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Ken Hohhof]

Several years back on the first version of the FCC transparency requirements, I 
paid a telecom law firm to  draft disclosure documents for us.  It was a 
disaster and I just walked away from it.  Typical lawyers, they wanted to do 
very extensive questionnaires and interviews basically to find all the devious 
things we were doing so we could disclose them in infinite detail and proper 
legalese.  It was crazy.  I couldn’t get across that we probably didn’t do any 
of that stuff, we just wanted a very basic disclosure document to satisfy the 
FCC requirements.  Lawyers don’t understand simple, and they don’t understand 
the difference between evil empires like AT or Comcast, and some little WISP 
just trying to deliver Internet to local folks.

 

I’m expecting WISPA will do better.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Daniel White
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 12:54 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

 

WISPA will be adding a lot of boiler-plate documents like this once the new AMS 
platform is launched by the end of the month.

2020 is going to be an exciting year for the organization.

 


  
<https://atheral.co/wp-content/uploads/Atheral-Logo-Vertical-Grad-150px-x-86px.png>
 


Daniel White
Co-Founder & Managing Director of Operations


phone: +1 (702) 470-2766
direct: +1 (702) 470-2770



ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>  wrote on 12/11/19 08:56:



One would think that WISPA could provide some boilerplate that gives everyone 
the maximum latitude to do what they want while providing letter-of-the-law 
coverage of the compliance requirements.  

 

From: Adam Moffett 

Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:28 AM

To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>  

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

 

Yes.  And I bet a lot of WISPs comply by using some copy-pasta from someone 
else's website and just change the name.  Big providers will comply by having 
the disclosure somewhere on their website but buried under a nest of links that 
nobody will follow. 

Most consumers will be too lazy to find these factual disclosures, and the ones 
that do seek them will have trouble finding them, and the ones that find 
something will find boiler-plate wishy washy legalese saying "I'll manage my 
network both neutrally and also however I want to".



 

On 12/11/2019 10:21 AM, Steve Jones wrote:

THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.

 

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of service, and 
probably only one of them would read the disclosure

 

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated disclosures.

but I can't claim to understand humans.

 

On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net 
<mailto:can...@believewireless.net>  wrote:

I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency Rule, the 
Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be available 
when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the Commission has 
previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make well-informed choices 
about their purchase and use of broadband Internet access services."

 

If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you were 
looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider? If 
they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com






  _  


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Daniel White]

WISPA will be adding a lot of boiler-plate documents like this once the 
new AMS platform is launched by the end of the month.


2020 is going to be an exciting year for the organization.

photograph  
Daniel White
Co-Founder & Managing Director of Operations
phone: +1 (702) 470-2766
direct:+1 (702) 470-2770

ch...@wbmfg.com wrote on 12/11/19 08:56:
One would think that WISPA could provide some boilerplate that gives 
everyone the maximum latitude to do what they want while providing 
letter-of-the-law coverage of the compliance requirements.

*From:* Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:28 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

Yes.  And I bet a lot of WISPs comply by using some copy-pasta from 
someone else's website and just change the name.  Big providers will 
comply by having the disclosure /somewhere/ on their website but 
buried under a nest of links that nobody will follow.


Most consumers will be too lazy to find these factual disclosures, and 
the ones that do seek them will have trouble finding them, and the 
ones that find something will find boiler-plate wishy washy legalese 
saying "I'll manage my network both neutrally and also however I want to".




On 12/11/2019 10:21 AM, Steve Jones wrote:

THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones 
 wrote:


I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms
of service, and probably only one of them would read the disclosure
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett
 wrote:

I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally
mandated disclosures.

but I can't claim to understand humans.

On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:

I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the
Transparency Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of
critical information that must be available when selecting
Internet service in the marketplace. As the Commission has
previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
well-informed choices about their purchase and use of
broadband Internet access services."
If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and
the one you were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you
just move onto the next provider? If they are the only
provider available, would it really matter then?

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Jaime Solorza]

We don't need no stinkin' disclosures. .

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 4:21 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:

> 
>
> They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a
> statement:
>
> NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas
> Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its network
> management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of its
> services. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted: 2019-12-10 by
> Citation & Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB. DA-19-1103A1.pdf
> 
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Ken Hohhof]

GDPR compliance would make one think about just turning off one’s website.   
OK, that’s Europe.  God forbid you might have one customer in Europe.

 

Some of our WISP competitors might as well not have a website.  Or maybe that 
1995 Geocities look is back in style?  Extra credit for Comic Sans font, and 
don’t forget the visitor counter that looks like a car odometer.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 10:54 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

 

The concern may also stem from the ADA requirement. It concerns me. How 
specifically does one ensure a website is ADA compliant? Im guessing the text 
has to be text, nor image so a text reader can read it to the blind, but does 
there have to be some specific font? do i need a wheelchair ramp available 
anywhere someone might access the website? what if theyre accessing it from a 
shitter without a handrail? This is why I like having the government involved 
in things.

 

Also though it covers a provider who happens to not have a website, though that 
would make them a pretty suspect provider

 

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:48 AM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I was wondering about that aspect.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?limit=100 
<https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?limit=100_name=18-142=date_disseminated,DESC>
 _name=18-142=date_disseminated,DESC

You can search ECFS for proceeding 18-142 and see everyone's 
submissions. There are 60 right now.  I'm not sure why that option 
exists.except maybe it's easier sometimes to fill out a form and 
submit it than it is to get your web dev to change stuff.

-Adam


On 12/11/2019 11:16 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
> You dont have to disclose, you can submit it to the FCC, which doesnt 
> really make sense
>
>

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Steve Jones]

The concern may also stem from the ADA requirement. It concerns me. How
specifically does one ensure a website is ADA compliant? Im guessing the
text has to be text, nor image so a text reader can read it to the blind,
but does there have to be some specific font? do i need a wheelchair ramp
available anywhere someone might access the website? what if theyre
accessing it from a shitter without a handrail? This is why I like having
the government involved in things.

Also though it covers a provider who happens to not have a website, though
that would make them a pretty suspect provider

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:48 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I was wondering about that aspect.
>
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?limit=100_name=18-142=date_disseminated,DESC
>
> You can search ECFS for proceeding 18-142 and see everyone's
> submissions. There are 60 right now.  I'm not sure why that option
> exists.except maybe it's easier sometimes to fill out a form and
> submit it than it is to get your web dev to change stuff.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> On 12/11/2019 11:16 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
> > You dont have to disclose, you can submit it to the FCC, which doesnt
> > really make sense
> >
> >
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Adam Moffett]

I was wondering about that aspect.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?limit=100_name=18-142=date_disseminated,DESC

You can search ECFS for proceeding 18-142 and see everyone's 
submissions. There are 60 right now.  I'm not sure why that option 
exists.except maybe it's easier sometimes to fill out a form and 
submit it than it is to get your web dev to change stuff.


-Adam


On 12/11/2019 11:16 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
You dont have to disclose, you can submit it to the FCC, which doesnt 
really make sense





--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Steve Jones]

 as opposed to the quality of the information.
> Apparently it can be confusing, misleading, sneaky, whatever, it just needs
> to be there.  Probably like that ISP that claimed to cover the entire state
> on their Form 477 filing, unless somebody in the media or some advocacy
> group points it out, the government only cares that you submit the
> paperwork, not that the paperwork is correct or useful.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *
> can...@believewireless.net
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:04 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions
>
>
>
> I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency Rule,
> the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be
> available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the
> Commission has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
> well-informed choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet
> access services."
>
>
>
> If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you were
> looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider?
> If they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:24 PM Kurt Fankhauser 
> wrote:
>
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/search#q=enforcement%20advisory=edocs=new=%5B%7B%22bureaus%22%3A%22EB%22%7D%5D
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:21 PM Kurt Fankhauser 
> wrote:
>
> Best I can tell North Texas Broadband doesn't even have an active website.
> Perhaps that was why they issued the citation?
>
> http://www.northtxbroadband.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:54 PM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
> Who were the others?
>
> On 12/10/19 6:21 PM, Tim Hardy wrote:
> > 
> >> They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a
> >> statement:
> >>
> >> NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas
> >> Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its
> >> network management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of
> >> its services. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted:
> >> 2019-12-10 by Citation & Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB. DA-19-1103A1.pdf
> >> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-1103A1.pdf>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Ken Hohhof]

Hmmm, commercial terms, I think that means price and maybe some stuff like is 
there a term contract with an ETF.  If people are buying Internet service, I 
assume at some point the price is disclosed to them.  Is the problem that the 
words “commercial terms” is not used on the pricing page of the website, so the 
room of interns the FCC had reading small ISP websites couldn’t find it with 
Google?

 

It also seems the “enforcement actions” or “admonishments” are for not 
publishing the information, as opposed to the quality of the information.  
Apparently it can be confusing, misleading, sneaky, whatever, it just needs to 
be there.  Probably like that ISP that claimed to cover the entire state on 
their Form 477 filing, unless somebody in the media or some advocacy group 
points it out, the government only cares that you submit the paperwork, not 
that the paperwork is correct or useful.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 7:04 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

 

I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency Rule, the 
Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be available 
when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the Commission has 
previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make well-informed choices 
about their purchase and use of broadband Internet access services."

 

If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you were 
looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider? If 
they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?

 

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:24 PM Kurt Fankhauser mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > wrote:

https://www.fcc.gov/search#q=enforcement%20advisory 
<https://www.fcc.gov/search#q=enforcement%20advisory=edocs=new=%5B%7B%22bureaus%22%3A%22EB%22%7D%5D>
 =edocs=new=%5B%7B%22bureaus%22%3A%22EB%22%7D%5D  

 

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:21 PM Kurt Fankhauser mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Best I can tell North Texas Broadband doesn't even have an active website. 
Perhaps that was why they issued the citation? 

http://www.northtxbroadband.com/

 

 

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:54 PM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

Who were the others?

On 12/10/19 6:21 PM, Tim Hardy wrote:
> 
>> They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a 
>> statement:
>>
>> NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas 
>> Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its 
>> network management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of 
>> its services. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted: 
>> 2019-12-10 by Citation & Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB. DA-19-1103A1.pdf 
>> <https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-1103A1.pdf>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
> 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Steve Jones]

One would think WISPA would do a lot of things

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:56 AM  wrote:

> One would think that WISPA could provide some boilerplate that gives
> everyone the maximum latitude to do what they want while providing
> letter-of-the-law coverage of the compliance requirements.
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:28 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions
>
>
> Yes.  And I bet a lot of WISPs comply by using some copy-pasta from
> someone else's website and just change the name.  Big providers will comply
> by having the disclosure *somewhere* on their website but buried under a
> nest of links that nobody will follow.
>
> Most consumers will be too lazy to find these factual disclosures, and the
> ones that do seek them will have trouble finding them, and the ones that
> find something will find boiler-plate wishy washy legalese saying "I'll
> manage my network both neutrally and also however I want to".
>
> 
>
>
> On 12/11/2019 10:21 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of
>> service, and probably only one of them would read the disclosure
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated
>>> disclosures.
>>>
>>> but I can't claim to understand humans.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency
>>> Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must
>>> be available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the
>>> Commission has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
>>> well-informed choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet
>>> access services."
>>>
>>> If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you
>>> were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next
>>> provider? If they are the only provider available, would it really matter
>>> then?
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[chuck]

One would think that WISPA could provide some boilerplate that gives everyone 
the maximum latitude to do what they want while providing letter-of-the-law 
coverage of the compliance requirements.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:28 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

Yes.  And I bet a lot of WISPs comply by using some copy-pasta from someone 
else's website and just change the name.  Big providers will comply by having 
the disclosure somewhere on their website but buried under a nest of links that 
nobody will follow. 


Most consumers will be too lazy to find these factual disclosures, and the ones 
that do seek them will have trouble finding them, and the ones that find 
something will find boiler-plate wishy washy legalese saying "I'll manage my 
network both neutrally and also however I want to".







On 12/11/2019 10:21 AM, Steve Jones wrote:

  THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.

  On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones  wrote:

I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of service, 
and probably only one of them would read the disclosure

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

  I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated 
disclosures.


  but I can't claim to understand humans.



  On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:

I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency 
Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be 
available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the Commission 
has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make well-informed 
choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet access services."

If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you 
were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider? 
If they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?


  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


   



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Adam Moffett]

Yes.  And I bet a lot of WISPs comply by using some copy-pasta from 
someone else's website and just change the name.  Big providers will 
comply by having the disclosure /somewhere/ on their website but buried 
under a nest of links that nobody will follow.


Most consumers will be too lazy to find these factual disclosures, and 
the ones that do seek them will have trouble finding them, and the ones 
that find something will find boiler-plate wishy washy legalese saying 
"I'll manage my network both neutrally and also however I want to".





On 12/11/2019 10:21 AM, Steve Jones wrote:

THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones > wrote:


I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of
service, and probably only one of them would read the disclosure

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally
mandated disclosures.

but I can't claim to understand humans.


On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net
 wrote:

I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the
Transparency Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of
critical information that must be available when selecting
Internet service in the marketplace. As the Commission has
previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
well-informed choices about their purchase and use of
broadband Internet access services."

If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the
one you were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just
move onto the next provider? If they are the only provider
available, would it really matter then?

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[chuck]

Cooperate and graduate.

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 8:21 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones  wrote:

  I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of service, 
and probably only one of them would read the disclosure

  On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated 
disclosures.


but I can't claim to understand humans.



On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:

  I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency 
Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be 
available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the Commission 
has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make well-informed 
choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet access services."

  If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you 
were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider? 
If they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Steve Jones]

THis is a shot across the bow to us though to get with the program.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:20 AM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of
> service, and probably only one of them would read the disclosure
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated
>> disclosures.
>>
>> but I can't claim to understand humans.
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:
>>
>> I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency
>> Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must
>> be available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the
>> Commission has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
>> well-informed choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet
>> access services."
>>
>> If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you
>> were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next
>> provider? If they are the only provider available, would it really matter
>> then?
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Steve Jones]

I think in my 15 years here, maybe two customers read the terms of service,
and probably only one of them would read the disclosure

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated
> disclosures.
>
> but I can't claim to understand humans.
>
>
> On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:
>
> I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency Rule,
> the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be
> available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the
> Commission has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
> well-informed choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet
> access services."
>
> If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you were
> looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider?
> If they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Adam Moffett]

I doubt any consumers are making choices based on legally mandated 
disclosures.


but I can't claim to understand humans.


On 12/11/2019 8:04 AM, can...@believewireless.net wrote:
I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency 
Rule, the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that 
must be available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. 
As the Commission has previously stated, clear disclosures help 
consumers make well-informed choices about their purchase and use of 
broadband Internet access services."


If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you 
were looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next 
provider? If they are the only provider available, would it really 
matter then?


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[can...@believewireless.net]

I thought this was odd: " By failing to comply with the Transparency Rule,
the Company has deprived consumers of critical information that must be
available when selecting Internet service in the marketplace. As the
Commission has previously stated, clear disclosures help consumers make
well-informed choices about their purchase and use of broadband Internet
access services."

If you were comparing ISPs based on their disclosures and the one you were
looking at didn't have one, wouldn't you just move onto the next provider?
If they are the only provider available, would it really matter then?

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:24 PM Kurt Fankhauser 
wrote:

>
> https://www.fcc.gov/search#q=enforcement%20advisory=edocs=new=%5B%7B%22bureaus%22%3A%22EB%22%7D%5D
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:21 PM Kurt Fankhauser 
> wrote:
>
>> Best I can tell North Texas Broadband doesn't even have an active
>> website. Perhaps that was why they issued the citation?
>> http://www.northtxbroadband.com/
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:54 PM Matt Hoppes <
>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Who were the others?
>>>
>>> On 12/10/19 6:21 PM, Tim Hardy wrote:
>>> > 
>>> >> They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a
>>> >> statement:
>>> >>
>>> >> NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas
>>> >> Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its
>>> >> network management practices, performance, and the commercial terms
>>> of
>>> >> its services. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted:
>>> >> 2019-12-10 by Citation & Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB.
>>> DA-19-1103A1.pdf
>>> >> 
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent from my iPad
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Kurt Fankhauser]

https://www.fcc.gov/search#q=enforcement%20advisory=edocs=new=%5B%7B%22bureaus%22%3A%22EB%22%7D%5D


On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:21 PM Kurt Fankhauser 
wrote:

> Best I can tell North Texas Broadband doesn't even have an active website.
> Perhaps that was why they issued the citation?
> http://www.northtxbroadband.com/
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:54 PM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
>> Who were the others?
>>
>> On 12/10/19 6:21 PM, Tim Hardy wrote:
>> > 
>> >> They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a
>> >> statement:
>> >>
>> >> NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas
>> >> Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its
>> >> network management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of
>> >> its services. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted:
>> >> 2019-12-10 by Citation & Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB. DA-19-1103A1.pdf
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Kurt Fankhauser]

Best I can tell North Texas Broadband doesn't even have an active website.
Perhaps that was why they issued the citation?
http://www.northtxbroadband.com/


On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 8:54 PM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> Who were the others?
>
> On 12/10/19 6:21 PM, Tim Hardy wrote:
> > 
> >> They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a
> >> statement:
> >>
> >> NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas
> >> Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its
> >> network management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of
> >> its services. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted:
> >> 2019-12-10 by Citation & Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB. DA-19-1103A1.pdf
> >> 
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Matt Hoppes]

Who were the others?

On 12/10/19 6:21 PM, Tim Hardy wrote:


They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a 
statement:


NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas 
Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its 
network management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of 
its services. Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted: 
2019-12-10 by Citation & Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB. DA-19-1103A1.pdf 



Sent from my iPad




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] FCC Enforcement Actions

[Tim Hardy]


> They issued 24 of these today.  Looks like they’re trying to make a 
> statement:
> 
> NORTH TEXAS BROADBAND, LLC. The Enforcement Bureau cites North Texas 
> Broadband, LLC for failure to disclose information regarding its network 
> management practices, performance, and the commercial terms of its services. 
> Action by: Chief, Enforcement Bureau . Adopted: 2019-12-10 by Citation & 
> Order. (DA No. 19-1103). EB. DA-19-1103A1.pdf
> 
> Sent from my iPad
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com