Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[David Milholen]

This is why if we a lease from a site we put in the contract that we are 
the only unlicensed provider allowed on that site.

  All other types of providers just not unlicensed ones :)


On 2/26/2016 10:37 AM, Ty Featherling wrote:
We have a copy of their lease and it only states, like ours, that they 
are to follow the regulations set forth by the FCC. I like the router 
comparison. I may use that one. The guy was being a tool and claiming 
that since we showed up his customers are complaining and that we must 
discontinue any use in not only the 5GHz band but 3.65 and 2.4 as well 
since they operate in those too. Our response was hey we ran spectrum 
analysis and stayed well away from existing channel usage but if there 
is a real interference issue we would love to work with you to resolve 
it. That got nowhere as he was adamant that they were there first so 
we should pound sand. He has no case but we are trying to make this a 
clear-cut and easy to understand as possible in case the city gets 
more involved.


-Ty



-Ty

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com 
<mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:


When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up? 
Maybe you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even

available when they located there.
It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for
certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference
clause.  Apparently the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city
won’t want to get involved, that’s why it’s easiest for a site
owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant, or one per band, they
don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area they know
nothing about.
Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses
showing you have exclusive use of that frequency at those
locations.  Or borrow a 2-way license from somebody in the area
and show the city a copy.  Or find a cellular or paging company
that is on a city structure, look up and make a copy of their FCC
license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone will have if
the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of course
the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show. 
Maybe then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the

Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is exactly the same
rules you and the other tenant are operating under.  It would be
like saying you can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor had
WiFi first.
That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
*From:* Jaime Solorza <mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
*To:* Animal Farm <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

The basic part 15 rule says it all

On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com
<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they
were there first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz
unlicensed band. There lease warrants no such thing and we
told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a plain english "for
dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding
interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need
to make this stupid easy to understand.
-Ty




--

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Ken Hohhof]

Originally AT bldg, remodeled to look “funky” (according to reviews at the 
time) for 3Com/USRobotics, used to have 3Com logo outside, then had a UTStarcom 
sign for awhile, I think they bought 3Com or part of it?

I worked for 3Com about a year at Mt. Prospect but would go to the funky 
building occasionally for meetings.  I seem to remember some marketing and 
software people were there, or maybe it was the cable group.  The funkier 
people.

Does it still look like parts of the bldg are falling in an earthquake?


From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 1:57 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

You can't burn that down... 


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I have no idea what this conversation is about.  No hablo ingles.
  (42.053588, -88.025691)


  On 2/26/2016 12:37 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it 
burned down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a gps 
coordinate, or street address of a house that nobody wants to see burned down. 
sometimes things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, somebodies house might 
burn down, a tree might fall in the forest, some things are just outside our 
control.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  God heard me say, don’t burn his house...

  From: Ty Featherling 
  Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

  I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;) 

  -Ty



  -Ty

  On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need 
a house burned down.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling 
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:

  True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard. 

  -Ty




  -Ty

  On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com> 
wrote:

A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that 
were auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  
Maybe you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available 
when they located there.



It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for 
certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently 
the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved, 
that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant, 
or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area they 
know nothing about.



Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing 
you have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way 
license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a cellular 
or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a copy of their 
FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone will have if the FCC 
has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of course the other tenant will 
not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their WiFi router 
upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is 
exactly the same rules you and the other tenant are operating under.  It would 
be like saying you can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor had WiFi 
first.



That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.





From: Jaime Solorza 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM

To: Animal Farm 

    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



The basic part 15 rule says it all

On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were 
there first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There 
lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a 
plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding 
interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to make this 
stupid easy to understand.






-Ty






-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your 
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.





-- 

If you only

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Adam Moffett]

hehe
I was gonna send Hitman Steve to Telrad HQ, but they might be too 
prickly with me right now for that kind of joke.


On 2/26/2016 2:57 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

You can't burn that down...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I have no idea what this conversation is about.  No hablo ingles.
(42.053588, -88.025691)

On 2/26/2016 12:37 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is,
and it burned down, and im not sayin it will, there should
probably be, say a gps coordinate, or street address of a house
that nobody wants to see burned down. sometimes things happen. I
stepped on a nail last night, somebodies house might burn down, a
tree might fall in the forest, some things are just outside our
control.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

God heard me say, don’t burn his house...
*From:* Ty Featherling <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;)
-Ty
-Ty
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

you need a house burned down? because what im hearing
here is you need a house burned down.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com
<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
-Ty

-Ty
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim
<tha...@comsearch.com <mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>>
wrote:

A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses
or bands that were auctioned) does not grant
“exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Ken
Hohhof
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
    *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1
was opened up?  Maybe you can argue that is a
separate band, since it wasn’t even available
when they located there.

It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity
on that tower for certain unlicensed bands, or to
contain a non-interference clause. Apparently the
lease doesn’t specify. Probably the city won’t
want to get involved, that’s why it’s easiest for
a site owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant,
or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge
Judy in a technical area they know nothing about.

Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part
101 licenses showing you have exclusive use of
that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a
2-way license from somebody in the area and show
the city a copy.  Or find a cellular or paging
company that is on a city structure, look up and
make a copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city
this is the paperwork someone will have if the
FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum,
and of course the other tenant will not have
anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn
their WiFi router upside down and show them the
Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is
exactly the same rules you and the other tenant
are operating under.  It would be like saying you
can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor
had WiFi first.

That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how
any of this works.

*From:*Jaime Solorza
<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>

*Sent:*Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM

    *To:*Animal Farm <mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Mathew Howard]

You can't burn that down...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have no idea what this conversation is about.  No hablo ingles.
> (42.053588, -88.025691)
>
> On 2/26/2016 12:37 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it
> burned down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a gps
> coordinate, or street address of a house that nobody wants to see burned
> down. sometimes things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, somebodies
> house might burn down, a tree might fall in the forest, some things are
> just outside our control.
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> God heard me say, don’t burn his house...
>>
>> *From:* Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>
>> I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;)
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a
>>> house burned down.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <
>>> <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
>>>>
>>>> -Ty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Ty
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim < <tha...@comsearch.com>
>>>> tha...@comsearch.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were
>>>>> auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Af [mailto: <af-boun...@afmug.com>af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
>>>>> *To:* <af@afmug.com>af@afmug.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?
>>>>> Maybe you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even 
>>>>> available
>>>>> when they located there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for
>>>>> certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.
>>>>> Apparently the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get
>>>>> involved, that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one
>>>>> unlicensed tenant, or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in 
>>>>> a
>>>>> technical area they know nothing about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing
>>>>> you have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a
>>>>> 2-way license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find
>>>>> a cellular or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make
>>>>> a copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
>>>>> will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of
>>>>> course the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe
>>>>> then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker
>>>>> so they can understand this is exactly the same rules you and the other
>>>>> tenant are operating under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
>>>>> because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The basic part 15 rule says it all
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" < <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
>>>>> tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were
>>>>> there first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band.
>>>>> There lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either.
>>>>> Is there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, 
>>>>> specifically
>>>>> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need 
>>>>> to
>>>>> make this stupid easy to understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ty
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Adam Moffett]

I have no idea what this conversation is about.  No hablo ingles.
(42.053588, -88.025691)

On 2/26/2016 12:37 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it 
burned down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a 
gps coordinate, or street address of a house that nobody wants to see 
burned down. sometimes things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, 
somebodies house might burn down, a tree might fall in the forest, 
some things are just outside our control.


On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com 
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:


God heard me say, don’t burn his house...
*From:* Ty Featherling <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;)
-Ty
-Ty
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is
you need a house burned down.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
-Ty

-Ty
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim
<tha...@comsearch.com <mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>> wrote:

A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or
bands that were auctioned) does not grant “exclusive
use” of a frequency at a location.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was
opened up?  Maybe you can argue that is a separate
band, since it wasn’t even available when they located
there.

It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on
that tower for certain unlicensed bands, or to contain
a non-interference clause. Apparently the lease
doesn’t specify. Probably the city won’t want to get
involved, that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to
only allow one unlicensed tenant, or one per band,
they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area
they know nothing about.

Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101
licenses showing you have exclusive use of that
frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way
license from somebody in the area and show the city a
copy.  Or find a cellular or paging company that is on
a city structure, look up and make a copy of their FCC
license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of
spectrum, and of course the other tenant will not have
anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their
WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15
sticker so they can understand this is exactly the
same rules you and the other tenant are operating
under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.

That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any
of this works.

*From:*Jaime Solorza <mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>

*Sent:*Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM

    *To:*Animal Farm <mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

The basic part 15 rule says it all

On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling"
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com
<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that
since they were there first, they get exclusive use of
the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There lease warrants
no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either.
Is there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of
Part 15, specifically regarding interference and
co-location? The city is involved and we need to make

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Bill Prince]

I've scratched Jimmy Fallon off my list because he takes too much time 
away from my AF list...


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 2/26/2016 10:23 AM, Glen Waldrop wrote:

These are the true gems of this list.

There is a lot of technical knowledge to be found here, but the 
entertainment value is priceless.


*From:* Chuck McCown <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 12:18 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
I soo had the urge to post a couple GPS coordinates...
*From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:37 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it 
burned down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a 
gps coordinate, or street address of a house that nobody wants to see 
burned down. sometimes things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, 
somebodies house might burn down, a tree might fall in the forest, 
some things are just outside our control.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com 
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:


God heard me say, don’t burn his house...
*From:* Ty Featherling <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;)
-Ty
-Ty
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is
you need a house burned down.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com <mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
-Ty

-Ty
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim
<tha...@comsearch.com <mailto:tha...@comsearch.com>> wrote:

A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or
bands that were auctioned) does not grant “exclusive
use” of a frequency at a location.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
    *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was
opened up?  Maybe you can argue that is a separate
band, since it wasn’t even available when they located
there.

It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on
that tower for certain unlicensed bands, or to contain
a non-interference clause. Apparently the lease
doesn’t specify. Probably the city won’t want to get
involved, that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to
only allow one unlicensed tenant, or one per band,
they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area
they know nothing about.

Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101
licenses showing you have exclusive use of that
frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way
license from somebody in the area and show the city a
copy.  Or find a cellular or paging company that is on
a city structure, look up and make a copy of their FCC
license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of
spectrum, and of course the other tenant will not have
anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their
WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15
sticker so they can understand this is exactly the
same rules you and the other tenant are operating
under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.

That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any
of this works.

*From:*Jaime Solorza <mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>

*Sent:*Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM

    *To:*Animal Farm <mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

The basic part 15 rule says it all

On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM,

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Glen Waldrop]

These are the true gems of this list.

There is a lot of technical knowledge to be found here, but the entertainment 
value is priceless.



From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 12:18 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

I soo had the urge to post a couple GPS coordinates...

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it burned 
down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a gps coordinate, 
or street address of a house that nobody wants to see burned down. sometimes 
things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, somebodies house might burn 
down, a tree might fall in the forest, some things are just outside our control.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  God heard me say, don’t burn his house...

  From: Ty Featherling 
  Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

  I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;) 

  -Ty



  -Ty

  On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a 
house burned down.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

  True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard. 

  -Ty




  -Ty

  On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com> wrote:

A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were 
auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com
        Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe 
you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when they 
located there.



It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for 
certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently 
the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved, 
that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant, 
or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area they 
know nothing about.



Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you 
have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way 
license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a cellular 
or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a copy of their 
FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone will have if the FCC 
has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of course the other tenant will 
not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their WiFi router 
upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is 
exactly the same rules you and the other tenant are operating under.  It would 
be like saying you can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor had WiFi 
first.



That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.





From: Jaime Solorza 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM

To: Animal Farm 

        Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



The basic part 15 rule says it all

On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there 
first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There lease 
warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a plain 
english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding 
interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to make this 
stupid easy to understand.






-Ty






-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.





-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Chuck McCown]

I soo had the urge to post a couple GPS coordinates...

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it burned 
down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a gps coordinate, 
or street address of a house that nobody wants to see burned down. sometimes 
things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, somebodies house might burn 
down, a tree might fall in the forest, some things are just outside our control.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  God heard me say, don’t burn his house...

  From: Ty Featherling 
  Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

  I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;) 

  -Ty



  -Ty

  On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a 
house burned down.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

  True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard. 

  -Ty




  -Ty

  On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com> wrote:

A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were 
auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com
        Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe 
you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when they 
located there.



It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for 
certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently 
the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved, 
that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant, 
or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area they 
know nothing about.



Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you 
have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way 
license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a cellular 
or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a copy of their 
FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone will have if the FCC 
has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of course the other tenant will 
not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their WiFi router 
upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is 
exactly the same rules you and the other tenant are operating under.  It would 
be like saying you can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor had WiFi 
first.



That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.





From: Jaime Solorza 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM

To: Animal Farm 

        Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



The basic part 15 rule says it all

On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there 
first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There lease 
warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a plain 
english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding 
interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to make this 
stupid easy to understand.






-Ty






-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.





-- 

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Jaime Solorza]

in your best christopher walken voice

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:37 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it
> burned down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a gps
> coordinate, or street address of a house that nobody wants to see burned
> down. sometimes things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, somebodies
> house might burn down, a tree might fall in the forest, some things are
> just outside our control.
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> God heard me say, don’t burn his house...
>>
>> *From:* Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>
>> I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;)
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a
>>> house burned down.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <
>>> tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
>>>>
>>>> -Ty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Ty
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were
>>>>> auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?
>>>>> Maybe you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even 
>>>>> available
>>>>> when they located there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for
>>>>> certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.
>>>>> Apparently the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get
>>>>> involved, that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one
>>>>> unlicensed tenant, or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in 
>>>>> a
>>>>> technical area they know nothing about.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing
>>>>> you have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a
>>>>> 2-way license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find
>>>>> a cellular or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make
>>>>> a copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
>>>>> will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of
>>>>> course the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe
>>>>> then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker
>>>>> so they can understand this is exactly the same rules you and the other
>>>>> tenant are operating under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
>>>>> because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The basic part 15 rule says it all
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were
>>>>> there first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band.
>>>>> There lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either.
>>>>> Is there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, 
>>>>> specifically
>>>>> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need 
>>>>> to
>>>>> make this stupid easy to understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Ty
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

im just sayin, if there was a house, and im not sayin there is, and it
burned down, and im not sayin it will, there should probably be, say a gps
coordinate, or street address of a house that nobody wants to see burned
down. sometimes things happen. I stepped on a nail last night, somebodies
house might burn down, a tree might fall in the forest, some things are
just outside our control.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> God heard me say, don’t burn his house...
>
> *From:* Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>
> I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;)
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a
>> house burned down.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
>>>
>>> -Ty
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Ty
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were
>>>> auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe
>>>> you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when
>>>> they located there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for
>>>> certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.
>>>> Apparently the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get
>>>> involved, that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one
>>>> unlicensed tenant, or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a
>>>> technical area they know nothing about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you
>>>> have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way
>>>> license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a
>>>> cellular or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a
>>>> copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
>>>> will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of
>>>> course the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe
>>>> then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker
>>>> so they can understand this is exactly the same rules you and the other
>>>> tenant are operating under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
>>>> because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
>>>>
>>>> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The basic part 15 rule says it all
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
>>>> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
>>>> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
>>>> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
>>>> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
>>>> make this stupid easy to understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Ty
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>
>



-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Chuck McCown]

God heard me say, don’t burn his house...

From: Ty Featherling 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;) 

-Ty



-Ty

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

  you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a 
house burned down.

  On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard. 

-Ty




-Ty

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com> wrote:

  A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were 
auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
  Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



  When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe 
you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when they 
located there.



  It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for certain 
unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently the 
lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved, that’s 
why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant, or one 
per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area they know 
nothing about.



  Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you 
have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way 
license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a cellular 
or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a copy of their 
FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone will have if the FCC 
has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of course the other tenant will 
not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their WiFi router 
upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is 
exactly the same rules you and the other tenant are operating under.  It would 
be like saying you can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor had WiFi 
first.



  That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.





  From: Jaime Solorza 

  Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM

  To: Animal Farm 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies



  The basic part 15 rule says it all

  On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:

  We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there 
first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There lease 
warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a plain 
english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding 
interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to make this 
stupid easy to understand.






  -Ty






  -- 

  If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Ty Featherling]

I'm not saying I don't need a house burned down. ;)

-Ty



-Ty

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a
> house burned down.
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were
>>> auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe
>>> you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when
>>> they located there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for
>>> certain unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.
>>> Apparently the lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get
>>> involved, that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one
>>> unlicensed tenant, or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a
>>> technical area they know nothing about.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you
>>> have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way
>>> license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a
>>> cellular or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a
>>> copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
>>> will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of
>>> course the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe
>>> then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker
>>> so they can understand this is exactly the same rules you and the other
>>> tenant are operating under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
>>> because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The basic part 15 rule says it all
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
>>> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
>>> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
>>> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
>>> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
>>> make this stupid easy to understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Ty
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

you need a house burned down? because what im hearing here is you need a
house burned down.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ty Featherling <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.
>
> -Ty
>
>
>
> -Ty
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com> wrote:
>
>> A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were
>> auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>
>>
>>
>> When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe
>> you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when
>> they located there.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for certain
>> unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently the
>> lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved,
>> that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed
>> tenant, or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical
>> area they know nothing about.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you
>> have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way
>> license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a
>> cellular or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a
>> copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
>> will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of
>> course the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe
>> then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker
>> so they can understand this is exactly the same rules you and the other
>> tenant are operating under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
>> because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
>>
>> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>>
>>
>>
>> The basic part 15 rule says it all
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
>> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
>> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
>> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
>> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
>> make this stupid easy to understand.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Ty Featherling]

True. Part 101 is like Part 15 in that regard.

-Ty



-Ty

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Hardy, Tim <tha...@comsearch.com> wrote:

> A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were
> auctioned) does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>
>
>
> When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe
> you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when
> they located there.
>
>
>
> It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for certain
> unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently the
> lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved,
> that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed
> tenant, or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical
> area they know nothing about.
>
>
>
> Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you
> have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way
> license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a
> cellular or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a
> copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
> will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of
> course the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe
> then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker
> so they can understand this is exactly the same rules you and the other
> tenant are operating under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
> because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.
>
>
>
> That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
>
> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>
>
>
> The basic part 15 rule says it all
>
> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
> make this stupid easy to understand.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Ty
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Ty Featherling]

We have a copy of their lease and it only states, like ours, that they are
to follow the regulations set forth by the FCC. I like the router
comparison. I may use that one. The guy was being a tool and claiming that
since we showed up his customers are complaining and that we must
discontinue any use in not only the 5GHz band but 3.65 and 2.4 as well
since they operate in those too. Our response was hey we ran spectrum
analysis and stayed well away from existing channel usage but if there is a
real interference issue we would love to work with you to resolve it. That
got nowhere as he was adamant that they were there first so we should pound
sand. He has no case but we are trying to make this a clear-cut and easy to
understand as possible in case the city gets more involved.

-Ty



-Ty

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

> When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe
> you can argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when
> they located there.
>
> It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for certain
> unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently the
> lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved,
> that’s why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed
> tenant, or one per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical
> area they know nothing about.
>
> Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you
> have exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way
> license from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a
> cellular or paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a
> copy of their FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone
> will have if the FCC has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of
> course the other tenant will not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe
> then turn their WiFi router upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker
> so they can understand this is exactly the same rules you and the other
> tenant are operating under.  It would be like saying you can’t use WiFi
> because your next door neighbor had WiFi first.
>
> That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.
>
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies
>
>
> The basic part 15 rule says it all
> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
>> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
>> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
>> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
>> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
>> make this stupid easy to understand.
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Hardy, Tim]

A part 101 license (other than area-wide licenses or bands that were auctioned) 
does not grant “exclusive use” of a frequency at a location.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe you can 
argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when they located 
there.

It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for certain 
unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently the 
lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved, that’s 
why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant, or one 
per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area they know 
nothing about.

Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you have 
exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way license 
from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a cellular or 
paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a copy of their 
FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone will have if the FCC 
has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of course the other tenant will 
not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their WiFi router 
upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is 
exactly the same rules you and the other tenant are operating under.  It would 
be like saying you can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor had WiFi 
first.

That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.


From: Jaime Solorza<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Animal Farm<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies


The basic part 15 rule says it all
On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" 
<tyfeatherl...@gmail.com<mailto:tyfeatherl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there first, 
they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There lease warrants 
no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a plain english 
"for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding interference and 
co-location? The city is involved and we need to make this stupid easy to 
understand.


-Ty

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Ken Hohhof]

When did they go up there?  Was it before U-NII-1 was opened up?  Maybe you can 
argue that is a separate band, since it wasn’t even available when they located 
there.

It is common for a lease to specify exclusivity on that tower for certain 
unlicensed bands, or to contain a non-interference clause.  Apparently the 
lease doesn’t specify.  Probably the city won’t want to get involved, that’s 
why it’s easiest for a site owner to only allow one unlicensed tenant, or one 
per band, they don’t want to play Judge Judy in a technical area they know 
nothing about.

Maybe show the city a copy of one of your Part 101 licenses showing you have 
exclusive use of that frequency at those locations.  Or borrow a 2-way license 
from somebody in the area and show the city a copy.  Or find a cellular or 
paging company that is on a city structure, look up and make a copy of their 
FCC license.  Tell the city this is the paperwork someone will have if the FCC 
has granted them exclusive use of spectrum, and of course the other tenant will 
not have anything of the kind to show.  Maybe then turn their WiFi router 
upside down and show them the Part 15 sticker so they can understand this is 
exactly the same rules you and the other tenant are operating under.  It would 
be like saying you can’t use WiFi because your next door neighbor had WiFi 
first.

That’s not how unlicensed works.  That’s not how any of this works.


From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

The basic part 15 rule says it all

On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling" <tyfeatherl...@gmail.com> wrote:

  We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there 
first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There lease 
warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a plain 
english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding 
interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to make this 
stupid easy to understand.



  -Ty

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Chuck McCown]

The legal doctrine is the “law of the commons”.  Goes way back to things like 
good spots to fish in the ocean.  

From: Ty Featherling 
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 9:13 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there first, 
they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There lease warrants 
no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is there a plain english 
"for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically regarding interference and 
co-location? The city is involved and we need to make this stupid easy to 
understand.



-Ty

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Eric Muehleisen]

We ask for exclusive rights to certain frequency bands when leasing
towers or structures. Nearly half of our sites are this way. Could
they have something in their lease verbiage to reflect this?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Ty Featherling
 wrote:
> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
> make this stupid easy to understand.
>
>
> -Ty

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Ty Featherling]

It does, yes. I may just have to quote from it sparingly and include the
full copy for reference.

-Ty



-Ty

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> The basic part 15 rule says it all
> On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling"  wrote:
>
>> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
>> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
>> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
>> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
>> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
>> make this stupid easy to understand.
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Jaime Solorza]

The basic part 15 rule says it all
On Feb 26, 2016 9:13 AM, "Ty Featherling"  wrote:

> We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
> first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
> lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
> there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
> regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
> make this stupid easy to understand.
>
>
> -Ty
>

[AFMUG] Unlicensed for dummies

[Ty Featherling]

We have a co-tennant on a water tower saying that since they were there
first, they get exclusive use of the entire 5GHz unlicensed band. There
lease warrants no such thing and we told the the FCC doesn't either. Is
there a plain english "for dummies" explanation of Part 15, specifically
regarding interference and co-location? The city is involved and we need to
make this stupid easy to understand.


-Ty