[WISPA] Microsoft, Google, Comcast among supporters for Wi-Fi access expansion

[Sam]

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-google-comcast-among-supporters-for-wi-fi-access-expansion-726353/#ftag=RSS14dc6a9

(My apologies if this is old news. I hadn't seen it yet if it is.) Have 
a great weekend!

~Sam

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Microsoft, Google, , Comcast among supporters for Wi-Fi access expansion

[ralph]

And also this:

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/wififorward-adds-ballast-demand-unl
icensed-spectrum/2014-02-13


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Sam
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:31 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Microsoft, Google, Comcast among supporters for Wi-Fi
access expansion

http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-google-comcast-among-supporters-for-wi-fi-acc
ess-expansion-726353/#ftag=RSS14dc6a9

(My apologies if this is old news. I hadn't seen it yet if it is.) Have a
great weekend!

~Sam

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Art Stephens]

We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we
are using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect
to. I have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from
competitors putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including
labor costs. And money grows on trees.

All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them up
to "legal".

Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8
No DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it
seemed like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest
bidder. It is all about the money after all.

Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio.
>
> Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance test
> mode.  The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a radio to
> operate outside of legal limits.   For instance over the legal power limit
> or on DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that
> radio.
>
> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any
> legal operation of their radio.  I haven't heard of any instances where not
> having compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal
> operator.   I hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they may
> have gotten it nearly correct.
>
> Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal
> but isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode?
> On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:
>
>> 5265-5320
>> 5500-5580
>> 5660-5700
>> 5735-5840
>>
>> Are these not USA channels?
>> If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller <
>> par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Forrest...what is your offlist email ?
>>>
>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>>>
>>> - Reply message -
>>> From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
>>> Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to agree with others...
>>>
>>> Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds
>>> like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining
>>> about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use
>>> than to exceed the limits.
>>>
>>> I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they
>>> should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted.   My
>>> experience over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific
>>> tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed
>>> over.  Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf
>>> than is likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor.
>>>
>>> Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly.   We've just all
>>> either dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an operator
>>> like you are now.  And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the
>>> FCC which is hard to do when some operators are flagrantly breaking the
>>> rules.  Which makes us a bit grumpy.
>>>
>>> I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better
>>> understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your
>>> operations which will in turn improve your quality of service.   Heck, I'd
>>> drive over there for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed.
>>>
>>> In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you
>>> reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network.
>>> On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:
>>>
 Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out
 of these frequencies.
 Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that
 platform.
 First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for
 about 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 -
 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area,
 Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.
 Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess
 with it.
 Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA.
 Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports
 5170-5875.

 Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more
 money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both
 wisps and consumers.

 --
 Arthur Stephens
 Senior Networking Technician
 Ptera Inc.
 PO Box 135
 24001 E Mission Suite 50
 Liberty

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Mike Hammett]

Yes? :-p 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Art Stephens"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:17:34 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 


We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we are 
using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I 
have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
putting up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including labor costs. And 
money grows on trees. 


All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them up to 
"legal". 


Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8 No 
DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it seemed 
like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is 
all about the money after all. 


Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?. 



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio. 
Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance test 
mode. The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a radio to 
operate outside of legal limits. For instance over the legal power limit or on 
DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that radio. 
UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any legal 
operation of their radio. I haven't heard of any instances where not having 
compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator. I hate 
to defend them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it nearly 
correct. 
Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal but 
isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode? 
On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 



5265-5320 
5500-5580 
5660-5700 
5735-5840 


Are these not USA channels? 
If am wrong let me know and I will change them. 



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller < par...@cyberbroadband.net > 
wrote: 



Forrest...what is your offlist email ? 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone 


- Reply message - 
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 
To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM 



I'm going to agree with others... 
Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds like 
you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining about the 
ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed 
the limits. 
I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they should 
be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience 
over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific tx power and if 
you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the 
radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is likely needed 
causing an overall rising of the noise floor. 
Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. We've just all either dealt 
with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you are now. 
And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do 
when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. Which makes us a bit 
grumpy. 
I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better 
understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your operations 
which will in turn improve your quality of service. Heck, I'd drive over there 
for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed. 
In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you reap 
the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network. 
On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens" < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 



Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of these 
frequencies. 
Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that platform. 
First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about 40% of 
our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 5840 runs at - 
50dBm or higher noise levels in our area, 
Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840. 
Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with it. 
Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA. 
Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports 5170-5875. 


Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more money 
for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both wisp

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Matt Hoppes]

Run your rockets at legal power levels and you won't be chasing DFS hops. 

On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens  wrote:

> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we are 
> using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I 
> have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
> putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including labor costs. And 
> money grows on trees.
> 
> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them up 
> to "legal".
> 
> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8 No 
> DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it seemed 
> like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It 
> is all about the money after all. 
> 
> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
>  wrote:
>> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio.
>> 
>> Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance test 
>> mode.  The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a radio to 
>> operate outside of legal limits.   For instance over the legal power limit 
>> or on DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that radio.
>> 
>> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any legal 
>> operation of their radio.  I haven't heard of any instances where not having 
>> compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator.   I 
>> hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it 
>> nearly correct.
>> 
>> Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal but 
>> isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode?
>> 
>> On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:
>>> 5265-5320
>>> 5500-5580
>>> 5660-5700
>>> 5735-5840
>>> 
>>> Are these not USA channels?
>>> If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
>>>  wrote:
 
 Forrest...what is your offlist email ?
 
 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
 
 - Reply message -
 From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
 Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM
 
 
 I'm going to agree with others...
 
 Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds 
 like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining 
 about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use 
 than to exceed the limits.
 
 I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they 
 should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted.   My 
 experience over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific 
 tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed 
 over.  Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf 
 than is likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor.
 
 Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly.   We've just all either 
 dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you 
 are now.  And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC 
 which is hard to do when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. 
  Which makes us a bit grumpy.
 
 I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better 
 understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your 
 operations which will in turn improve your quality of service.   Heck, I'd 
 drive over there for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed.
 
 In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you 
 reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network.
 
 On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:
> Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of 
> these frequencies.
> Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that 
> platform.
> First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about 
> 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 
> 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area,
> Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.
> Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with 
> it.
> Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA.
> Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports 
> 5170-5875.
> 
> Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Matt Hoppes]

Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS equipped sector?

On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens  wrote:

> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we are 
> using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I 
> have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
> putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including labor costs. And 
> money grows on trees.
> 
> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them up 
> to "legal".
> 
> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8 No 
> DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it seemed 
> like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It 
> is all about the money after all. 
> 
> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
>  wrote:
>> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio.
>> 
>> Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance test 
>> mode.  The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a radio to 
>> operate outside of legal limits.   For instance over the legal power limit 
>> or on DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that radio.
>> 
>> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any legal 
>> operation of their radio.  I haven't heard of any instances where not having 
>> compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator.   I 
>> hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it 
>> nearly correct.
>> 
>> Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal but 
>> isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode?
>> 
>> On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:
>>> 5265-5320
>>> 5500-5580
>>> 5660-5700
>>> 5735-5840
>>> 
>>> Are these not USA channels?
>>> If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
>>>  wrote:
 
 Forrest...what is your offlist email ?
 
 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
 
 - Reply message -
 From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
 Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM
 
 
 I'm going to agree with others...
 
 Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds 
 like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining 
 about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use 
 than to exceed the limits.
 
 I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they 
 should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted.   My 
 experience over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific 
 tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed 
 over.  Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf 
 than is likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor.
 
 Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly.   We've just all either 
 dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you 
 are now.  And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC 
 which is hard to do when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. 
  Which makes us a bit grumpy.
 
 I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better 
 understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your 
 operations which will in turn improve your quality of service.   Heck, I'd 
 drive over there for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed.
 
 In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you 
 reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network.
 
 On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:
> Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of 
> these frequencies.
> Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that 
> platform.
> First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about 
> 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 
> 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area,
> Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.
> Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with 
> it.
> Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA.
> Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports 
> 5170-5875.
> 
> Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which ma

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Mike Hammett]

It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older device and 
associate to one that is compliant. 

Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE operations as well? 
I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to 
get them certified as CPE either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need 
to pass all of the other business. Also, that makes more sense... that your AP 
control what happens in a given area. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Hoppes"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Cc: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 


Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS equipped sector? 

On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 





We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we are 
using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I 
have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
putting up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including labor costs. And 
money grows on trees. 


All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them up to 
"legal". 


Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8 No 
DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it seemed 
like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is 
all about the money after all. 


Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?. 



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio. 
Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance test 
mode. The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a radio to 
operate outside of legal limits. For instance over the legal power limit or on 
DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that radio. 
UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any legal 
operation of their radio. I haven't heard of any instances where not having 
compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator. I hate 
to defend them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it nearly 
correct. 
Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal but 
isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode? 
On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 



5265-5320 
5500-5580 
5660-5700 
5735-5840 


Are these not USA channels? 
If am wrong let me know and I will change them. 



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller < par...@cyberbroadband.net > 
wrote: 



Forrest...what is your offlist email ? 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone 


- Reply message - 
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 
To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM 



I'm going to agree with others... 
Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds like 
you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining about the 
ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed 
the limits. 
I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they should 
be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience 
over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific tx power and if 
you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the 
radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is likely needed 
causing an overall rising of the noise floor. 
Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. We've just all either dealt 
with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you are now. 
And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do 
when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. Which makes us a bit 
grumpy. 
I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better 
understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your operations 
which will in turn improve your quality of service. Heck, I'd drive over there 
for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed. 
In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you reap 
the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network. 
On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens" < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 



Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of these 
frequencies. 
Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that platform. 

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Josh Reynolds]

CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to 
channel change requests from the AP, etc.


*Josh Reynolds*
Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS
j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com

On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older 
device and associate to one that is compliant.


Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE operations 
as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, UBNT hasn't done 
the paperwork to get them certified as CPE either, but should be a lot 
easier as they don't need to pass all of the other business. Also, 
that makes more sense...  that your AP control what happens in a given 
area.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


*From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
*To: *"WISPA General List" 
*Cc: *"WISPA General List" 
*Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
frequencies?


Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS equipped 
sector?


On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens > wrote:


We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval
but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket
Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits
(False Positives from competitors putting  up new APs)) - cost to
replace $6000 not including labor costs. And money grows on trees.

All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to
bring them up to "legal".

Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out
5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower
frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be withdrawn
and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about the money
after all.

Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> wrote:

Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a
certified radio.

Your original message was complaining about the removal of
compliance test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance test
mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal
limits.   For instance over the legal power limit or on DFS
bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that
radio.

UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to
prevent any legal operation of their radio.  I haven't heard
of any instances where not having compliance mode has resulted
in a meaningful impact to a legal operator.   I hate to defend
them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it
nearly correct.

Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think
is legal but isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance
test mode?

On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

5265-5320
5500-5580
5660-5700
5735-5840

Are these not USA channels?
If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller
mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>> wrote:


Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265
- 5700 frequencies?
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM


I'm going to agree with others...

Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the
FCC, and it sounds like you are definitely running
outside the limits since you are whining about the
ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to
have no use than to exceed the limits.

I will also add that if you're running all your radios
hotter than they should be that your nose floor
problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience
over the years is that radios are designed to run at a
specific tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a
lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the radios
don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is
likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise
floor.

Please don't inte

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Blair Davis]

Don't think that anything to do with DFS has to make any sense.  It doesn't.

--
On 2/14/2014 4:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older 
device and associate to one that is compliant.


Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE operations 
as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, UBNT hasn't done 
the paperwork to get them certified as CPE either, but should be a lot 
easier as they don't need to pass all of the other business. Also, 
that makes more sense...  that your AP control what happens in a given 
area.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


*From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
*To: *"WISPA General List" 
*Cc: *"WISPA General List" 
*Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
frequencies?


Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS equipped 
sector?


On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens > wrote:


We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval
but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket
Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits
(False Positives from competitors putting  up new APs)) - cost to
replace $6000 not including labor costs. And money grows on trees.

All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to
bring them up to "legal".

Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out
5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower
frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be withdrawn
and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about the money
after all.

Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> wrote:

Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a
certified radio.

Your original message was complaining about the removal of
compliance test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance test
mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal
limits.   For instance over the legal power limit or on DFS
bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that
radio.

UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to
prevent any legal operation of their radio.  I haven't heard
of any instances where not having compliance mode has resulted
in a meaningful impact to a legal operator.   I hate to defend
them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it
nearly correct.

Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think
is legal but isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance
test mode?

On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

5265-5320
5500-5580
5660-5700
5735-5840

Are these not USA channels?
If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller
mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>> wrote:


Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265
- 5700 frequencies?
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM


I'm going to agree with others...

Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the
FCC, and it sounds like you are definitely running
outside the limits since you are whining about the
ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to
have no use than to exceed the limits.

I will also add that if you're running all your radios
hotter than they should be that your nose floor
problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience
over the years is that radios are designed to run at a
specific tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a
lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the radios
don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is
likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise
floor.

Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly.  
We've just all either dealt with an operator like you
are no

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Mike Hammett]

The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if you want 
it to work somewhere else. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 


CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to channel 
change requests from the AP, etc. 



Josh Reynolds 
Chief Information Officer 
SPITwSPOTS 
j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older device and 
associate to one that is compliant. 

Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE operations as well? 
I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to 
get them certified as CPE either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need 
to pass all of the other business. Also, that makes more sense... that your AP 
control what happens in a given area. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Hoppes"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Cc: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 


Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS equipped sector? 

On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 





We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we are 
using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I 
have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
putting up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including labor costs. And 
money grows on trees. 


All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them up to 
"legal". 


Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8 No 
DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it seemed 
like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is 
all about the money after all. 


Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?. 



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio. 
Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance test 
mode. The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a radio to 
operate outside of legal limits. For instance over the legal power limit or on 
DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that radio. 
UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any legal 
operation of their radio. I haven't heard of any instances where not having 
compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator. I hate 
to defend them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it nearly 
correct. 
Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal but 
isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode? 
On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 



5265-5320 
5500-5580 
5660-5700 
5735-5840 


Are these not USA channels? 
If am wrong let me know and I will change them. 



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller < par...@cyberbroadband.net > 
wrote: 



Forrest...what is your offlist email ? 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone 


- Reply message - 
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 
To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM 



I'm going to agree with others... 
Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds like 
you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining about the 
ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed 
the limits. 
I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they should 
be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience 
over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific tx power and if 
you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed over. Even if the 
radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is likely needed 
causing an overall rising of the noise floor. 
Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. We've just all either dealt 
with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you are now. 
And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do 
when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. Which makes us a bit 
grumpy. 
I'm sure so

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Josh Reynolds]

We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P

*Josh Reynolds*
Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS
j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com

On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if 
you want it to work somewhere else. ;-)




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


*From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
*To: *wireless@wispa.org
*Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
frequencies?


CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to 
channel change requests from the AP, etc.


*Josh Reynolds*
Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS
j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com

On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older
device and associate to one that is compliant.

Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE
operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case,
UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE
either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all
of the other business. Also, that makes more sense...  that your
AP control what happens in a given area.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


*From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
*To: *"WISPA General List" 
*Cc: *"WISPA General List" 
*Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
frequencies?

Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS
equipped sector?

On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS
approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on
the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing
jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors
putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including
labor costs. And money grows on trees.

All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to
bring them up to "legal".

Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came
out 5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower
frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be
withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about
the money after all.

Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.


On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List
Account) mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
wrote:

Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a
certified radio.

Your original message was complaining about the removal of
compliance test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance
test mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal
limits.   For instance over the legal power limit or on
DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels
for that radio.

UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to
prevent any legal operation of their radio.  I haven't
heard of any instances where not having compliance mode
has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator.  
I hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they

may have gotten it nearly correct.

Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you
think is legal but isn't permitted unless you turn on
compliance test mode?

On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens"
mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

5265-5320
5500-5580
5660-5700
5735-5840

Are these not USA channels?
If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller
mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>> wrote:


Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the
5265 - 5700 frequencies?
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM


I'm going 

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Matt Hoppes]

Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY 
we're being "muscled out" of the frequencies.

Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules.  No unlocked radios, 
compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc.


Matt Hoppes
Director of Information Technology
Indigo Wireless
+1 (570) 723-7312

On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P
>
> *Josh Reynolds*
> Chief Information Officer
> SPITwSPOTS
> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>
> On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if
>> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>> *To: *wireless@wispa.org
>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>> frequencies?
>>
>> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to
>> channel change requests from the AP, etc.
>>
>> *Josh Reynolds*
>> Chief Information Officer
>> SPITwSPOTS
>> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>>
>> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older
>> device and associate to one that is compliant.
>>
>> Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE
>> operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case,
>> UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE
>> either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all
>> of the other business. Also, that makes more sense...  that your
>> AP control what happens in a given area.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> *From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
>> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
>> *Cc: *"WISPA General List" 
>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>> frequencies?
>>
>> Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS
>> equipped sector?
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens > > wrote:
>>
>> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS
>> approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on
>> the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing
>> jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors
>> putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including
>> labor costs. And money grows on trees.
>>
>> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to
>> bring them up to "legal".
>>
>> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came
>> out 5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower
>> frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be
>> withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about
>> the money after all.
>>
>> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List
>> Account) mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a
>> certified radio.
>>
>> Your original message was complaining about the removal of
>> compliance test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance
>> test mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal
>> limits.   For instance over the legal power limit or on
>> DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels
>> for that radio.
>>
>> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to
>> prevent any legal operation of their radio.  I haven't
>> heard of any instances where not having compliance mode
>> has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator.
>> I hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they
>> may have gotten it nearly correct.
>>
>> Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you
>> think is legal but isn't permitted unless you turn on
>> compliance test mode?
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens"
>> mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 5265-5320
>> 5500-5580
>> 5660-5700
>> 5735-5840
>>
>> Are these not USA channels?
>> If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.
>

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Mike Hammett]

I was just speaking theoretical. Don't do any of the things I mentioned. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Hoppes"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:03:53 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 

Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY 
we're being "muscled out" of the frequencies. 

Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules. No unlocked radios, 
compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc. 


Matt Hoppes 
Director of Information Technology 
Indigo Wireless 
+1 (570) 723-7312 

On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: 
> We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P 
> 
> *Josh Reynolds* 
> Chief Information Officer 
> SPITwSPOTS 
> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
> 
> On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
>> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if 
>> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-) 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - 
>> Mike Hammett 
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>>  
>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds"  
>> *To: *wireless@wispa.org 
>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM 
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
>> frequencies? 
>> 
>> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to 
>> channel change requests from the AP, etc. 
>> 
>> *Josh Reynolds* 
>> Chief Information Officer 
>> SPITwSPOTS 
>> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
>> 
>> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
>> 
>> It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older 
>> device and associate to one that is compliant. 
>> 
>> Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE 
>> operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, 
>> UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE 
>> either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all 
>> of the other business. Also, that makes more sense... that your 
>> AP control what happens in a given area. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - 
>> Mike Hammett 
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>>  
>> *From: *"Matt Hoppes"  
>> *To: *"WISPA General List"  
>> *Cc: *"WISPA General List"  
>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM 
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
>> frequencies? 
>> 
>> Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS 
>> equipped sector? 
>> 
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens > > wrote: 
>> 
>> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS 
>> approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on 
>> the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing 
>> jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
>> putting up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including 
>> labor costs. And money grows on trees. 
>> 
>> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to 
>> bring them up to "legal". 
>> 
>> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came 
>> out 5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower 
>> frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be 
>> withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about 
>> the money after all. 
>> 
>> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List 
>> Account) mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> 
>> wrote: 
>> 
>> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a 
>> certified radio. 
>> 
>> Your original message was complaining about the removal of 
>> compliance test mode. The specific purpose of compliance 
>> test mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal 
>> limits. For instance over the legal power limit or on 
>> DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels 
>> for that radio. 
>> 
>> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to 
>> prevent any legal operation of their radio. I haven't 
>> heard of any instances where not having compliance mode 
>> has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator. 
>> I hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they 
>> may have gotten it nearly correct. 
>> 
>> Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you 
>> think is legal but isn't permitted unless you turn on 
>> compliance test mode? 
>> 
>> On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" 
>> mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote: 
>> 
>> 5265-5320 
>> 5500-5580 
>> 5660-5700 
>> 5735-5840 
>> 
>> Are these not USA channels? 
>> If am wrong let me know and I will change them. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
>> > 

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Matt Hoppes]

You didn't make the comments that took this in the direction it did :)



On 2/14/14, 6:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I was just speaking theoretical. Don't do any of the things I mentioned.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> *From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 5:03:53 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
> frequencies?
>
> Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY
> we're being "muscled out" of the frequencies.
>
> Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules.  No unlocked radios,
> compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc.
>
>
> Matt Hoppes
> Director of Information Technology
> Indigo Wireless
> +1 (570) 723-7312
>
> On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>  > We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They
> exist :P
>  >
>  > *Josh Reynolds*
>  > Chief Information Officer
>  > SPITwSPOTS
>  > j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>  >
>  > On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>  >> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if
>  >> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-)
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> -
>  >> Mike Hammett
>  >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>  >> http://www.ics-il.com
>  >>
>  >> 
>  >> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>  >> *To: *wireless@wispa.org
>  >> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM
>  >> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>  >> frequencies?
>  >>
>  >> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to
>  >> channel change requests from the AP, etc.
>  >>
>  >> *Josh Reynolds*
>  >> Chief Information Officer
>  >> SPITwSPOTS
>  >> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>  >>
>  >> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>  >>
>  >> It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older
>  >> device and associate to one that is compliant.
>  >>
>  >> Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE
>  >> operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case,
>  >> UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE
>  >> either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all
>  >> of the other business. Also, that makes more sense...  that your
>  >> AP control what happens in a given area.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> -
>  >> Mike Hammett
>  >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>  >> http://www.ics-il.com
>  >>
>  >>
> 
>  >> *From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
>  >> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
>  >> *Cc: *"WISPA General List" 
>  >> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM
>  >> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>  >> frequencies?
>  >>
>  >> Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS
>  >> equipped sector?
>  >>
>  >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens   >> > wrote:
>  >>
>  >> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS
>  >> approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on
>  >> the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing
>  >> jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors
>  >> putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including
>  >> labor costs. And money grows on trees.
>  >>
>  >> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to
>  >> bring them up to "legal".
>  >>
>  >> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came
>  >> out 5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower
>  >> frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be
>  >> withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about
>  >> the money after all.
>  >>
>  >> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List
>  >> Account) mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
>  >> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a
>  >> certified radio.
>  >>
>  >> Your original message was complaining about the removal of
>  >> compliance test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance
>  >> test mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal
>  >> limits.   For instance over the legal power limit or on
>  >> DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels
>  >> for that radio.
>  >>
>  >> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to
> 

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Mike Hammett]

Well I know that. Punch in the FCC ID on your radio. What does it say you can 
use? Yup, that's it. Move on. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:01:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 


We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P 



Josh Reynolds 
Chief Information Officer 
SPITwSPOTS 
j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if you want 
it to work somewhere else. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Josh Reynolds"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 


CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to channel 
change requests from the AP, etc. 



Josh Reynolds 
Chief Information Officer 
SPITwSPOTS 
j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older device and 
associate to one that is compliant. 

Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE operations as well? 
I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to 
get them certified as CPE either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need 
to pass all of the other business. Also, that makes more sense... that your AP 
control what happens in a given area. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Hoppes"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Cc: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 


Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS equipped sector? 

On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 





We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we are 
using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I 
have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
putting up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including labor costs. And 
money grows on trees. 


All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them up to 
"legal". 


Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8 No 
DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it seemed 
like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is 
all about the money after all. 


Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?. 



On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio. 
Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance test 
mode. The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a radio to 
operate outside of legal limits. For instance over the legal power limit or on 
DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels for that radio. 
UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any legal 
operation of their radio. I haven't heard of any instances where not having 
compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator. I hate 
to defend them but in this case it seems like they may have gotten it nearly 
correct. 
Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal but 
isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode? 
On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote: 



5265-5320 
5500-5580 
5660-5700 
5735-5840 


Are these not USA channels? 
If am wrong let me know and I will change them. 



On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller < par...@cyberbroadband.net > 
wrote: 



Forrest...what is your offlist email ? 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone 


- Reply message - 
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 
To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM 



I'm going to agree with others... 
Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds like 
you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining about the 
ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed 
the limits. 
I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they should 
be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My experience 

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Mike Hammett]

LOUD NOISES 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Hoppes"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:06:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 

You didn't make the comments that took this in the direction it did :) 



On 2/14/14, 6:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> I was just speaking theoretical. Don't do any of the things I mentioned. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
>  
> *From: *"Matt Hoppes"  
> *To: *"WISPA General List"  
> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 5:03:53 PM 
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
> frequencies? 
> 
> Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY 
> we're being "muscled out" of the frequencies. 
> 
> Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules. No unlocked radios, 
> compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc. 
> 
> 
> Matt Hoppes 
> Director of Information Technology 
> Indigo Wireless 
> +1 (570) 723-7312 
> 
> On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: 
> > We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They 
> exist :P 
> > 
> > *Josh Reynolds* 
> > Chief Information Officer 
> > SPITwSPOTS 
> > j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
> > 
> > On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> >> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if 
> >> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-) 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> - 
> >> Mike Hammett 
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> >> http://www.ics-il.com 
> >> 
> >>  
> >> *From: *"Josh Reynolds"  
> >> *To: *wireless@wispa.org 
> >> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM 
> >> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
> >> frequencies? 
> >> 
> >> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to 
> >> channel change requests from the AP, etc. 
> >> 
> >> *Josh Reynolds* 
> >> Chief Information Officer 
> >> SPITwSPOTS 
> >> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
> >> 
> >> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> >> 
> >> It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older 
> >> device and associate to one that is compliant. 
> >> 
> >> Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE 
> >> operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, 
> >> UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE 
> >> either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all 
> >> of the other business. Also, that makes more sense... that your 
> >> AP control what happens in a given area. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> - 
> >> Mike Hammett 
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> >> http://www.ics-il.com 
> >> 
> >> 
>  
> >> *From: *"Matt Hoppes"  
> >> *To: *"WISPA General List"  
> >> *Cc: *"WISPA General List"  
> >> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM 
> >> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
> >> frequencies? 
> >> 
> >> Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS 
> >> equipped sector? 
> >> 
> >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens  >> > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS 
> >> approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on 
> >> the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing 
> >> jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors 
> >> putting up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including 
> >> labor costs. And money grows on trees. 
> >> 
> >> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to 
> >> bring them up to "legal". 
> >> 
> >> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came 
> >> out 5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower 
> >> frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be 
> >> withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about 
> >> the money after all. 
> >> 
> >> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List 
> >> Account) mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> 
> >> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a 
> >> certified radio. 
> >> 
> >> Your original message was complaining about the removal of 
> >> compliance test mode. The specific purpose of compliance 
> >> test mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal 
> >> limits. For instance over the legal power limit or on 
> >> DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels 
> >> for that radio. 
> >> 
> >> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to 
> >> p

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Kristian Hoffmann]

On 02/14/2014 03:08 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

LOUD NOISES



I don't know what we're yelling about!

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[ralph]

Exactly-What Matt said!  or you are no better than the Mikrotik boys who use
uncertified stuff.
(yes a FEW MT devices radios are certified, but most are illegal to use in
the US. But they don't seem to care)

I feel that 5GHz is going to be toast anyway before long. In our Metro WiFi
deployments we see hundreds of 5 GHz Linksys, Dlink, etc. neighbors on scans
now. And many of them are overlapping many channels. And of course all
Comcast's hotspots and everyone else's broadcasting on both bands.

I often wonder how long WiFi has before it is totally unusable.  It is
getting that way now here in the large Metro areas!
You guys out in the sticks with your grain elevators and 20 mile
unobstructed views have it so easy. Lol



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:04 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
frequencies?

Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY we're
being "muscled out" of the frequencies.

Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules.  No unlocked radios,
compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc.


Matt Hoppes
Director of Information Technology
Indigo Wireless
+1 (570) 723-7312

On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P
>
> *Josh Reynolds*
> Chief Information Officer
> SPITwSPOTS
> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>
> On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if
>> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>> *To: *wireless@wispa.org
>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>> frequencies?
>>
>> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to
>> channel change requests from the AP, etc.
>>
>> *Josh Reynolds*
>> Chief Information Officer
>> SPITwSPOTS
>> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>>
>> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older
>> device and associate to one that is compliant.
>>
>> Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE
>> operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case,
>> UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE
>> either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all
>> of the other business. Also, that makes more sense...  that your
>> AP control what happens in a given area.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>

>> *From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
>> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
>> *Cc: *"WISPA General List" 
>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>> frequencies?
>>
>> Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS
>> equipped sector?
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens > > wrote:
>>
>> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS
>> approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on
>> the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing
>> jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors
>> putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including
>> labor costs. And money grows on trees.
>>
>> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to
>> bring them up to "legal".
>>
>> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came
>> out 5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower
>> frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be
>> withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about
>> the money after all.
>>
>> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List
>> Account) mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a
>> certified radio.
>>
>> Your original message was complaining about the removal of
>> compliance test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance
>> test mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal
>> limits.   For instance over the legal power limit or on
>> DFS bands without DFS enabled or outsid

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Blair Davis]

Haven't we had this discussion before?  In reference to m-PCI radio cards?

Didn't it break down to a 'spirit of the law' group and a 'letter of the 
law' group last time?  Professional installer, anyone?

Won't it do that again?  Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and 
over and expecting a different result?

The fact is, if a DFS compliant AP changes channels and it's CPE follow 
it, the radar occupied channel is vacated.  Yes, it is not letter of the 
law compliant.  OTOH, it is unlikely to cause interference.  Isn't that 
the goal?

I don't have a dog in this fight.  The only thing I have in this band is 
a legacy 600 yard 5.3GHz PtP from before the new rules.  So it doesn't 
affect me either way.


--


On 2/14/2014 7:35 PM, ralph wrote:
> Exactly-What Matt said!  or you are no better than the Mikrotik boys who use
> uncertified stuff.
> (yes a FEW MT devices radios are certified, but most are illegal to use in
> the US. But they don't seem to care)
>
> I feel that 5GHz is going to be toast anyway before long. In our Metro WiFi
> deployments we see hundreds of 5 GHz Linksys, Dlink, etc. neighbors on scans
> now. And many of them are overlapping many channels. And of course all
> Comcast's hotspots and everyone else's broadcasting on both bands.
>
> I often wonder how long WiFi has before it is totally unusable.  It is
> getting that way now here in the large Metro areas!
> You guys out in the sticks with your grain elevators and 20 mile
> unobstructed views have it so easy. Lol
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Matt Hoppes
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:04 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
> frequencies?
>
> Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY we're
> being "muscled out" of the frequencies.
>
> Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules.  No unlocked radios,
> compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc.
>
>
> Matt Hoppes
> Director of Information Technology
> Indigo Wireless
> +1 (570) 723-7312
>
> On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
>> We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P
>>
>> *Josh Reynolds*
>> Chief Information Officer
>> SPITwSPOTS
>> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>>
>> On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if
>>> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> 
>>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>>> *To: *wireless@wispa.org
>>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>>> frequencies?
>>>
>>> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to
>>> channel change requests from the AP, etc.
>>>
>>> *Josh Reynolds*
>>> Chief Information Officer
>>> SPITwSPOTS
>>> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
>>>
>>> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>>  It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older
>>>  device and associate to one that is compliant.
>>>
>>>  Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE
>>>  operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case,
>>>  UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE
>>>  either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all
>>>  of the other business. Also, that makes more sense...  that your
>>>  AP control what happens in a given area.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -
>>>  Mike Hammett
>>>  Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>  http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
> 
>>>  *From: *"Matt Hoppes" 
>>>  *To: *"WISPA General List" 
>>>  *Cc: *"WISPA General List" 
>>>  *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM
>>>  *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
>>>  frequencies?
>>>
>>>  Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS
>>>  equipped sector?
>>>
>>>  On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens >>  > wrote:
>>>
>>>  We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS
>>>  approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on
>>>  the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing
>>>  jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors
>>>  putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including
>>>  labor costs. And money grows on trees.
>>>
>>>  All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to
>>>  bring them up to "legal".
>>>
>>>  Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So whe

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I guess the point I was trying to make was that every one of those airgrids
have been illegal to operate in 5.4 since day one.  If you're unfortunate
enough to get the FCC's attention you could be fined dearly for operating
out of spec.

A bit of history.   The 5.4 frequency block used to be military and
civilian radar only.  As part of the conditions of us gaining access to the
band the concept of DFS was created.   The specific purpose of DFS was to
protect the existing, licensed, and primary users of the band.   All
operations in 5.4 must use DFS to ensure that radios shut down instead of
interfering with the existing, primary users.   Without DFS we would have
never been permitted in the band.

As hardware came out which was capable of transmitting in the band some
implemented DFS and was certified and legal to operate in 5.4.  And some of
it, like the airgrids, could transmit in the 5.4 band but were not legal to
operate in those bands in the US.

One of the primary users in the 5.4 band is TDWR.   This detects micro
bursts at airports where they're common.  This is a public safety system
run by the FAA.  A couple of years ago the FAA started having interference
caused by various unlicensed operations in this band.  Several operators
were fined and as fallout the frequencies used by TDWR were carved out of
the band and cannot be used anywhere even in areas where TDWR isn't used.
In addition the FCC started tightening down on equipment sold in the US and
capable of operating in these bands.

Which gets us to where we are now.  UBNT and others are releasing firmware
updates specifically designed to deny illegal operation. This includes
removing compliance test mode.  In theory legal operations should not be
impacted, but operations which should never have been permitted in the
first place will no longer be possible.

In the bigger picture, illegal operations is a definite strike against our
credibility when we either ask for more bands or defend the ones we already
have, especially if there needs to be some sort of protection to existing
users of the band.
On Feb 14, 2014 2:17 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:

> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but we
> are using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they connect
> to. I have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from
> competitors putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including
> labor costs. And money grows on trees.
>
> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them
> up to "legal".
>
> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out 5.7-5.8
> No DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies whether it
> seemed like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to the highest
> bidder. It is all about the money after all.
>
> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified radio.
>>
>> Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance
>> test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a
>> radio to operate outside of legal limits.   For instance over the legal
>> power limit or on DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels
>> for that radio.
>>
>> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any
>> legal operation of their radio.  I haven't heard of any instances where not
>> having compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal
>> operator.   I hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they may
>> have gotten it nearly correct.
>>
>> Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal
>> but isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode?
>> On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:
>>
>>> 5265-5320
>>> 5500-5580
>>> 5660-5700
>>> 5735-5840
>>>
>>> Are these not USA channels?
>>> If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller <
>>> par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:
>>>

 Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

 - Reply message -
 From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
 frequencies?
 Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM


 I'm going to agree with others...

 Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it
 sounds like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are
 whining about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have
 no use than to exceed the limits.

 I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they
 should be that your nose floor problem is mos

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Jim Patient]

Anyone happen to notice the noise on the San Juan TDWR station lately?
Must be a bunch of Airgrids down there J

 

https://tinyurl.com/pohpj6o 

 

 

Jim 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
frequencies?

 

I guess the point I was trying to make was that every one of those
airgrids have been illegal to operate in 5.4 since day one.  If you're
unfortunate enough to get the FCC's attention you could be fined dearly
for operating out of spec. 

A bit of history.   The 5.4 frequency block used to be military and
civilian radar only.  As part of the conditions of us gaining access to
the band the concept of DFS was created.   The specific purpose of DFS
was to protect the existing, licensed, and primary users of the band.
All operations in 5.4 must use DFS to ensure that radios shut down
instead of interfering with the existing, primary users.   Without DFS
we would have never been permitted in the band.

As hardware came out which was capable of transmitting in the band some
implemented DFS and was certified and legal to operate in 5.4.  And some
of it, like the airgrids, could transmit in the 5.4 band but were not
legal to operate in those bands in the US.

One of the primary users in the 5.4 band is TDWR.   This detects micro
bursts at airports where they're common.  This is a public safety system
run by the FAA.  A couple of years ago the FAA started having
interference caused by various unlicensed operations in this band.
Several operators were fined and as fallout the frequencies used by TDWR
were carved out of the band and cannot be used anywhere even in areas
where TDWR isn't used.  In addition the FCC started tightening down on
equipment sold in the US and capable of operating in these bands.

Which gets us to where we are now.  UBNT and others are releasing
firmware updates specifically designed to deny illegal operation. This
includes removing compliance test mode.  In theory legal operations
should not be impacted, but operations which should never have been
permitted in the first place will no longer be possible.

In the bigger picture, illegal operations is a definite strike against
our credibility when we either ask for more bands or defend the ones we
already have, especially if there needs to be some sort of protection to
existing users of the band.   

On Feb 14, 2014 2:17 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:

We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS approval but
we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on the Rocket Sectors they
connect to. I have been chasing jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives
from competitors putting  up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not
including labor costs. And money grows on trees.

 

All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to bring them
up to "legal".

 

Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came out
5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower frequencies
whether it seemed like they were going to be withdrawn and sold off to
the highest bidder. It is all about the money after all. 

 

Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?.

 

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account)
 wrote:

Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a certified
radio.

Your original message was complaining about the removal of compliance
test mode.  The specific purpose of compliance test mode is to permit a
radio to operate outside of legal limits.   For instance over the legal
power limit or on DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal
channels for that radio.

UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to prevent any
legal operation of their radio.  I haven't heard of any instances where
not having compliance mode has resulted in a meaningful impact to a
legal operator.   I hate to defend them but in this case it seems like
they may have gotten it nearly correct.

Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you think is legal
but isn't permitted unless you turn on compliance test mode?

On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens"  wrote:

5265-5320

5500-5580

5660-5700

5735-5840

 

Are these not USA channels?

If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller
 wrote:


Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
frequencies?
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM

 

I'm going to agree with others...

Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds
like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining
about the ability to run your radios in a mode which 

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Mike Hammett]

They certainly aren't DFS certified, if you're willing to cede 5.8 GHz. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Blair Davis"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:54:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 

Haven't we had this discussion before? In reference to m-PCI radio cards? 

Didn't it break down to a 'spirit of the law' group and a 'letter of the 
law' group last time? Professional installer, anyone? 

Won't it do that again? Isn't insanity doing the same thing over and 
over and expecting a different result? 

The fact is, if a DFS compliant AP changes channels and it's CPE follow 
it, the radar occupied channel is vacated. Yes, it is not letter of the 
law compliant. OTOH, it is unlikely to cause interference. Isn't that 
the goal? 

I don't have a dog in this fight. The only thing I have in this band is 
a legacy 600 yard 5.3GHz PtP from before the new rules. So it doesn't 
affect me either way. 


-- 


On 2/14/2014 7:35 PM, ralph wrote: 
> Exactly-What Matt said! or you are no better than the Mikrotik boys who use 
> uncertified stuff. 
> (yes a FEW MT devices radios are certified, but most are illegal to use in 
> the US. But they don't seem to care) 
> 
> I feel that 5GHz is going to be toast anyway before long. In our Metro WiFi 
> deployments we see hundreds of 5 GHz Linksys, Dlink, etc. neighbors on scans 
> now. And many of them are overlapping many channels. And of course all 
> Comcast's hotspots and everyone else's broadcasting on both bands. 
> 
> I often wonder how long WiFi has before it is totally unusable. It is 
> getting that way now here in the large Metro areas! 
> You guys out in the sticks with your grain elevators and 20 mile 
> unobstructed views have it so easy. Lol 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Matt Hoppes 
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 6:04 PM 
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
> frequencies? 
> 
> Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY we're 
> being "muscled out" of the frequencies. 
> 
> Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules. No unlocked radios, 
> compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc. 
> 
> 
> Matt Hoppes 
> Director of Information Technology 
> Indigo Wireless 
> +1 (570) 723-7312 
> 
> On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: 
>> We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P 
>> 
>> *Josh Reynolds* 
>> Chief Information Officer 
>> SPITwSPOTS 
>> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
>> 
>> On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
>>> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if 
>>> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-) 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - 
>>> Mike Hammett 
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> *From: *"Josh Reynolds"  
>>> *To: *wireless@wispa.org 
>>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM 
>>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
>>> frequencies? 
>>> 
>>> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to 
>>> channel change requests from the AP, etc. 
>>> 
>>> *Josh Reynolds* 
>>> Chief Information Officer 
>>> SPITwSPOTS 
>>> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com 
>>> 
>>> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
>>> 
>>> It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older 
>>> device and associate to one that is compliant. 
>>> 
>>> Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE 
>>> operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, 
>>> UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE 
>>> either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all 
>>> of the other business. Also, that makes more sense... that your 
>>> AP control what happens in a given area. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - 
>>> Mike Hammett 
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>>> 
>>> 
>  
>>> *From: *"Matt Hoppes"  
>>> *To: *"WISPA General List"  
>>> *Cc: *"WISPA General List"  
>>> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM 
>>> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
>>> frequencies? 
>>> 
>>> Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS 
>>> equipped sector? 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens >> > wrote: 
>>> 
>>> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS 
>>> approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on 
>>> the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing 
>>> jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from