|
I agree. Continental is a tennant and has exclusive use of the space. Don't see that as different that any other MTU. And they are not wanting to receive the same signal that MASSPORT is sending out, they want their own, if I read it right.
Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Bob Moldashel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:52:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest > Some thoughts...... > > I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons: > > The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in > space used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients, > employees and cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered > "common" in term. > > The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know, the > usual "You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you" rules > of Part 15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to > their operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is > interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the > Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the > best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the > equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about "health > risks". > > The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in > Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than > the specific area required by Continental. This leads to spectral waste > by distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In > addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference > to Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the > signal is now more accessible over a larger area. > > No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is > presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the > pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease > agreement with Massport "reaks" or attempts to "coordinate frequency > use". An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish Massport > for its attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized > under the Commission's rules. > > And finally.......I dislike greedy landlords.......The only reason they > (Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at > stake. And this is no different than paying a "license fee" or > "frequency coordination fee" for which the Federal Communications > Commission says there should be none. > > Maybe Continental could become the "official WISPA air carrier" after we > reply....... :-D > > I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that > come to mind. > > -B- > > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > > > Thanks Harold! > > > > Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on > > this issue. This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems > > or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD. > > > > Thoughts? > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Open Spectrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unlicensed > > Advocates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM > > Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest > > > > > >> Released: 07/29/2005. OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL > >> AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS > >> ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S > >> OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No. 05-2213). (Dkt No > >> 05-247). Comments Due: 08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due: 09/13/2005. > >> OET. Contact: Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290 > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf> > >> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Unlicensed_advocates mailing list > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates > >> > > > > -- > Bob Moldashel > Lakeland Communications, Inc. > Broadband Deployment Group > 1350 Lincoln Avenue > Holbrook, New York 11741 USA > 800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada > 631-585-5558 Fax > 516-551-1131 Cell > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ ------- End of Original Message ------- |
-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
