I agree, we need to firmly stand behind Continental. This is a clear case
where Continental should have the right to broadcast its signal, without
exception under OTARD rules. The common antenna exception also doesn't
really apply for this type of situation where the antenna does not have any
safety or cosmetic side effects, because it is compeltely located with the
confines of Continental's space.
The OTARD rule was never intended to be a mechanism to avoid interference or
prevent businesses or home owners from doing their own thing within their
space.
Mass Authorities's request is also illegal on other grounds not related to
OTARD. Its clear they are trying to establish a relationship with a single
airport service provider giving that provider preferencial treatment.
Landlords are no allowed to gives exclusive access to a single ISP, or
discrimate from a specific provider. The fact that they allowed one ISP,
could be grounds that they would need to allow additional ISPs at similar
terms.
However, there is nothing to prohibit the landlord from establishing
exclusive marketing agreements or endorsements, nor licensing the the use of
equipment placement of unlicensed spectrum with in the areas of the airport
controlled by the landlord.
Its impossible to licence the right to allow radio waves to enter a space!!.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:21 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest
Yes. You should be concerned about landlords cutting exclusive deals with
telcos and cable cos to prohibit competing wireless networks. I'm not
talking about roof top access; I'm talking about asserting control over
internal networks so that you can't reach business customers. The OTARD
rules started because cable companies cut exclusive deals with landlords
to keep out DBS receivers.
Harold
At 06:41 PM 8/2/2005, 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
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/2005
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
