On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis <the...@wmwisp.net> wrote: > Inline reply's > > On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble > <char...@knownelement.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > > Comments inline. > > jack > > > On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote: > > Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated > offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense... > > Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to > transmit RF at all. > I am all for the steel boot <after> the first warning. Sometimes > slipups happen. > Repeated slipups is clear intent. > > I agree with this totally. > > Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against > offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is > a > serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place. > > That would be nice to see for many reasons. > > Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or > http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ? > > I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS > and database... > > Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the > FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC > to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a > simple email list that we sign up to. This would > be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. > Maybe we need a database that we can report > links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I > have seen many illegal links and reports to the > FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. > > Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to > include the GPS hardware and the database access system...
I am hoping for a system that forestalls the GPS needs. Namely, Disallow use in any radar areas if people can not pull their heads out of .. what ever dark places it is at. Or, at the very least a place WISPs can report what we see, and a place that the FCC can report what they see. If the band is totally not allowed, then the added cost of GPS would not matter would it? > > Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage > is > that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of > operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system. > > Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 > exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas > to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are > being /%$#@/ > > I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is > no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point? > > Very true. > > What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind > of license enforcement there... > > Why? > > WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was > agreed > that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is > needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand. > > Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the > violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't > recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. > > There are > > also more and more illegal (unlicensed) "bootleggers" using the band. One > solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between > different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix. > > Hmmmm. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and > should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I > recall that was very vague in the R&O. > > Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and > not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? > I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this > and how can wispa help us and > the FCC? > > A) WISPS need a open place to report things we see > B) The FCC needs a place to report to us when it see's/receives a > report of interference. > > Thoughts? > > I mentioned this a month or two back... > > In an area with NO other registered 3.65 locations, I have already found > 3.65 gear in use. That is not good. We need a way to shut them down. How many man hours does it take to do this? I wonder if there is a boiler plate cease and desist that could be worked up. If a (qualified, certified, licensed, approved, etc) wisp could report information to the FCC, and then have a letter delivered to the /site owner/ about /hardware X is generating interference Y/ and hold the site owner to the coals, would that be a acceptable solution? > > Especially, UBNT NSM365 gear used as PtP to link up house to barn and so > on... > > I have proposed that equipment sellers be required to check for an FCC > license before selling 3.65 gear. That should be required. It should be trivial to email a supplier the link to your license. > > I also KNOW of a WISP that was planning on deploying 3.65 gear without a > license at all. That is just not right. Those are the people/corps that should lose the right to TX for many years. > > > > - -- > Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) > Systems craftsman for the stars > http://www.knownelement.com > Mobile: 626 539 4344 > Office: 310 929 8793 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUgaFAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAteVwP/iZ/0b6im8NQhJXXIJxR+0V9 > 3vhg+UegyqimJJkMPnwKBdSrW/i2FBVDc1LHftkn1aEOjj5GamoeiAnV6umG3VbF > r23XC5vvUCr3drosgprLr3FHXi2wQE+D+ToYCB+YdU3bklvHD/AJ4hTZKfM6ZDJK > Vo4cNflKC28o+D9qlwvjheFflhkxf1dBl7eAJe+wvxtHXqgE/tfOig+20wRXBQea > ruyD40BWNLPOCqcjafHCto3zzgTMX03hqwKqT8a+bvdqOrAoAHsZUIv7RFhOY6Xv > oVMJZMDgzrZUUCq+LHBgZZ33+Xr94uABqKz+1JMjwdCPUNe8POBOU7st6RkHPjkj > l+J55/xlV7KMq3eS+pvGEVFY7Vt26oPo1AHhIvdutkrkYVtWmAvcmPQAReTmUfZQ > QsdGv/U/mqms2Kd0ujSaGFvQk8kwC5Nl5Hi7nnObc5nbRao53z/KiB4PGycfIiw9 > N5IcL8Cay+nl+OqYYX4VdIU2laWFQh7Vst5ZH+MXk3wXvGFb0TIKexLimAdXO66Z > 3kHWXYZhEUAQ+QQQ6mJLKWAly1tlmyL3FqLrUQKNpISEWpysqOuxxpBw8jlwrdaj > Xq9F36fRZvj8CqyImQdPQaFQq5NKdANMHTXS5b3G8cBNF1/NJQUJb/8ecwuK2iw6 > FtnI80BWXzQwIe/bfPci > =3Dzr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
