That would be great. What options do you see? DFS2 looks to have not got the job done. No one knows how the GPS+DB stuff will really look, or the costs it will add. The simplest way to do GPS would be to make a serial receive port. The DB part would be a pretty simple script.
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Tom DeReggi <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> wrote: > I do not see why we must suggest or FCC mandate a static one shoe fits all > approach. > > The fact is, there are multiple ways to address the problem, each of which > could be equally effective. As long as any one of those several options are > chosen by an operator or manuacturer, problem solved. Why not support and > enable "choice"? > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeromie Reeves" <jree...@18-30chat.net> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:10 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes > needed > > > 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/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
