If your radio is causing interference to a licensed radio they have -- they can say shut it down. Otherwise a request of "shut everything down on the band" I don't think holds water....
On 6/12/14, 1:31 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: > Update.... Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) > were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and > to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was > discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all > users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this > seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in > the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they > remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the > radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands > of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging > identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They > said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they > were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions > going on above our pay grade locally. > > Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that > we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent > from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded > to me: > > ======================================= > FROM: FCC Agent > TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT > > Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB > > Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference > to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking > radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted > several of the Wireless Internet > Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the > problem and have been met with > some resistance to assist you. > I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to > discuss this problem and open up a > discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. > WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not > cause harmful interference. > 47 C.F.R. § 15.5 General conditions of operation. > (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators > shall not be deemed to have any > vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given > frequency by virtue of prior > registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line > carrier systems, on the basis > of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this > chapter. > (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental > radiator is subject to the > conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that > interference must be accepted that > may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, > by another intentional or > unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical > (ISM) equipment, or by an > incidental radiator. > (c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required > to cease operating the device > upon notification by a Commission representative that the device > is causing harmful > interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition > causing the harmful interference > has been corrected. > (d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped > wave) are prohibited. > > I propose that we have our first meeting on Wednesday, 6/18/14, > at Patrick AFB. > > Thanks, > Don Roberson > Sr. Agent > Tampa Office > Enforcement Bureau > FCC > Office: 813-348-1741 ext 105 > > ======================================= > > So, its that easy? Local AF guy makes a request whether reasonable or > not, and thats the way it is? I understand moving off the 5765Mhz and > having guard space on either side maybe 20Mhz, but they want the whole > band to stop being used whether its even in the radar LOS or not, which > is an unreasonable request, IMO. This meeting of the minds will > apparently happen this coming Wednesday here locally. Anyone have > anything to add, other than good luck? > > Scott Carullo > Technical Operations > 855-FLSPEED x102 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Jack Unger" <jun...@ask-wi.com> > *Sent*: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:49 PM > *To*: sc...@flhsi.com > *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep > using 5630-5800 Mhz > > Yes. Thanks ! > > On 6/2/2014 9:24 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: >> Does this work: >> >> Scott Connolley, GS-13, DAF >> DoD Eastern Area Frequency >> Coordination Office >> 45 Space Communications Squadron >> Patrick Air Force Base Florida >> COMM: (321) 494-5838 DSN 854 >> scott.connol...@us.af.mil >> >> >> Scott Carullo >> Technical Operations >> 855-FLSPEED x102 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From*: "Jack Unger" <jun...@ask-wi.com> >> *Sent*: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:20 PM >> *To*: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep >> using 5630-5800 Mhz >> >> Guys, >> >> I'm working on getting some clarification on this issue. Let's try to >> hold off on the public speculation for a little while on this very >> public email list while I try to get more information. >> >> If anyone has additional concrete information, please email it to me. >> Specifically, does anyone have a link to DoD Eastern Area Frequency >> Coordination Office? >> >> Thanks, >> jack >> >> On 6/2/2014 9:13 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: >>> >>> I'd be shocked if the military could claim unilateral authority for >>> restricting 170 MHz of long-established ISM spectrum (nor 120 MHz of >>> UNII). I hope we read an authoritative opinion via from Steve Coran. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Patrick Leary* >>> >>> *M*727.501.3735 >>> >>> <http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >>> *On Behalf Of *Scott Carullo >>> *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 11:52 AM >>> *To:* sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List; wireless@wispa.org >>> *Subject:* [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using >>> 5630-5800 Mhz >>> >>> >>> >>> I am following up in hopes that some of you smart fellas can offer >>> suggestions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Recap: >>> >>> USAF Calls / emails asking to please identify all 5Ghz emitters >>> operating on or near 5765Mhz and either turn them off or change RF >>> settings to not fall under that category so that RFI to their >>> tracking radar can be reduced. >>> >>> >>> >>> How the radar works: Apparently the radar has multiple modes for >>> tracking / interrogating space-bound craft. In its primary mode, it >>> sends a pulse out on 5672Mhz and then listens for the echo (normal >>> radar operation). It then has another mode, where it sends an >>> interrogation request to the vehicle (satellite / rocket etc) on >>> 5690Mhz and then listens for a reply from the vehicle on 5765Mhz at >>> least for some commercial space launches. DoD military launches etc. >>> also are tracked / interrogated this same way but the listen freq. is >>> something other than 5765Mhz (probably classified). So - the prob >>> the USAF has with RFI is related to hearing the vehicle interrogation >>> response on 5765Mhz - and only while sitting on the pad and the first >>> few seconds of flight. A few seconds after launch, the gigantic >>> parabolic dish (~65db gain on 5Ghz) with its <1deg beam-width has >>> effectively muted out most of the RFI to the sides as it starts to >>> track up. >>> >>> >>> >>> We (and others / cable company etc) worked with them to not only >>> re-program our equipment we felt could be causing RFI to their radar, >>> but to track down others we could see operating equipment centered on >>> their 5765Mhz freq. We were able to continue this process until the >>> radar was able to track / interrogate successfully, from what >>> information I was relayed. We attempted to work with them to be good >>> neighbors and hopefully avoid a situation where we were told all >>> emitters regardless of their effect on the radar (even ones that were >>> not causing them issues) would need to be removed from service in >>> some fashion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here we are today. The USAF has now decided to create a 60Km zone >>> around each of their tracking radars and request that we not only >>> keep equipment off the 5765Mhz they listen on but everything in the >>> range from 5630 - 5800 Mhz just for good measure. I feel such a >>> blanket request is not reasonable. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cut and past from their DoD Eastern Area Frequency Coordination Office: >>> >>> =========== >>> >>> >>> Mr WISP, >>> >>> I received the 5 GHz exclusion the range is requesting around their radars >>> (Graphic available here: http://flhsi.com/files/radar.PNG ). >>> The spheres are centered on each radar and have a radius of 60 km. No >>> emitters in these spheres should be allowed to transmit from 5630 - 5800 >>> MHz. >>> >>> I am drafting up a request for public notice to FCC today. When approved, I >>> will let you know. >>> >>> =========== >>> >>> >>> >>> So my question is this.... Is it realistic or even remotely possible >>> this becomes an FCC official rule? >>> >>> >>> >>> I would ask anyone / everyone with a vested interest in this (do you >>> use 5Ghz?) to respond. Thank you for your time. >>> >>> >>> >>> Scott Carullo >>> Technical Operations >>> 855-FLSPEED x102 >>> >>> Image removed by sender. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From*: "Scott Carullo" <sc...@brevardwireless.com> >>> *Sent*: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:02 PM >>> *To*: wireless@wispa.org >>> *Subject*: [WISPA] Air Force Base / KSC Launch RFI Question >>> >>> >>> >>> Good morning, >>> >>> >>> >>> We operate between two local Air Force bases and near KSC as well. >>> We were notified recently that the AFB has resorted to using an older >>> radar system that was previously retired due to the newer range radar >>> system catching fire or something to that effect. During the two >>> months or so the repairs are expected to take we have had several >>> space launches scheduled during this window from CCAFS / KSC. The >>> USAF has fired up the old radar and has recently contacted us asking >>> about equipment we have in the area at customer premises. I asked >>> the frequency coordinator what freq their radar uses he said the >>> center freq was 5735 and that it had a very wide bandwidth of like >>> 100 Mhz basically taking the whole ISM/UNII bands worth of spectrum >>> in 5Ghz. >>> >>> >>> >>> So any way to the point... When the USAF shows up and says hey, I >>> see you are using FCC approved equipment in accordance to the FCC >>> spectrum rules the equipment was designed to operate in on freq >>> 5765Mhz - but I need you to turn it off to see if its your equipment >>> we are seeing - and if it is please change freq "preferably below >>> 5600 MHz or above 5850 MHz" (actual quoted request). >>> >>> >>> >>> Obviously we can't accommodate their request for several reasons,most >>> notably because the equipment nor the FCC allows it. I'm just >>> curious if any of you have had anything like this happen and what >>> your response was / would be. >>> >>> >>> >>> I try to be a nice neighbor and work with them any way possible but >>> them trying to shut down the whole 5Ghz non-licensed upper band all >>> our equipment uses (including every other cable and wireline >>> providers wifi 5Ghz equipment in the county) to work their range RFI >>> issues is a bit much and ultimately unattainable within the 3 days >>> they have left prior to launch, IMO. >>> >>> >>> >>> Any insight or suggestions you smart fellers have would be >>> appreciated. I am particularly interested in those more intimate >>> with FCC rules regarding this situation. Do I have to comply? Do >>> they have legal justification to just say - turn it off... etc >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks... I appreciate your time in responding. >>> >>> >>> >>> Scott Carullo >>> Technical Operations >>> 855-FLSPEED x102 >>> >>> Image removed by sender. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >>> computer viruses. >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >>> computer viruses. >>> ************************************************************************************ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> -- >> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >> Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" >> Serving the WISP Community since 1993 >> 760-678-5033 jun...@ask-wi.com >> >> >> > > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" > Serving the WISP Community since 1993 > 760-678-5033 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
