I've already looked at their SA screens. Remember they have a multi-million dollar receiver attached to a giant 15 meter or so movable dish that can hear down below -120db. I'm not sure how it could have seen one weak radio the way stuff was updating on their flat-screen computer monitors (like white-noise on an old TV screen). As a matter of fact, they couldn't have seen that from the screen they were looking at. They have no idea if the RF they see is from a mile away or 20 miles away, from the side etc... Besides getting into the radar building is a fairly monumental task as far as working with them.
Their main RF guy supposedly proposed a sliver about 20 degrees wide heading about 5 degrees north towards the launch pads where the radar looks be the area they wanted RFI removed from. Then they decided at a meeting that just drawing a large 60Km circle around the three radars was "easier and safer" for their request. Thats when this whole issue went from reasonable to unreasonable. That dish can't hear an access point 60Km away on the back-side or side lobe. Therefore that area should not be included just because it was easier to write. I'm not convinced they have the staff capable of preparing an appropriate request.... Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 ---------------------------------------- From: "Kristian Hoffmann" <kh...@fire2wire.com> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:35 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Regarding the suspect "looks a lot better," my suggestion would be bring a laptop that you can use to access your network remotely and, while you're all there looking at their analyzers, turn off and/or change channels on your radios. It will be harder to make flippant subjective calls like that in a group. If you can show that a minor channel change makes a difference, or better yet that you're not really the interferer, then you may end up with a workable solution. On the flip side, it could backfire and it really is "lots better" with your radios off. Just like the TDWR interference in Vegas, it seems that cooperation in finding the cause, and fixing it, will go a long way and avoid the shotgun approach. -Kristian On 06/12/2014 11:23 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Thats going to be something we bring up at the meeting. Its going to boil down to a they say vs we say - who do you think is going to lose that battle? They are claiming a radio operating on 5795 on 20Mhz channel will interfere with their radar on 5765 with about a 1Mhz channel width. Further-more, the RFI they are getting on 5765 is not from the radar, its from a beacon the radar interrogates on a space launch vehicle so in other words - the radar only listens on this freq. If they say my radio on 5800Mhz is interfering with their 5765Mhz beacon who gets involved with resolving that? I think the guys that work there are nice fellas, but I conducted my own test during our testing. I turned a radio off, they said - oh looks a lot better. Sounded suspect to me. Next radio I said ok its off (didn't change anything - again it was a test) and they said ok lots better... They just want them all off without regards of the true scientific difference. If FCC is going to get involved they need to just issue a notice in this area and specify what they believe needs to happen to resolve this - not just go on whatever the radar operator says.... IMO I believe we could all co-exist with a notch cut out from 5755 to 5775. At least thats somewhat reasonable for us if not still difficult to enforce for the general public buying 5Ghz APs from wal mart.... Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 ---------------------------------------- From: "Matt Hoppes" <mhop...@indigowireless.com> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:49 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com, "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz 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
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
