Re: [WISPDir-Hotspots] Univ of Texas andtheir"hotspot-ban" coverage...

[Ken DiPietro]

Byron,
For the sake of argument (speaking of slippery slopes) no, I wouldn't 
change my view. I would suggest that they use better access controls and 
leave spectrum to the FCC to manage. I tend to be very protective of our 
spectrum, as I know that once our right to use this hard fought spectrum 
is eroded we may never get it back.

In other words, if access control is the problem, the university should 
deal with access control.

Respectfully,
Ken DiPietro
New-ISP
NextGenCommunications

Byron L. Bacher, Unwired Access wrote:
Ken,
Just for arguments sake, what if the University changed its reasoning?
Instead of saying it is an interference issue they claimed it is an access
control issue?  Would that change your view point?
Byron L. Bacher |
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]     AIM: byronbach
YAHOO: byronbacher                        ICQ: 246543093
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken DiPietro
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 7:56 AM
To: WiFi Hotspot Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WISPDir-Hotspots] Univ of Texas andtheir"hotspot-ban"
coverage...
Byron,
While I agree with you in principle, the university has forbid the use 
of any 802.11b/g access points.

It was my understanding that the reason for this was not access control 
(there are other and more effective ways of handling this) but more of 
an issue of "their" spectrum having trouble with interference. In fact, 
(upon rereading the article) the issue doesn't seem to be one of 
controlling access, as the university is allowing the use of 802.11a 
access points.

This is what I am objecting to.
If the issue is one of interference the university should instead (in my 
opinion, of course) institute a policy of only using channels 1 and 11 
(with both antenna polarizations) leaving channel six for the students 
to use. This would be a good use of working with other users of 
unlicensed spectrum and also in line with the FCC policy.

Or, at least, that's how I would handle it,
Respectfully,
Ken DiPietro
New-ISP
NextGenCommunications
Byron L. Bacher, Unwired Access wrote:
 

My understanding of the situation is kids plugging a router and then an AP
of their connection being provided to them by the University.  The
University there losing control (depending on how things are done) of who
has access to their network and their bandwidth. 

If that is the actual case then I don't think they are so much trying to
regulate unlicensed spectrum but are regulating who gets access or not. 


Byron L. Bacher |
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]     AIM: byronbach
YAHOO: byronbacher                        ICQ: 246543093

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken DiPietro
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 7:39 AM
To: WiFi Hotspot Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WISPDir-Hotspots] Univ of Texas andtheir"hotspot-ban"
coverage...
Kory Mohr, WISP Directory wrote:

   

Ouch.  If I understand what you're saying, Ken, are you suggesting that a
provider, university, whatever entity providing the bandwidth doesn't have
the final say on what is being done with that bandwidth?  If so, will
provider TOS' fly out the window?
  

     

I am equating the university as the upstream provider, which they are 
reselling to the students. I realize this is a bit of a stretch but the 
fact is that the students are paying for the connection (even if it is 
indirectly) and they are within the university's TOS (as in they are not 
reselling it) yet the university feels it has the authority to challenge 
the unlicensed rules we all live by. If they don't like the Part-15 
rules they should have opted for a licensed network where they wouldn't 
have this problem - at a much higher price.

However, if the university can issue a policy that the 2.4GHz band is 
off-limits I can see the city of Philadelphia also claiming the same 
thing for the good of their network. And if I were a WISP in either area 
I wouldn't be happy with anyone thinking they own all of our spectrum. 
They way it works is we all agree to put up with interference when we 
deploy unlicensed. I do not what to see that changed.

Byron L. Bacher, Unwired Access wrote:

   

Well my thought process is because it is a University providing the
bandwidth it is a very different situation than a WISP or a Hot Spot
operator.  I look at it similar to a corporation and its employees running
rogue APs.
  

     

Interesting perspective.
However, I would be very interested in your response to my comments 
above. Why should a university (or any other entity) be allowed to 
change the rules we all knowingly agreed to when we installed Part-15 
devices?

Respectfully,
Ken DiPietro
New-ISP
NextGenCommunications
_______________________________________________
WISP Directory WiFi Hotspot Discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wispdirectory.com/
_______________________________________________
WISP Directory WiFi Hotspot Discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wispdirectory.com/


   


_______________________________________________
WISP Directory WiFi Hotspot Discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wispdirectory.com/
_______________________________________________
WISP Directory WiFi Hotspot Discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wispdirectory.com/

 


_______________________________________________
WISP Directory WiFi Hotspot Discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wispdirectory.com/