“If WISPA weere to change their charter and membership agreement to reflect an obligation to comply, their budget from dues would cause rick harnish to live on spam and potatoes, and he might not get the spam.”
-This was tongue in cheek, in saying if WISPA removed the cheaters from their roles they would have a much smaller membership. If you’re saying that WISPA members are ignoring their legal obligations with the FCC AND their contractual obligations as WISPA members, then just come out and say that. -WISPA members are ignoring their legal obligations with the FCC AND their contractual obligations as WISPA members No less than the President of WISPA’s Board is here saying that WISPA has stepped up on interference issues, and he gave you examples. Nowhere has Chuck or any other WISPA Board member or employee ever suggested that WISPA will ignore WISPA members’ actions (the “oil on its garage floor,” if you will). -Knowing its present and putting your head in the sand is ignoring it. Knowing there is oil on your floor and going to your neighbors garage is nice, but theres still oil on your floor, there is no way around that, but yeah, it buys you points with your neighbor. If you’re aware of issues you’d like WISPA to address, even if they are being caused by WISPA members, I’d encourage you to speak up. -When I snitched on a vendor it was readily apparent thats "cool". At worst, you’re suggesting that WISPA is complicit in/turning a blind eye to its members’ open violations of FCC rules and regulations. -Not complicit, definitely complacent. Ive said for a long time WISPA should provide clear tools for self compliance, I have no expectation of WISPA to enforce anything, thats not their job. Pointing to part 15 rules and FCC documents is a copout to self compliance assistance. Look at the number of times threads are started with folks simply asking about numbers, they get links to FCC documents. Part of WISPA membership should be access to a compliance package that doesn't have to be all that complicated. A clear definition of guidelines, a method to get clarification from the FCC through WISPA on any question of compliance. A few white papers, maybe a checklist. A "did you know" list of known compliance violation issues like, "hey youre running UBNT gear, if you have a channel list set, it doesnt automatically limit power to FCC regulations in this firmware release. If you have a stinger on a 5.4 FSK SM, heres how to ensure youre within guidelines on EIRP...BUT here is the FCCs take on whether you even have a legal system with a stinger on an FSK SM" Of course then there is the liability copout... If we offer this type of thing then we may be liable if the info is misunderstood, or whatever. I would bet that as hard as I try to stay compliant, and audit of the network under my control probably has some violations. today for example, I happenned to be checking a cluster of 3ghz APs we replaced after a lightning strike and realized I had forgot to change to the appropriate power levels for the antenna and channel size to meet EIRP. so I fixed it, but that doesnt make it OK that I was non compliant, my neighboring WISPs may have had to take mitigating actions because of my incompetence on the matter. Any customer who was installed since the replacement at the edge of the acceptable limits might now be problematic, for that reason alone, alot of folks would either leave their power up, either permanently or until they could get techs out to the customers to get the link better. Thats not acceptable behavior on our part, its irresponsible. The fact that I corrected it is no excuse for the fact that I was not compliant. Incompetence on my part, thats something WISPA cannot ever do anything about other than to send out an email to members recommending they fire their incompetent staff to avoid FCC penalties. What WISPA CAN do is guide the industry toward a whole new attitude toward stewardship of what spectrum we have by providing those tools and guidance. Ill argue this point til Im blue in the face that until the industry treats itself as if it were the same caliber as the Cellco industry (loosely defined) WISPA or any representative organization will not every have the "teeth" they could. On the same hand (yes) WISPA can only do so much, theyre not cops, babysitters, or parents. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Hass, Douglas A. via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I’m with Chuck—I have no idea what you’re getting at here. You wrongly > suggested: > > > > “If WISPA weere to change their charter and membership agreement to > reflect an obligation to comply, their budget from dues would cause rick > harnish to live on spam and potatoes, and he might not get the spam.” > > > > WISPA does have a Code of Ethics that addresses this very issue, so your > speculation is wholly incorrect. If you’re saying that WISPA members are > ignoring their legal obligations with the FCC AND their contractual > obligations as WISPA members, then just come out and say that. No less > than the President of WISPA’s Board is here saying that WISPA has stepped > up on interference issues, and he gave you examples. Nowhere has Chuck or > any other WISPA Board member or employee ever suggested that WISPA will > ignore WISPA members’ actions (the “oil on its garage floor,” if you will). > > > > If you’re aware of issues you’d like WISPA to address, even if they are > being caused by WISPA members, I’d encourage you to speak up. What you’re > insinuating here is just way off base, at best. At worst, you’re > suggesting that WISPA is complicit in/turning a blind eye to its members’ > open violations of FCC rules and regulations. Nothing could be further > from the truth, based on the evidence I have seen. > > > > Doug > > > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy via > Af > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:45 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > > > going into somebody elses garage and putting their tools in order doesnt > clean the oil off your garage floor even if it makes your neighbor happy. > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Jaime Solorza via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What do you mean WISP equipment? > > Jaime Solorza > > On Oct 23, 2014 10:26 AM, "Chuck Hogg via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not quite sure what you are getting at? What you are stating is part > of the Code of Ethics (Article II). > > > > Are you stating that if WISPA were the regulator or that if WISPA could > regulate the industry? > > > > Keep in mind, we have stepped up in interference issues where the FCC has > failed to identify the source of interference. In fact, we identified the > storage facility in Las Vegas that was interfering with their TDWR, a > non-WISP using WISP equipment. We've stepped up to help in cases where the > FCC has asked us to. > > > Regards, > Chuck > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:14 PM, That One Guy via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Im not faulting WISPA, theyre not a regulator. Im faulting the members of > the industry and the industry itself. I really cant even fault UBNT, theyre > delivering the requested product. If they were to add into their next > production release something that forced everything to always be in > compliance, it would probably be the least downloaded firmware in the > history of the company. If WISPA weere to change their charter and > membership agreement to reflect an obligation to comply, their budget from > dues would cause rick harnish to live on spam and potatoes, and he might > not get the spam. > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > Then you’re a better man than I am. I grant you one free pass to complain. > > > > I wonder if I can put a board at the bottom of the tower to display FCC > stickers, kind of like the boards at road construction sites with all the > posters various government agencies require to be displayed at the > workplace? > > > > To be honest, I’m kind of scared of bricking a production radio, and might > swap out the hardware anyway. It’s always a little scary updating a > Ubiquiti radio to a FW release that changes the region locking rules, for > fear of losing functionality and having no undo. Even if you’re not doing > anything illegal. Better to try it on the ground and then swap the > hardware. > > > > But I’d love to tell a grain elevator I’m having a guy climb their 165 ft > leg during harvest while they are loading and unloading grain so he can > disappear into the cloud from the grain dryer and put a sticker on a radio > to satisfy government regulations. Of course they have their own OSHA > stories to tell. > > > > > > *From:* That One Guy via Af <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:53 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > > > every single one of the radios that got that have the stickers ken, > whether they have half peeled off or not (i didnt bring alcohol swabs) I > dont know, but they did all get the sticker. Im afraid of the FCC a > judgement from them on a company our size could cause me to be unemployed. > (also the luxury of it being less than 50 radios didnt hurt) > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, Ubiquiti sends us U-NII-1 stickers for our APs when we register > and get the license key. Doesn’t that show they care? You do climb the > tower and put those stickers on, don’t you? If not, who’s the problem now? > > > > > > *From:* That One Guy via Af <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:27 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > > > we are a WISPA member last I knew. But yes, credibility with regulators. > When you sit down and sya "hey! FCC, we dont like these new requirements. > Change them" they giggle because they know the industry you represent isnt > following the current guidelines, so catering to them really isnt top on > their list of to dos. This industry has an attitude of "if we arent getting > caught, we arent doing it" > > UBNt wont change anything because theyre called out, they have to be > forced by the FCC or other regulating agencies to comply, historically > speaking I men, in fantasy pants land (cool parachute fantasy pants with > plenty of zippers) they might proactively comply, but in real world, theyll > meh it because they saw what happenned to sales > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think the credibility with regulators is greatly increasing. > > Shame on anyone on this list that is not a WISPA member. SHAME. ON. YOU. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Adam Moffett via Af" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:05:53 AM > > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > Sub "teeth" perhaps for "credibility with regulators", or similar. > > > > What “teeth” do you expect WISPA to have? > > > > *From:* That One Guy via Af <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:31 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > > > Non UBNT fanboys would agree that UBNT is the most abused set of systems > we use, note the dismay over losing "test mode" or whatever its called and > the backlash I got for snitching on a vendor who was selling non US radios > to US customers. UBNT wants to market themselves a a big player, but they > cant even get the systems to do simple if and or > > for the most part in my experience of dealing with mikrotik guys, they > take their spectrum stewardship seriously, Ive not dealt with all the tik > guys, there are probably alot who abuse it too, and shame on them for that, > but tik isnt as prevalent in the industry as UBNT is. > > I personally dont like the temptation to cheat, we are changing out a > rocket link with a 650 right now that would work fine at full power in the > lower 5gz, and I would never get caught, instead we are shedding customers > while we are putting up the replacement tommorrow. Most folks wold just > cheat it to get through, thats why WISPA has no real teeth > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't believe the FCC has issued any DFS related violations that didn't > include interfering with TDWR. It seems like as long as you don't interfere > with TDWR, no one cares. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"That One Guy via Af" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:48:31 PM > > > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > it only sets in the ap if you select a channel, if you give it a list it > stays at full power. I wish WISPA would realize that they have absolutely > no teeth and our membership dues have no return until our industry takes > stewardship of the spectrum seriously. Its things like this that ensure the > 5ghz rules are here to stay, WISPA has a better chance of sticking a straw > up a unicorns hind end and blowing rainbow bubbles out its nose than > getting the rules changed. > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Mathew Howard via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That really bothers me too... the AP side will limit it to the legal limit > (assuming you have the antenna size set properly), but the clients do > not... I'm guessing there are an awful lot of NanoBridges out there running > at 23dBm Tx power on DFS channels - which should be limited to 5dBm. > > UBNT really needs to fix that. > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Af [[email protected]] on behalf of That One Guy via Af [ > [email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:34 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > I dont like that theyre not limiting power in those bands automatically, I > thought they were supposed to > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jason McKemie via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I didn't know the 5GHz Power Bridges ever had the ability to go that low > (legally). > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Heith Petersen via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I assume that this does not apply to the Power Bridges. I am scared to > update the few that are running 5.2 on older firmware to find out ;) > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince via Af > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 1:33 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > > > Go to the UBNT web site. You have to register & they will send you > stickers and an activation key that you enter on the System tab in the GUI. > > bp > > On 10/22/2014 9:51 AM, Sam Lambie via Af wrote: > > Where the heck would one get an update key and how do you enter it into > the radio? These radios are about 3 years old. This particular one worked > just fine on Firmware 5.3 in 5.2... > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I don't know. I've got ~9 Nanobridge M5 out there feeding towers on short > hops, all listed UNII1 and half the links are running it. > > Is this possibly an older unit before the UNII 2 band was enabled from > factory? I wonder if the update key has to be entered to access UNII 1. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Sam Lambie via Af <[email protected]> > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:46 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > > > Ok, I have a radio on the bench with 5.5.10 loaded and all I see is the > 5.8 band in AP mode. what am I missing? > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Glen Waldrop via Af <[email protected]> wrote > > Works quite nicely. I've got a few out there. Nice to have 500+ MHz > between feeds. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:32 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > > > Firmware 5.5.10 (actually, one of its betas was the first to offer it). > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > [image: Image removed by sender.] <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[image: > Image removed by sender.] > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[image: > Image removed by sender.] > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[image: > Image removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Sam Lambie via Af" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:30:14 AM > *Subject: *[AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > I heard somewhere at WISPApalooza that the M series does 5.2 band now? Is > that smoke and mirrors? > > Sam > > > -- > -- > *Sam Lambie* > Taosnet Wireless Tech. > 575-758-7598 Office > www.Taosnet.com <http://www.newmex.com> > > > > > > > -- > -- > *Sam Lambie* > Taosnet Wireless Tech. > 575-758-7598 Office > www.Taosnet.com <http://www.newmex.com> > > > > > -- > -- > *Sam Lambie* > Taosnet Wireless Tech. > 575-758-7598 Office > www.Taosnet.com <http://www.newmex.com> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > > > > > > -- > > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 > > > *Douglas A. Hass* > Associate > 312.786.6502 > [email protected] > > *Franczek Radelet P.C.* > *Celebrating 20 Years | 1994-2014 > <http://www.franczek.com/20thAnniversary/>* > > 300 South Wacker Drive > Suite 3400 > Chicago, IL 60606 > 312.986.0300 - Main > 312.986.9192 - Fax > www.franczek.com > www.wagehourinsights.com > Connect with me: > [image: linkedin] <http://linkedin.com/in/douglashass>[image: twitter] > <https://twitter.com/WageHourInsight> > *Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal > Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, > any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any > attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for > the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or > (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction > or tax-related matter herein. * > ------------------------------ > For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit > franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any > attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for > the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this > message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or > copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and > delete all copies. > ------------------------------ > *Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the > environment before printing this email* > -- All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925
