Try finding clean spectrum in a border town like us. Believe me it goes both ways RF signals dont care about no stinkin borders.
Jaime Solorza On Oct 23, 2014 12:53 PM, "Mathew Howard via Af" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think providing some simple tools for self compliance could go a long > ways towards fixing the problem. From what I've seen on the lists, when > WISPA members aren't in compliance it's more often that they don't know any > better than that they're intentionally violating the rules - or they at > least don't understand why it's important to follow the rules. > > It seems to me to be pretty common for WISPs to not even know simple > things like the max EIRP for the various bands, and it's easy to do things > like sticking a stinger on a 5.4 SM and not bother adjusting the TX power > to make sure it's still under 30db EIRP - and I'm sure a lot of people > think nothing of doing that and probably don't even realize there's > anything wrong with it. > > I try hard to keep everything on our network compliant as well, but I'm > sure an audit would find some things that are out of compliance - there > have been times when I changed a link to a DFS channel and forgot to adjust > the power level on the remote side or whatever - which wasn't intentional, > but like Steve said, that still isn't acceptable... but at least we try. I > can only imagine how much stuff is way out of compliance on some of the > networks out there. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Af [[email protected]] on behalf of That One Guy via Af [ > [email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:00 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Rocket M5 and 5.2 band? > > “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 >
