I registered some sites the week before the cutoff that we actually have built out since... normally I wouldn't have done it until after it was installed, like a normal person. Fortunately, I had finally gotten around to making sure all of our existing sites were registered properly a few weeks before that.
I did register one site that we have planned which may not actually happen, but I wanted to have the option of putting it up without having to deal with what's going on now. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: > 3) We have a contract with the state *requiring* us to build a bunch of > sites this summer. I registered them all a few months early because of the > uncertainty of what would happen after 4/17. > > > > > On 5/15/2015 12:09 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > >> I submitted like 5 of them on 4/13, all still pending. We have installed >> a few more subs since then, I have not bothered submitting them since I'm >> unclear if the FCC even wants us to continue doing that or will ever >> process the applications. >> >> As far as the flood of applications in the week before April 17, there >> are 2 explanations: >> >> 1) Catching up on paperwork for sites that were already installed and >> operational. (Because, of course, everyone waits for the application to be >> approved before installing the customer.) >> >> 2) A land grab to grandfather fictitious sites, many of which won't even >> be built out within a year. >> >> I think it was a lot of #1 and a little bit of #2. The FCC thinks it was >> all #2. We can't really argue, that would require admitting that we went >> ahead and installed the customer without waiting for the FCC lady to rubber >> stamp the application. I mean Geez Louise, even the DMV gives you a >> temporary license plate so you can drive your new car home from the dealer. >> >> I think the reason the Empire made the fully operational Death Star look >> half finished, was they were still waiting for their FCC license to be >> approved. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:46 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 3.65 registration >> >> These were all submitted the week prior to April 17th. I heard there >> were a lot of registrations that week. >> >> >> On 5/15/2015 11:39 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >> >>> Related question: do they even want us to register sites after April 17? >>> >>> I read the R&O and I'm still unclear on that. I think Steve Coran's >>> summary on the WISPA list said something along the lines of operators MAY >>> continue to register locations after April 17, but they will not be >>> grandfathered once the SAS comes onboard. Does MAY mean you can if you want >>> to, but we no longer care? I think they make it pretty clear that >>> operators can continue adding subscribers to existing basestations, just >>> not clear if they still need to be registered on the now legacy NN >>> licenses. And totally unclear (at least to my feeble brain) if it is legal >>> to deploy new basestations, or for operators without a nationwide NN >>> license to deploy anything at all. >>> >>> One interpretation would be that 3650-3700 is now effectively unlicensed >>> until the SAS comes onboard, at which point equipment registered by 4/17/15 >>> and operational by 4/17/16 (actually a geographic area around said >>> equipment) will be grandfathered for X years to operate without SAS >>> functionality in 3650-3700 but not 3550-3650. Everything else must have >>> SAS functionality and get frequency assignments dynamically. >>> >>> Another interpretation would be if you didn't register your equipment by >>> the deadline, you must now stand down until the SAS are available. >>> Effectively putting the band in a holding pattern waiting for the SAS. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Moffett >>> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 10:19 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [AFMUG] 3.65 registration >>> >>> I have a bunch of pending 3.65ghz site registrations. >>> >>> What's the best way to find out what the hold up is? >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
