I am far from a lawyer (I don’t even play one on TV 😊 )   however, I can’t 
imagine this would go very far.   By definition, the unlicensed band does not 
require coordination or avoidance of anyone else’s use of band as I far as I 
know.  What is considered to be neighborly isn’t required by any means.   While 
there may be an inkling of an argument about contract interference, I would 
find that analogous to a business claiming that someone else’s use of the 
interstate highway in a legal manner interferes with their ability to deliver 
goods on time.   As far as I know there certainly isn’t a legal precedent for 
that kind of claim.

However, if the interfering party is outside of FCC limits for EIRP or 
something like that, the validity of the contract interference claim may 


David Coudron

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Hmm...If I made a contract saying I'd deliver 'X' performance to a business, 
and I used a part-15 unlicensed radio, and someone came along and their radio 
reduced my SNR; then yeah I suppose the radio interfering party is also 
"interfering" with my contract.  I could also switch that client to another 
band (2.4ghz, 24ghz, etc) to meet the obligations in my contract.  If all else 
failed I could meet my obligations by buying them cable or fiber.  It would 
suck, and I'd lose money on the deal, but I could do it.  The terms of my 
contract can't alter FCC rules for radios.  Just as an example, a contract 
between Adam Moffett and Verizon couldn't compel Mike Hammett to alter his 
otherwise perfectly legal behavior.  Now suppose forcing Mike Hammett to alter 
his behavior would give Verizon a competitive advantage in gaining and 
retaining me as a customer.

I think I see what you're saying w/ regards to what they are saying about 
contract interference.  I should hope no court sees it their way.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: 3/2/2018 1:47:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims. 
Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference case.

The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.

Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just fishing.  
I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an inquiry to the 
Attorney General’s office tomorrow.

Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO
4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040

“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

Reply via email to