On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clay Fiske <c...@bloomcounty.org> wrote: >>legitimate right to claim that other wifi networks were impacting their own >>network’s performance, specifically based on the FCC’s position that a new >> transmitter should not disrupt existing operations. I was not in any way >>intending to say that their -response- was legitimate. > > Please don't imagine that Part 15 devices have any regulatory > protection against interference from any other Part 15 devices being > operated, no matter which device is "new", except for the prohibition > against Malicious/Willful interference.
Hi Clay, The answer to the question you asked is: No, Marriott lacked any legitimate right to claim that other wifi networks were impacting their own network’s performance. Any such impact was incidental to those other individuals'' lawful use of an unlicensed frequency. A more interesting question (to me anyway) is: does vendor gear which facilitates willful interference, as the "equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers" apparently did, comply with Part 15? Or does the presence of such features make the gear non-compliant, ergo unlawful. Regards. Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
