Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Tim Hardy]

Good luck with that reasoning as it would mean that FCC rules are
meaningless since every “customer is under contract”.  As mentioned, ‘the
willfull impedance of a contractural obligation” in this instance would be
due to RF interference which in the US is solely regulated by the FCC.
Lots of case law out there where similar local cases were thrown out due to
federal preemption.

Bottom line, a good law firm well versed in the Communications Act of 1934,
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC Rules should be consulted for their
more learned opinion.

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 20:03:03 -0600
From: Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Message-ID:
<CAGOa4nMrdnFOV6vtTwbng3z5+25K_xm6qbGBkPAJ=esp+fy...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation.

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

You folks confuse part 15 and common sense with the united states
judiciary.

On Mar 3, 2018 8:03 PM, "Steve Jones" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation.
>
> On Mar 3, 2018 3:57 PM, "Tim Hardy" <thardy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, their claim still rests upon harmful RF interference as the cause of
>> damages, whether they mention RF interference or not.  I’m no attorney but
>> have seen these types of claims routinely rejected due to federal
>> preemption.  Unlicensed operations have no prior right of nterference
>> protection and all parties are expected to work together to coexist in
>> harmony.
>>
>> Claiming interference with "contracts and business expected" is just
>> weazel wording around the RF issue that is the root cause and any court
>> should see through this.
>>
>> All of this is crap..
>>
>> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:10:03 -0600 (CST)
>> From: Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>> Message-ID:
>> <1766334945.4658.1520100597514.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> No, but that's unrelated.
>>
>> This is the meat of their claim.
>> 
>>
>> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
>> business
>> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
>> damage to his reputation
>> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
>> customers. 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
>> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
>> contract rights and business
>> expectancy interest.
>> -
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation.

On Mar 3, 2018 3:57 PM, "Tim Hardy" <thardy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, their claim still rests upon harmful RF interference as the cause of
> damages, whether they mention RF interference or not.  I’m no attorney but
> have seen these types of claims routinely rejected due to federal
> preemption.  Unlicensed operations have no prior right of nterference
> protection and all parties are expected to work together to coexist in
> harmony.
>
> Claiming interference with "contracts and business expected" is just
> weazel wording around the RF issue that is the root cause and any court
> should see through this.
>
> All of this is crap..
>
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:10:03 -0600 (CST)
> From: Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
> Message-ID:
> <1766334945.4658.1520100597514.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> No, but that's unrelated.
>
> This is the meat of their claim.
> 
>
> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
> business
> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
> damage to his reputation
> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
> customers. 
>
>
> 
>
> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
> contract rights and business
> expectancy interest.
> -
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Tim Hardy]

Good example of FCC position on this subject and this particular band has
licenses - albeit lightly licensed.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-21A1.pdf

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

Maybe, but it doesn't sound like it... and even if they did, it's going to
be pretty tough to know that they're purposely trying to interfere versus
just too stupid or lazy to try and avoid your stuff.

We had a competitor put up a new 3.65ghz LTE radio awhile ago in the same
town where we've had a 3.65ghz Canopy AP for years... one day our Canopy
suddenly starts working like crap - I run the spectrum analyzer, and find
they have their radio running on a 20mhz channel right in the very center
of the band... meaning that the only way I could avoid them was to go down
to a 10mhz channel. Fortunately, we only had a few customers on it, so I
didn't care that much... but the fact that they put it right the middle of
the band instead of at one of the edges certainly annoyed me. That could
very well have been intentional, but I assume it was just poor planning on
their part... or maybe they even had some sort of semi-valid reason for
doing that - I have no way of knowing, and if it was intentional, I'm
fairly sure they wouldn't tell me if I asked.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> Maybe they did.
>
>
>
> -
> 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>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> *To: *"af" <af@afmug.com>
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 1:01:15 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can prove
> that somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of interfering
> with his contracts.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
>> No, but that's unrelated.
>>
>> This is the meat of their claim.
>> 
>> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
>> business
>> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
>> damage to his reputation
>> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
>> customers.
>> 
>>
>> 
>> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
>> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
>> contract rights and business
>> expectancy interest.
>> -
>>
>>
>> The rest of it, sure, is crap.
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>> *From: *"Jay Weekley" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>> Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
>> to stop using certain channels?
>>
>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
>> >
>> > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
>> > actually is.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > 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/intel

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Tim Hardy]

So, their claim still rests upon harmful RF interference as the cause of
damages, whether they mention RF interference or not.  I’m no attorney but
have seen these types of claims routinely rejected due to federal
preemption.  Unlicensed operations have no prior right of nterference
protection and all parties are expected to work together to coexist in
harmony.

Claiming interference with "contracts and business expected" is just weazel
wording around the RF issue that is the root cause and any court should see
through this.

All of this is crap..

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:10:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Message-ID:
<1766334945.4658.1520100597514.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

No, but that's unrelated.

This is the meat of their claim.


As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
business
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
damage to his reputation
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
customers. 




If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract
rights and business
expectancy interest.
-

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Robert]

Astonished that you haven't already...   I feel like driving into his 
area and dropping a old bunch of M5's with junk antennas on fences 
pointed at his AP's with ethernet that looks like it's running into some 
random building...   (with the sigh taunting or not?)


On 3/3/18 11:58 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

I would taunt him.
*From:* Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:33 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
No, but that's unrelated.

This is the meat of their claim.

As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the 
business
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only 
damage to his reputation
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to 
his customers.



If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable 
contract rights and business

expectancy interest.
-

The rest of it, sure, is crap.


-
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>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Jay Weekley" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
to stop using certain channels?

Mike Hammett wrote:
 > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
 >
 > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
 > actually is.
 >
 >
 >
 > -
 > 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>

 > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
 > 
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

 > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
 > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
 >
 >
 > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
 > ------------
 > *From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com>
 > *To: *af@afmug.com
 > *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
 > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
 >
 > Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general
 > public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have
 > the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my
 > attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
 >
 > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 > <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
 >
 > They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
 > threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
 > band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
 >
 > On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com
 > <mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:
 >
 > They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
 > transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
 > potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
 >
 > On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
 >
 > 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/>
 > 
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

 > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
 > 
<https://www.facebook.com/mdw

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Rory Conaway]

We tell our customers to turn off their 5GHz modes just so we don't have to 
track it down.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

2.5 GHz?  I'm not the sharpest bulb in the box or something like that so maybe 
I missed something.

https://www.airebeam.com/dualband/

"Dual Band Routers – Not on AireBeam’s Network Routers – Dual Band Prohibited

Dual Band routers broadcast on two frequencies, 2.5 GHz and 5 Ghz. 
AireBeam’s network uses the 5GHz spectrum.  When you operate a dual band router 
on the 5 Ghz frequency, you will create Radio Frequency Interference which will 
impair the quality of the signal that AireBeam broadcasts to your home and also 
those of your neighbors.

Using the 5 GHz frequency will NOT improve your wireless device’s performance. 
It will, in fact, degrade it.  So, AireBeam’s policy is to prohibit customer 
use of 5 GHz wireless equipment.  We cannot enforce this policy without the 
willing cooperation of our customers.  So, we respectfully solicit your support 
and compliance with this policy.

If you have a working, configured 5 GHz wireless router, we would like to offer 
you two solutions:

If it was purchased recently, please return it to the place of purchase and buy 
a 2.4Ghz router.
Alternatively, AireBeam will come to your home and we will trade you one of our 
2.4 GHz wireless routers (brand new out of the box) for your 5 GHz wireless 
router at no cost and we’ll configure the 2.4 GHz wireless router for you for 
free!"

Jay Weekley wrote:
> Yeah, they offered to take their dual band router off of their hands 
> and replace it with one of their 2.4 routers free of charge.
>
> Steve Jones wrote:
>> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads 
>> was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band 
>> routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com 
>> <mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:
>>
>> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
>> transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
>> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
>>
>> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> 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/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL 
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>><https://plus.google.com/+Intelligen
>> tComputingSolutionsDeKalb 
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>>> ://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>><https://twitter.com/ICSIL
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>><https://www.linkedin.com/company
>> /midwest-internet-exchange 
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>><https://twitter.com/mdwestix
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/
>> <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>>
>> 
>> *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.
>>
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/3/18 11:01, Mathew Howard wrote:
But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can 
prove that somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of 
interfering with his contracts.





Or that any competition in general is interfering with his contracts.

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

I would taunt him.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

No, but that's unrelated.

This is the meat of their claim.


As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the business
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only damage 
to his reputation
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his 
customers.
 


If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract 
rights and business
expectancy interest.
-


The rest of it, sure, is crap.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Jay Weekley" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels?

Mike Hammett wrote:
> That's likely unrelated to their claim.
>
> This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
> actually is.
>
>
>
> -
> 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>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --------
> *From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general 
> public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
> the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my 
> attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
> threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
> band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
>
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com
> <mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:
>
> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
> transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
>
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> 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/>
> 
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> 
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
>     <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> 
> 
> *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 A

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

Maybe they did. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> 
To: "af" <af@afmug.com> 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 1:01:15 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 


But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can prove that 
somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of interfering with his 
contracts. 


On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




No, but that's unrelated. 

This is the meat of their claim. 
 

As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the 
business 
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only damage 
to his reputation 
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his 
customers.  


 

If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an 
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract 
rights and business 
expectancy interest. 
- 



The rest of it, sure, is crap. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Jay Weekley" < par...@cyberbroadband.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels? 

Mike Hammett wrote: 
> That's likely unrelated to their claim. 
> 
> This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
> actually is. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> 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 > 
> Midwest Internet Exchange < http://www.midwest-ix.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix >< 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange >< 
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix > 
> The Brothers WISP < http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp > 
> 
> 
> < https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg > 
> -------------------- 
> *From: *"Jeremy" < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > 
> *To: * af@afmug.com 
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 
> 
> Righhht. They would have to make this claim against the general 
> public as well. No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
> the right to use dual-band routers. I would definitely have my 
> attorneys send a reply if I received this letter. 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
> > wrote: 
> 
> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook 
> threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual 
> band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers 
> 
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" < i...@avantwireless.com 
> > wrote: 
> 
> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz 
> transmitters and business transmitters too... I mean Omni's 
> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!! 
> 
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> 
> 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/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL >< 
> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb >< 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions >< 
> https://twitter.com/ICSIL > 
> Midwest Internet Exchange < http://www.midwest-ix.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix >< 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange >< 
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix > 
> The Brothers WISP < http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp > 
> 
> 
> < https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg > 
>  
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net 
> > 
> *To: * af@afmug

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can prove
that somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of interfering
with his contracts.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> No, but that's unrelated.
>
> This is the meat of their claim.
> 
> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
> business
> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
> damage to his reputation
> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
> customers.
> 
>
> 
> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
> contract rights and business
> expectancy interest.
> -
>
>
> The rest of it, sure, is crap.
>
>
> -
> 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>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
> *From: *"Jay Weekley" <par...@cyberbroadband.net>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
> to stop using certain channels?
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
> > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
> >
> > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
> > actually is.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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>
> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.
> linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://
> twitter.com/mdwestix>
> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> >
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> > 
> > *From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com>
> > *To: *af@afmug.com
> > *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
> > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
> >
> > Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general
> > public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have
> > the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my
> > attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
> > threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
> > band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com
> > <mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:
> >
> > They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
> > transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
> > potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
> >
> > On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >
> > 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
> 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

No, but that's unrelated. 

This is the meat of their claim. 
 

As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the 
business 
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only damage 
to his reputation 
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his 
customers.  


 

If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an 
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract 
rights and business 
expectancy interest. 
- 



The rest of it, sure, is crap. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jay Weekley" <par...@cyberbroadband.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels? 

Mike Hammett wrote: 
> That's likely unrelated to their claim. 
> 
> This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
> actually is. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> 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>
>  
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> 
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>  
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> 
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> 
> 
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> 
> ------------ 
> *From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> 
> *To: *af@afmug.com 
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 
> 
> Righhht. They would have to make this claim against the general 
> public as well. No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
> the right to use dual-band routers. I would definitely have my 
> attorneys send a reply if I received this letter. 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote: 
> 
> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook 
> threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual 
> band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers 
> 
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com 
> <mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote: 
> 
> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz 
> transmitters and business transmitters too... I mean Omni's 
> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!! 
> 
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> 
> 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/> 
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>  
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> 
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>  
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> 
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> 
> 
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> 
>  
> *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. 37 
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>^th 
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040* 
> 
> *602-426-0542 * 
&g

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jay Weekley]

2.5 GHz?  I'm not the sharpest bulb in the box or something like that so 
maybe I missed something.


https://www.airebeam.com/dualband/

"Dual Band Routers – Not on AireBeam’s Network
Routers – Dual Band Prohibited

Dual Band routers broadcast on two frequencies, 2.5 GHz and 5 Ghz. 
AireBeam’s network uses the 5GHz spectrum.  When you operate a dual band 
router on the 5 Ghz frequency, you will create Radio Frequency 
Interference which will impair the quality of the signal that AireBeam 
broadcasts to your home and also those of your neighbors.


Using the 5 GHz frequency will NOT improve your wireless device’s 
performance. It will, in fact, degrade it.  So, AireBeam’s policy is to 
prohibit customer use of 5 GHz wireless equipment.  We cannot enforce 
this policy without the willing cooperation of our customers.  So, we 
respectfully solicit your support and compliance with this policy.


If you have a working, configured 5 GHz wireless router, we would like 
to offer you two solutions:


If it was purchased recently, please return it to the place of purchase 
and buy a 2.4Ghz router.
Alternatively, AireBeam will come to your home and we will trade you one 
of our 2.4 GHz wireless routers (brand new out of the box) for your 5 
GHz wireless router at no cost and we’ll configure the 2.4 GHz wireless 
router for you for free!"


Jay Weekley wrote:
Yeah, they offered to take their dual band router off of their hands 
and replace it with one of their 2.4 routers free of charge.


Steve Jones wrote:
They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads 
was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band 
routers and only ever use 2.4 routers


On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com 
<mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

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/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>><https://twitter.com/ICSIL
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>><https://twitter.com/mdwestix
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/
<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>>

*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. 37^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542 *

*r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>*

*www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net>
<http://www.triadwireless.net/>*

**

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



<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 
Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Lewis Bergman]

I am not sure why a response is even warranted. I don't feel obligated to
respond unless I get a notice with a squiggly line down the left side.

If you did want to respond to something so rediculous I would just call,
not sure the effort of writing is warranted.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 10:03 AM Jay Weekley <par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:

> Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
> to stop using certain channels?
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
> > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
> >
> > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
> > actually is.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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>
> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> >
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> > ------------
> > *From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com>
> > *To: *af@afmug.com
> > *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
> > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
> >
> > Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general
> > public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have
> > the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my
> > attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
> > threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
> > band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com
> > <mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:
> >
> > They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
> > transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
> > potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
> >
> > On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >
> > 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/>
> > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><
> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><
> https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> >
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> >
>  
> > *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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Robert Andrews]

Are they sending legal papers to the _neighbors_ of their customers? 
Or to Comcast for their open 5.8 transmitters on the cable feeds?


Boy what a rats nest they are trying to open.  I'll bet the Comcast 
lawyers posted it on their billboard and either laughed or said "maybe 
we should try this"...


On 03/03/2018 08:20 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was 
about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and 
only ever use 2.4 routers


On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com 
<mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

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/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb

<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>><https://twitter.com/ICSIL
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix

<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>><https://twitter.com/mdwestix
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/
<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>>

*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. 37^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542 *

*r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>*

*www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net>
<http://www.triadwireless.net/>*

**

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jay Weekley]

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels?


Mike Hammett wrote:

That's likely unrelated to their claim.

This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
actually is.




-
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>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general 
public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my 
attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.


On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers

On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com
<mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:

They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

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/>

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>

<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>


*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. 37
<https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>^th
Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542 *

*r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>*

*www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net>
<http://www.triadwireless.net/>*

**

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





<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jay Weekley]

Yeah, they offered to take their dual band router off of their hands and 
replace it with one of their 2.4 routers free of charge.


Steve Jones wrote:
They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads 
was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers 
and only ever use 2.4 routers


On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com 
<mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

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/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL

<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb

<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>><https://twitter.com/ICSIL
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix

<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange

<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>><https://twitter.com/mdwestix
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/
<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>>

*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. 37^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542 *

*r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>*

*www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net>
<http://www.triadwireless.net/>*

**

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



<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

That's likely unrelated to their claim. 

This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim actually is. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jeremy" <jeremysmi...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 


Righhht. They would have to make this claim against the general public as well. 
No court will uphold that the citizens do not have the right to use dual-band 
routers. I would definitely have my attorneys send a reply if I received this 
letter. 


On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was about 
how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only ever use 
2.4 routers 




On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" < i...@avantwireless.com > wrote: 


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters and 
business transmitters too... I mean Omni's potentially only a 100 feet away 
from a CPE!!! 

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 


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/ > 
< https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL >< 
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb >< 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions >< 
https://twitter.com/ICSIL > 
Midwest Internet Exchange < http://www.midwest-ix.com/ > 
< https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix >< 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange >< 
https://twitter.com/mdwestix > 
The Brothers WISP < http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ > 
< https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp > 


< https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg > 
 
*From: *"Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
*To: * 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. 37 ^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040* 

* 602-426-0542 * 

* r...@triadwireless.net * 

* www.triadwireless.net < http://www.triadwireless.net/ >* 

** 

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

I would not bother paying a lawyer to reply.  I would write the letter myself.  

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 10:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general public as 
well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have the right to use 
dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my attorneys send a reply if I 
received this letter.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

  They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was about 
how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only ever use 
2.4 routers

  On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote:

They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters 
and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's potentially only a 100 feet 
away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

  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/>
  
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
  Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
  
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
  The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
  <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


  <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
  
  *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
  *To: *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. 37^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

  *602-426-0542*

  *r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>*

  *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*

  **

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jeremy]

Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general public as
well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have the right to use
dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my attorneys send a reply if I
received this letter.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was
> about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only
> ever use 2.4 routers
>
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote:
>
>> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters
>> and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's potentially only a 100
>> feet away from a CPE!!!
>>
>> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>>> 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/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+In
>>> telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/
>>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com
>>> /company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>> 
>>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>>> *To: *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. 37 <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>^th
>>> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>>
>>> *602-426-0542*
>>>
>>> *r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>*
>>>
>>> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> /“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”/
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was
about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only
ever use 2.4 routers

On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote:

> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters
> and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's potentially only a 100
> feet away from a CPE!!!
>
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>> 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/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+In
>> telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/
>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.
>> com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> ----
>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>> *To: *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. 37^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>*
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>>
>> **
>>
>> /“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”/
>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

This is what i keep saying. Theyre not going at part 15. Thats why i want
to see it at court. And what kind of judge gets the case. The right judge
would potentially try aome net nuetrality ploy in a ruling, even though its
completely bunk. We have activist judges who are no longer jurists.
Everybody wants their youtube clip.

On Mar 2, 2018 4:34 PM, "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

I'm not saying that I support with or agree with their claim, just that
their claim isn't based on FCC regulations at all.

Take their situation and transplant it to the equivalent worlds of coax,
twisted pair and glass. What happens then? Can equivalencies be made?




-
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>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--
*From: *"Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 3:01:28 PM

*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>
To: 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/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
--
*From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
*To: *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. 37 <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th
Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*

*r...@triadwireless.net <r...@triadwireless.net>*

*www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*



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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

They're letter basically states that nobody else can use specific 5ghz
channels (which are "the commons") for certain purposes, because they're
using them. How is that not claiming an exclusive right to the commons?

Forrest's loading zone example isn't even quite accurate, because that
would only be trying to claim exclusive use at a specific time - this guy
wants everybody else kept out of the loading zone 24/7, because he might
need to make an emergency beer delivery at any point during the day, and if
somebody else happens to there he won't be able to fulfill his contract

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> I don't see them claiming an exclusive right in the commons.
>
>
>
> -
> 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>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ----------
> *From: *ch...@wbmfg.com
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 5:19:07 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Put part 15 proves they are operating in “the commons”.
> And a claim to exclusive right to “the commons” is a fool’s errand.
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 2:34 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim.
>
>
>
> -
> 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>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> This has been tried many times and has always failed.
> The law of the commons.
>
> http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-
> historical-concept-property-rights
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
>
> They have no rights to exclusive use.
> You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever
> gets filed.
> Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the
> commons.
>
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *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/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
> *To: *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*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net*
>
> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

Right, in that scenario, Joe probably has a valid case... but I haven't
heard anything that makes me believe that's what's happening here. What
actually is happening is the scenario where Fred happens to be using the
loading zone for the bar next door at the times Joe needs it. Fred can just
as easily argue that Joe is interfering with his contract.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Here's what I think is a more apt comparison, using your analogy:
>
> Let's assume that Joe's beer company wins an exclusive beer supply to a
> bar.   In order to deliver the beer that the bar needs, Joe needs access to
> a specific loading zone during a specific window of time.  Joe knows that
> the loading zone is typically unoccupied and he only really needs access to
> it for a few minutes during the window, so he's not worried.
>
> Enter Fred of Fred's beer company.   Fred is mightily pissed about Joe
> winning that contract.   So pissed that he decides to start occupying that
> loading zone throughout the entire window that Joe needs it to deliver the
> beer.   Because of this, Joe is unable to fulfill the terms of his contract
> - specifically because of the action of Fred.
>
> In this scenario, I suspect that Joe may have legal recourse against Fred,
> even though the loading zone was public property.   But, I'm not convinced
> that the use of a shared public resource (say if Fred also has to use that
> same loading zone to deliver to a bar next door, and it prevents Joe from
> delivering his beer).   I suspect that Part 15 use is more of the latter
> and less of the former.   It's a shared resource and common use of that
> resource is expected.  On the other hand, putting up a radio in test mode
> and pointing it at your competitor's radio may more like Fred's malicious
> tying up of the loading zone, and I suspect might subject you to a contract
> interference claim.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:10 PM, James Howard <ja...@litewire.net> wrote:
>
>> Am I off-base in thinking that this would be a valid comparison?  (made
>> up of course)
>>
>>
>>
>> A company sets up a contract to deliver beer to a bar down the street
>> that requires exclusive use of the street they are both on to be able to
>> deliver the quantity of beer that’s promised.  They then send out a letter
>> to everyone else on that street telling them that they are being warned
>> that if they use the street it will interfere with that contract and their
>> ability to fulfill it and will face legal action.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems to me that if someone wants to claim exclusive use of something
>> they need to actually own it.  In the example I gave, the company could buy
>> all the property between themselves and their client and build their own
>> road but they can’t claim exclusive rights to the public road.  If they
>> want exclusive rights to RF they need to get licensed frequencies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 3:35 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png] <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Chuck McCown&q

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Here's what I think is a more apt comparison, using your analogy:

Let's assume that Joe's beer company wins an exclusive beer supply to a
bar.   In order to deliver the beer that the bar needs, Joe needs access to
a specific loading zone during a specific window of time.  Joe knows that
the loading zone is typically unoccupied and he only really needs access to
it for a few minutes during the window, so he's not worried.

Enter Fred of Fred's beer company.   Fred is mightily pissed about Joe
winning that contract.   So pissed that he decides to start occupying that
loading zone throughout the entire window that Joe needs it to deliver the
beer.   Because of this, Joe is unable to fulfill the terms of his contract
- specifically because of the action of Fred.

In this scenario, I suspect that Joe may have legal recourse against Fred,
even though the loading zone was public property.   But, I'm not convinced
that the use of a shared public resource (say if Fred also has to use that
same loading zone to deliver to a bar next door, and it prevents Joe from
delivering his beer).   I suspect that Part 15 use is more of the latter
and less of the former.   It's a shared resource and common use of that
resource is expected.  On the other hand, putting up a radio in test mode
and pointing it at your competitor's radio may more like Fred's malicious
tying up of the loading zone, and I suspect might subject you to a contract
interference claim.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:10 PM, James Howard <ja...@litewire.net> wrote:

> Am I off-base in thinking that this would be a valid comparison?  (made up
> of course)
>
>
>
> A company sets up a contract to deliver beer to a bar down the street that
> requires exclusive use of the street they are both on to be able to deliver
> the quantity of beer that’s promised.  They then send out a letter to
> everyone else on that street telling them that they are being warned that
> if they use the street it will interfere with that contract and their
> ability to fulfill it and will face legal action.
>
>
>
>
>
> Seems to me that if someone wants to claim exclusive use of something they
> need to actually own it.  In the example I gave, the company could buy all
> the property between themselves and their client and build their own road
> but they can’t claim exclusive rights to the public road.  If they want
> exclusive rights to RF they need to get licensed frequencies.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 3:35 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
>
>
> I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[image:
> http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[image:
> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[image:
> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png] <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[image:
> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[image:
> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[image:
> http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> This has been tried many times and has always failed.
>
> The law of the commons.
>
>
>
> http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-
> historical-concept-property-rights
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
>
>
>
> They have no rights to exclusive use.
>
> You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever
> gets filed.
>
> Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the
> commons.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

I don't see them claiming an exclusive right in the commons. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 5:19:07 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 




Put part 15 proves they are operating in “the commons”. 
And a claim to exclusive right to “the commons” is a fool’s errand. 




From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:34 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 


I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 




This has been tried many times and has always failed. 
The law of the commons. 

http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-historical-concept-property-rights
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons 

They have no rights to exclusive use. 
You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever gets 
filed. 
Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the 
commons. 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> 
To: 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. 37 th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040 
602-426-0542 
r...@triadwireless.net 
www.triadwireless.net 

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[James Howard]

Am I off-base in thinking that this would be a valid comparison?  (made up of 
course)

A company sets up a contract to deliver beer to a bar down the street that 
requires exclusive use of the street they are both on to be able to deliver the 
quantity of beer that’s promised.  They then send out a letter to everyone else 
on that street telling them that they are being warned that if they use the 
street it will interfere with that contract and their ability to fulfill it and 
will face legal action.


Seems to me that if someone wants to claim exclusive use of something they need 
to actually own it.  In the example I gave, the company could buy all the 
property between themselves and their client and build their own road but they 
can’t claim exclusive rights to the public road.  If they want exclusive rights 
to RF they need to get licensed frequencies.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
This has been tried many times and has always failed.
The law of the commons.

http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-historical-concept-property-rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

They have no rights to exclusive use.
You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever gets 
filed.
Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the 
commons.


From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
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/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
____
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
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
www.triadwireless.net<http://www.triadwireless.net/&g

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

Put part 15 proves they are operating in “the commons”.  
And a claim to exclusive right to “the commons” is a fool’s errand.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet


This has been tried many times and has always failed.  
The law of the commons.  

http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-historical-concept-property-rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

They have no rights to exclusive use.  
You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever gets 
filed.  
Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the 
commons.  


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
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

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
To: 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

602-426-0542

r...@triadwireless.net

www.triadwireless.net



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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

That argument might work if somebody is putting up stuff specifically for
the purpose of interfering... but otherwise, it just isn't going to work.
You can't sue somebody for using public resources that they have every bit
as much right to use as you do, just because you happened to be there first.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
> To: 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/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
> *To: *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. 37 <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net <r...@triadwireless.net>*
>
> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Robert Andrews]

They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz 
transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's 
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!


On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
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/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

*From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
*To: *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. 37^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542*

*r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>*

*www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*

**

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Dennis Burgess]

Good analogy.

Dennis Burgess
www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/> – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
dmburg...@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:21 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, but isn't that kind of like trying to sue somebody because they're 
driving too slow on the highway and causing you to be late for a job?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett 
<af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
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/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

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. 37<https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th Street 
• Phoenix • AZ 85040
602-426-0542<tel:(602)%20426-0542>
r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
www.triadwireless.net<http://www.triadwireless.net/>

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[David Coudron]

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 
change…..

Regards,

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/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

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
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
www.triadwireless.net<http://www.triadwireless.net/>

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

I'm not saying that I support with or agree with their claim, just that their 
claim isn't based on FCC regulations at all. 

Take their situation and transplant it to the equivalent worlds of coax, 
twisted pair and glass. What happens then? Can equivalencies be made? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:01:28 PM 
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 > 
To: 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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
To: 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. 37 th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040 
602-426-0542 
r...@triadwireless.net 
www.triadwireless.net 

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 




This has been tried many times and has always failed. 
The law of the commons. 

http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-historical-concept-property-rights
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons 

They have no rights to exclusive use. 
You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever gets 
filed. 
Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the 
commons. 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> 
To: 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. 37 th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040 
602-426-0542 
r...@triadwireless.net 
www.triadwireless.net 

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, but isn't that kind of like trying to sue somebody because they're
driving too slow on the highway and causing you to be late for a job?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote:

> 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/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ----------
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
> *To: *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. 37 <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net <r...@triadwireless.net>*
>
> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Adam Moffett]

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>
To: 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/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
To: 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

602-426-0542

r...@triadwireless.net

www.triadwireless.net



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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Chuck McCown]

This has been tried many times and has always failed.  
The law of the commons.  

http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-historical-concept-property-rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

They have no rights to exclusive use.  
You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever gets 
filed.  
Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the 
commons.  


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
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

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
To: 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

602-426-0542

r...@triadwireless.net

www.triadwireless.net



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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

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 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> 
To: 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. 37 th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040 
602-426-0542 
r...@triadwireless.net 
www.triadwireless.net 

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
You are correct sir.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark - Myakka Technologies 
  To: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 4:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet


  CBB,

  Wrong Mark

  -- 
  Best regards,
  Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com

  Myakka Technologies, Inc.
  www.MyakkaTech.com

  --

  Thursday, March 1, 2018, 4:06:20 PM, you wrote:

   

   
Toledo Ohio?  Aren't you in FL? :)


 - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Radabaugh
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

  I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department 
called us up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we 
were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi to 
communicate with police cars all over town.

  Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their 
jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.

  Mark


   On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince 
<part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:

 Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this 
from happening again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an 
empty threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.

  On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

   I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like 
caselaw, fresh caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to 
see at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets 
with some sanctions against the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in 
the industry for the recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no 
dismissal, make it get to a ruling.  

where johnny Cochran 

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard 
<mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

 I wonder how often this kind of thing works to 
just scare people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual 
lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're 
not going to want to go through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to 
keep out of their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to 
avoid interfering with the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, 
<ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

 Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.  

From: Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com
            Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its 
about willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what 
theyre probably expecting the people to focus on, but thats not their target. 
This could be interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court 
just to get fresh caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if 
injunctions are in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some 
time and trouble dough in their pockets too.

On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" 
<ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

 They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can 
sue anybody for anything in this country right?  

In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC 
rules on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a case for damages 
due to lost business due to provable radio interference, may be two totally 
different situations. 

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop 
you. 

Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" 
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

 We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we 
can’t install over their old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 
3 times what we are backed up.


Rory


  

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Simon Westlake]

Yes we do indeed.

On Feb 28, 2018 10:14 PM, "Keefe John"  wrote:

We have a guy in Wisconsin who tries things like this.

KJ

On 2/28/2018 9:57 PM, Simon Westlake wrote:

Not sure what they think they can enforce on unlicensed frequencies..

On 2/28/2018 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:

�

�

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. 37 th
Street � Phoenix � AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*

*r...@triadwireless.net *

*www.triadwireless.net *

*�*

*�Yesterdays Home Runs don�t win todays games!�*

�


-- 
Simon Westlake | CEOsimon@sonar.software(702) 447-1247https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Rory Conaway]

I’d still be shocked if it passes either specification and it has an FCC number.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Keefe John
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 6:43 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet


That's a good point but I think they are using some DBII 4.9 certified card.

Keefe

On 3/1/2018 4:57 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
The first problem with this is the system probably isn’t even legal.  Mikrotik 
doesn’t have any certifications in 4.9Ghz, let alone high-power mask.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

and it never will.   But science and politicians don’t seem to go together very 
well.

Mark



On Mar 1, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Keefe John 
<keefe...@ethoplex.com<mailto:keefe...@ethoplex.com>> wrote:

There's a whole county in Wisconsin who's trying to get 4.9 ghz Mikrotik's to 
service mobile police cars.  They've been working on it for the better part of 
7 years and have invested over a million dollars into the project.  It still 
doesn't work.
Keefe

On 3/1/2018 2:05 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us up and 
threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we were supposedly 
interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi to communicate with 
police cars all over town.

Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their jurisdiction - or 
even any 2.4 in use.

Mark



On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince 
<part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again in the 
future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, and he has no 
intention of actually suing anybody.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw that 
stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of the day, 
the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some sanctions against 
the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the 
recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get 
to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard 
<mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off though... 
I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if the new guys 
know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to want to go through 
the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.
Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the stuff 
you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.

From: Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and 
incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the 
people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting to 
see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw. The 
new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if 
they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble dough in their 
pockets too.

On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" 
<ch...@lakenetmi.com<mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com>> wrote:
They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in this 
country right?

In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs and 
how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due to 
provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" 
<r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:
We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their old 
customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are backed up.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com<

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Keefe John]

That's a good point but I think they are using some DBII 4.9 certified card.

Keefe


On 3/1/2018 4:57 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:


The first problem with this is the system probably isn’t even legal.  
Mikrotik doesn’t have any certifications in 4.9Ghz, let alone 
high-power mask.


Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh
*Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:52 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

and it never will.   But science and politicians don’t seem to go 
together very well.


Mark



On Mar 1, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Keefe John <keefe...@ethoplex.com 
<mailto:keefe...@ethoplex.com>> wrote:


There's a whole county in Wisconsin who's trying to get 4.9 ghz 
Mikrotik's to service mobile police cars.  They've been working on it 
for the better part of 7 years and have invested over a million 
dollars into the project.  It still doesn't work.


Keefe

On 3/1/2018 2:05 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:

I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called
us up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s
because we were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived
plan to use WiFi to communicate with police cars all over town.

Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their
jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.

Mark



On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."

bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from
happening again in the future... but my guess is that it's
really just an empty threat, and he has no intention of
actually suing anybody.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw,
fresh caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really
like to see at the end of the day, the letter recipients
divvying up airebeams assets with some sanctions against the
attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for
the recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no
dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
<mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual
lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's a good
chance that they're not going to want to go through the whole
mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering
with the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.

*From:*Steve Jones

*Sent:*Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM

    *To:*af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully
impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what
theyre probably expecting the people to focus on, but thats
not their target. This could be interesting to see play out,
hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw.
The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions
are in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get
some time and trouble dough in their pockets too.

On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com
<mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com>> wrote:

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody
for anything in this country right?

In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on
unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a case
for damages due to lost business due to provable radio
interference, may be two totally different situations.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com
<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
<r...@triadwireless.net <mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
wrote:

We

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Dave]

PFFT,
 Thats like using a screwdriver as a hammer. WTH!


On 03/01/2018 02:55 PM, Keefe John wrote:


There's a whole county in Wisconsin who's trying to get 4.9 ghz 
Mikrotik's to service mobile police cars.  They've been working on it 
for the better part of 7 years and have invested over a million 
dollars into the project.  It still doesn't work.


Keefe


On 3/1/2018 2:05 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us 
up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we 
were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi 
to communicate with police cars all over town.


Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their 
jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.


Mark

On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com 
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an 
empty threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh
caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to
see at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up
airebeams assets with some sanctions against the attorneys
office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the
recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no
dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
<mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an
actual lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's
a good chance that they're not going to want to go through
the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of
their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid
interfering with the stuff you have up would be a lot more
effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
        *To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about
willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc
talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to
focus on, but thats not their target. This could be
interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up
in court just to get fresh caselaw. The new operators
in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in
play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get
some time and trouble dough in their pockets too.
On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien"
<ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue
anybody for anything in this country right?
In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC
rules on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might
interpret a case for damages due to lost business
due to provable radio interference, may be two
totally different situations.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza
On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and
we can’t install over their old customers
fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3
times what we are backed up.


Rory


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this
letter yet


all you need to know about this outfit


" Today is a Great Day!  I ca

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Rory Conaway]

The first problem with this is the system probably isn’t even legal.  Mikrotik 
doesn’t have any certifications in 4.9Ghz, let alone high-power mask.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

and it never will.   But science and politicians don’t seem to go together very 
well.

Mark


On Mar 1, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Keefe John 
<keefe...@ethoplex.com<mailto:keefe...@ethoplex.com>> wrote:

There's a whole county in Wisconsin who's trying to get 4.9 ghz Mikrotik's to 
service mobile police cars.  They've been working on it for the better part of 
7 years and have invested over a million dollars into the project.  It still 
doesn't work.
Keefe

On 3/1/2018 2:05 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us up and 
threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we were supposedly 
interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi to communicate with 
police cars all over town.

Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their jurisdiction - or 
even any 2.4 in use.

Mark


On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince 
<part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp

<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again in the 
future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, and he has no 
intention of actually suing anybody.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw that 
stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of the day, 
the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some sanctions against 
the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the 
recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get 
to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard 
<mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off though... 
I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if the new guys 
know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to want to go through 
the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.
Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the stuff 
you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.

From: Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and 
incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the 
people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting to 
see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw. The 
new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if 
they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble dough in their 
pockets too.

On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" 
<ch...@lakenetmi.com<mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com>> wrote:
They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in this 
country right?

In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs and 
how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due to 
provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" 
<r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:
We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their old 
customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are backed up.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

all you need to know about this outfit

" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to 
another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also have 
horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an issue. 
(and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mark - Myakka Technologies]

Title: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet


CBB,

Wrong Mark

-- 
Best regards,
 Mark                            mailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.MyakkaTech.com

--

Thursday, March 1, 2018, 4:06:20 PM, you wrote:

 




 
Toledo Ohio?  Aren't you in FL? :)
 




- Original Message - 
From: Mark Radabaugh
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi to communicate with police cars all over town.    

Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.

Mark





On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."

bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:




Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:




I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some sanctions against the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get to a ruling.  

where johnny Cochran 

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:




I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to want to go through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:




Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.  
 
From: Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
 
Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble dough in their pockets too.
 
On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:




They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in this country right?  
 
In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due to provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations. 
 
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:




Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you. 

Jaime Solorza
 
On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:




We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are backed up.

 
Rory

 
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

 
all you need to know about this outfit 

 
" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and providing quality seriously.
Follow up note:
When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their abusive employees."

 
https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city

 
not that BBB is legit, but there is this https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebea

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Keefe John]

I mis-read your email and thought you said 'come shoot down' your 2.4 
ghz APs.  That would have been even more hilarious.


Keefe


On 3/1/2018 2:58 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:

What was your response to that threat?

Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us 
up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we 
were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi 
to communicate with police cars all over town.


Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their 
jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.


Mark

On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com 
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an 
empty threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


    I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh
    caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to
    see at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up
    airebeams assets with some sanctions against the attorneys
    office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the
    recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no
    dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

    where johnny Cochran

    On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
    <mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
    people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an
    actual lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's
    a good chance that they're not going to want to go through
    the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of
    their way.

    Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid
    interfering with the stuff you have up would be a lot more
    effective...

    On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
    <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

    Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
    *From:* Steve Jones
    *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
        *To:* af@afmug.com
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
    Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about
    willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc
    talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to
    focus on, but thats not their target. This could be
    interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up in
    court just to get fresh caselaw. The new operators in
    the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play,
    but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some
    time and trouble dough in their pockets too.
    On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien"
    <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

    They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue
    anybody for anything in this country right?
    In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC
    rules on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might
    interpret a case for damages due to lost business
    due to provable radio interference, may be two
    totally different situations.
    On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
    <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

    Jaime Solorza
    On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
    <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

    We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and
    we can’t install over their old customers
    fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3
    times what we are backed up.


    Rory


    *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
    Behalf Of *Steve Jones
    *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
    *To:* af@afmug.com
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this
    letter yet


    all you need to know about this outfit


    " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my
    Airebeam account and switched to another
    company. This company has the worst customer
   

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/1/18 12:58 PM, Jay Weekley wrote:

What was your response to that threat?



come at me bro

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mark Radabaugh]

and it never will.   But science and politicians don’t seem to go together very 
well.

Mark

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 3:55 PM, Keefe John <keefe...@ethoplex.com> wrote:
> 
> There's a whole county in Wisconsin who's trying to get 4.9 ghz Mikrotik's to 
> service mobile police cars.  They've been working on it for the better part 
> of 7 years and have invested over a million dollars into the project.  It 
> still doesn't work.
> 
> Keefe
> 
> On 3/1/2018 2:05 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us up and 
>> threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we were supposedly 
>> interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi to communicate with 
>> police cars all over town.   
>> 
>> Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their jurisdiction - 
>> or even any 2.4 in use.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> bp
>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>> 
>>> On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>>> Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again 
>>>> in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, 
>>>> and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
>>>> <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw 
>>>> that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of 
>>>> the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some 
>>>> sanctions against the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the 
>>>> industry for the recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no 
>>>> dismissal, make it get to a ruling. 
>>>> 
>>>> where johnny Cochran 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com 
>>>> <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off 
>>>> though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if 
>>>> the new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to 
>>>> want to go through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep 
>>>> out of their way.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the 
>>>> stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Any local judge would be preempted by FCC. 
>>>>  
>>>> From: Steve Jones <>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
>>>> To: af@afmug.com <>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>>>  
>>>> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and 
>>>> incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the 
>>>> people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting 
>>>> to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh 
>>>> caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are 
>>>> in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and 
>>>> trouble dough in their pockets too.
>>>>  
>>>> On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com <>> wrote:
>>>> They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in 
>>>> this country right? 
>>>>  
>>>> In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs 
>>>> and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business 
>>>> due to provable radio interference, may be two totally different 
>>>> situations.
>>>>  
>>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com 
>>>> <>> wrote:
>>>> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you. 
>>>> 
>>>> Jaime Solorza
&g

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Adam Moffett]

My monocle just popped off.


-- Original Message --
From: "Keefe John" <keefe...@ethoplex.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 3/1/2018 3:55:05 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

There's a whole county in Wisconsin who's trying to get 4.9 ghz 
Mikrotik's to service mobile police cars.  They've been working on it 
for the better part of 7 years and have invested over a million dollars 
into the project.  It still doesn't work.


Keefe


On 3/1/2018 2:05 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us 
up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we 
were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi 
to communicate with police cars all over town.


Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their 
jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.


Mark


On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."



bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>


On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an 
empty threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh 
caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see 
at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams 
assets with some sanctions against the attorneys office. We should 
do a gofundme in the industry for the recipients to afford the 
litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get to a ruling.


where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard 
<mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people 
off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, 
but even if the new guys know that, there's a good chance that 
they're not going to want to go through the whole mess of getting 
sued, and just try to keep out of their way.


Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with 
the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.

From:Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully 
impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre 
probably expecting the people to focus on, but thats not their 
target. This could be interesting to see play out, hopefully it 
does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw. The new operators 
in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if 
they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble 
dough in their pockets too.


On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> 
wrote:
They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for 
anything in this country right?


In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on 
unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a case for 
damages due to lost business due to provable radio interference, 
may be two totally different situations.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" 
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install 
over their old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at 
least 3 times what we are backed up.



Rory


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve 
Jones

Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet


all you need to know about this outfit


" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and 
switched to another company. This company has the worst 
customer service. They also have horrible internet service. 
They are very unresponsive when there is an issue. (and if 
they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my 
opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a 
business and providing quality seriously.

Follow up note:
When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he 
stated equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to 
yell at me. I explained to him that he was never to contact me 
again. The owner, instead of finding a solution, threatened to 
file theft charges. I am more than happy to return their 
equipment, but I don't have to put up with their abusive 
employees."



https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city 
<https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizo

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

Toledo Ohio?  Aren't you in FL? :)

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Radabaugh 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet


  I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us up and 
threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we were supposedly 
interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi to communicate with 
police cars all over town.   


  Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their jurisdiction - 
or even any 2.4 in use.


  Mark



On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:


Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."




bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:

  Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again 
in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, and he 
has no intention of actually suing anybody.



  On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw 
that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of the 
day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some sanctions 
against the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the 
recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get 
to a ruling.  


where johnny Cochran 


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

  I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off 
though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if the 
new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to want to go 
through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.


  Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with 
the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...



  On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.  

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully 
impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably 
expecting the people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be 
interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get 
fresh caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions 
are in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and 
trouble dough in their pockets too.

On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

  They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for 
anything in this country right?  

  In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on 
unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost 
business due to provable radio interference, may be two totally different 
situations. 

  On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you. 


Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" 
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

  We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install 
over their old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what 
we are backed up.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve 
Jones
  Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
      To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet



  all you need to know about this outfit 



  " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and 
switched to another company. This company has the worst customer service. They 
also have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is 
an issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my 
opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and 
providing quality seriously.
  Follow up note:
  When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he 
stated equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I 
explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead of 
finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than happy to 
return their equipment, bu

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jay Weekley]

What was your response to that threat?

Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us 
up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we 
were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi 
to communicate with police cars all over town.


Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their 
jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.


Mark

On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com 
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an 
empty threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh
caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to
see at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up
airebeams assets with some sanctions against the attorneys
office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the
recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no
dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
<mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an
actual lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's
a good chance that they're not going to want to go through
the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of
their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid
interfering with the stuff you have up would be a lot more
effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
        *To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about
willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc
talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to
focus on, but thats not their target. This could be
interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up in
court just to get fresh caselaw. The new operators in
the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play,
but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some
time and trouble dough in their pockets too.
On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien"
<ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue
anybody for anything in this country right?
In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC
rules on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might
interpret a case for damages due to lost business
due to provable radio interference, may be two
totally different situations.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza
On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and
we can’t install over their old customers
fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3
times what we are backed up.


Rory


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this
letter yet


all you need to know about this outfit


" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my
Airebeam account and switched to another
company. This company has the worst customer
service. They also have horrible internet
service. They are very unresponsive when
there is an issue. (and if they did respon

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Keefe John]

There's a whole county in Wisconsin who's trying to get 4.9 ghz 
Mikrotik's to service mobile police cars.  They've been working on it 
for the better part of 7 years and have invested over a million dollars 
into the project.  It still doesn't work.


Keefe


On 3/1/2018 2:05 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us 
up and threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we 
were supposedly interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi 
to communicate with police cars all over town.


Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their 
jurisdiction - or even any 2.4 in use.


Mark

On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com 
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an 
empty threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh
caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to
see at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up
airebeams assets with some sanctions against the attorneys
office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the
recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no
dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
<mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an
actual lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's
a good chance that they're not going to want to go through
the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of
their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid
interfering with the stuff you have up would be a lot more
effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
        *To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about
willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc
talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to
focus on, but thats not their target. This could be
interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up in
court just to get fresh caselaw. The new operators in
the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play,
but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some
time and trouble dough in their pockets too.
On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien"
<ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue
anybody for anything in this country right?
In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC
rules on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might
interpret a case for damages due to lost business
due to provable radio interference, may be two
totally different situations.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza
On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and
we can’t install over their old customers
fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3
times what we are backed up.


Rory


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this
letter yet


all you need to know about this outfit


" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my
Airebeam account and switched to another
com

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mark Radabaugh]

I liked when the lieutenant at the Toledo police department called us up and 
threatened to come out and shut down our 2.4 AP’s because we were supposedly 
interfering with their ill conceived plan to use WiFi to communicate with 
police cars all over town.   

Pretty laughable given that we didn’t have anything in their jurisdiction - or 
even any 2.4 in use.

Mark

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."
> 
> 
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
> 
> On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>> Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again in 
>> the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, and he 
>> has no intention of actually suing anybody.
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw that 
>> stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of the day, 
>> the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some sanctions 
>> against the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for 
>> the recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make 
>> it get to a ruling. 
>> 
>> where johnny Cochran 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off 
>> though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if the 
>> new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to want to 
>> go through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their 
>> way.
>> 
>> Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the stuff 
>> you have up would be a lot more effective...
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> Any local judge would be preempted by FCC. 
>>  
>> From: Steve Jones <>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com <>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>  
>> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and 
>> incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the 
>> people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting to 
>> see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw. 
>> The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, 
>> but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble dough 
>> in their pockets too.
>>  
>> On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com <>> wrote:
>> They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in 
>> this country right? 
>>  
>> In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs 
>> and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due 
>> to provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations.
>>  
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com <>> 
>> wrote:
>> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you. 
>> 
>> Jaime Solorza
>>  
>> On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net <>> wrote:
>> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their old 
>> customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are backed 
>> up.
>> 
>>  
>> Rory
>> 
>>  
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <>] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com <>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>> 
>>  
>> all you need to know about this outfit
>> 
>>  
>> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to 
>> another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also have 
>> horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an 
>> issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my 
>> opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and 
>> providing quality seriously.
>> Follow up note:
>> When Steven (installer) contacted 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Rory Conaway]

They use a lot of Ubiquiti equipment.  Would be very hard to cut them off from 
Amazon for example.  I know they have a large inventory of M series radios 
because our guys have taken them off the roof.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 11:46 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

I'd like to see the vendors decide that it's not in their interest to continue 
to do business with them due to the possible liabilities...

On 03/01/2018 09:47 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
> Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."
> 
> 
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
> 
> On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>> Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
>> again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty 
>> threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh
>> caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see
>> at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams
>> assets with some sanctions against the attorneys office. We should
>> do a gofundme in the industry for the recipients to afford the
>> litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get to a ruling.
>>
>> where johnny Cochran
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
>> <mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
>> people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual
>> lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's a good
>> chance that they're not going to want to go through the whole
>> mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.
>>
>> Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering
>> with the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
>> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
>> *From:* Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about
>> willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc
>> talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to focus
>> on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
>> to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to
>> get fresh caselaw. The new operators in the area may
>> suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if they
>> weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble
>> dough in their pockets too.
>> On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien"
>> <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:
>>
>> They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue
>> anybody for anything in this country right?
>> In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules
>> on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a
>> case for damages due to lost business due to provable
>> radio interference, may be two totally different
>> situations.
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
>> <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>> On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
>> <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we
>>         can’t install over their old customers fast
>> enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times
>> what we are backed up.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>> *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
>>   

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Robert Andrews]

I'd like to see the vendors decide that it's not in their interest to 
continue to do business with them due to the possible liabilities...


On 03/01/2018 09:47 AM, Bill Prince wrote:

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty 
threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh
caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see
at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams
assets with some sanctions against the attorneys office. We should
do a gofundme in the industry for the recipients to afford the
litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
<mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual
lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's a good
chance that they're not going to want to go through the whole
mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering
with the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
    *To:* af@afmug.com
        *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about
willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc
talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to focus
on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to
get fresh caselaw. The new operators in the area may
suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if they
weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble
dough in their pockets too.
On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien"
<ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue
anybody for anything in this country right?
In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules
on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a
case for damages due to lost business due to provable
radio interference, may be two totally different
situations.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza
On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we
can’t install over their old customers fast
enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times
what we are backed up.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
        *To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

all you need to know about this outfit

" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my
Airebeam account and switched to another
company. This company has the worst customer
service. They also have horrible internet
service. They are very unresponsive when there
is an issue. (and if they did respond, they
always blamed the router.) In my opinion, Greg
does not take the responsibility of owning a
business and providing quality seriously.
Follow up note:
When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick
up equipment, he stated equipment that wasn't
 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Bill Prince]

Down south they call it "All hat, and no cattle."


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening 
again in the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty 
threat, and he has no intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh
caselaw that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see
at the end of the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams
assets with some sanctions against the attorneys office. We should
do a gofundme in the industry for the recipients to afford the
litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard
<mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare
people off though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual
lawsuit, but even if the new guys know that, there's a good
chance that they're not going to want to go through the whole
mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering
with the stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com
<mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
    *To:* af@afmug.com
        *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about
willfully impeding and incumbants operations. This fcc
talk os what theyre probably expecting the people to focus
on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to
get fresh caselaw. The new operators in the area may
suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if they
weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble
dough in their pockets too.
On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien"
<ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue
anybody for anything in this country right?
In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules
on unlicensed freqs and how a judge might interpret a
case for damages due to lost business due to provable
radio interference, may be two totally different
situations.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza
On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"
<r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we
can’t install over their old customers fast
enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times
what we are backed up.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
        *To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

all you need to know about this outfit

" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my
Airebeam account and switched to another
company. This company has the worst customer
service. They also have horrible internet
service. They are very unresponsive when there
is an issue. (and if they did respond, they
always blamed the router.) In my opinion, Greg
does not take the responsibility of owning a
business and providing quality seriously.
Follow up note:
When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick
up equipment, he stated equipment that wasn't
even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me.
I explained to him that he was never to
contact me again. The owner, instead of
 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

It is totally an empty threat.  They are banking on your ignorance of the law 
and your risk aversion.  I would actually taunt them.  

“Bring it on MFs”.  

Make them spend some money on lawyers.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:51 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again in the 
future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, and he has no 
intention of actually suing anybody.


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

  I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw that 
stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of the day, 
the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some sanctions against 
the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the industry for the 
recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no dismissal, make it get 
to a ruling.  

  where johnny Cochran 

  On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off 
though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if the 
new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to want to go 
through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out of their way.


Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the 
stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.  

  From: Steve Jones 
  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

  Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and 
incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the 
people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting to 
see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw. The 
new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if 
they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble dough in their 
pockets too.

  On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything 
in this country right?  

In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed 
freqs and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business 
due to provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations. 

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza 
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

  Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you. 


  Jaime Solorza

  On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> 
wrote:

We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over 
their old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are 
backed up.



Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
    To: af@afmug.com
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet



all you need to know about this outfit 



" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and 
switched to another company. This company has the worst customer service. They 
also have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is 
an issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my 
opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and 
providing quality seriously.
Follow up note:
When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he 
stated equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I 
explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead of 
finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than happy to 
return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their abusive 
employees."



https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city



not that BBB is legit, but there is this 
https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-broadband-in-arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints



On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.



wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of 
cause its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in 
the judiciary



On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM,

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

Ugly ass shoes...

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:39 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 


He's still trying to get the glove off.


bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>

On 3/1/2018 8:27 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
where johnny Cochran 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

This is how they should respond to the lawyer


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> He's still trying to get the glove off.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 3/1/2018 8:27 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
>> where johnny Cochran
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, it would be nice to see a ruling to stop this from happening again in
the future... but my guess is that it's really just an empty threat, and he
has no intention of actually suing anybody.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw
> that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of
> the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some
> sanctions against the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the
> industry for the recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no
> dismissal, make it get to a ruling.
>
> where johnny Cochran
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off
>> though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if
>> the new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to
>> want to go through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out
>> of their way.
>>
>> Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the
>> stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
>>>
>>> *From:* Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>>
>>> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and
>>> incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the
>>> people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
>>> to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh
>>> caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are
>>> in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and
>>> trouble dough in their pockets too.
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything
>>>> in this country right?
>>>>
>>>> In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed
>>>> freqs and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost
>>>> business due to provable radio interference, may be two totally different
>>>> situations.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <
>>>> losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jaime Solorza
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over
>>>>>> their old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what 
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> are backed up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rory
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
>>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> all you need to know about this outfit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and
>>>>>> switched to another company. This company has the worst customer service.
>>>>>> They also have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when
>>>>>> there is an issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the
>>>>>> router.) In my opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a
>>>>>> business and providing quality seriously.
>>>>>> Follow up note:
>>>>>> When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
>>>>>> equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
>>&

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Bill Prince]

He's still trying to get the glove off.


bp


On 3/1/2018 8:27 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
where johnny Cochran 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

I think this is worth pushing to the nth. I like caselaw, fresh caselaw
that stiffens historic caselaw. I would really like to see at the end of
the day, the letter recipients divvying up airebeams assets with some
sanctions against the attorneys office. We should do a gofundme in the
industry for the recipients to afford the litigation, no settlement, no
dismissal, make it get to a ruling.

where johnny Cochran

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off
> though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if
> the new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to
> want to go through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out
> of their way.
>
> Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the
> stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
>>
>> *From:* Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and
>> incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the
>> people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
>> to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh
>> caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are
>> in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and
>> trouble dough in their pockets too.
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything
>>> in this country right?
>>>
>>> In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed
>>> freqs and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost
>>> business due to provable radio interference, may be two totally different
>>> situations.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
>>>>
>>>> Jaime Solorza
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over
>>>>> their old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what 
>>>>> we
>>>>> are backed up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rory
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> all you need to know about this outfit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched
>>>>> to another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also
>>>>> have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is 
>>>>> an
>>>>> issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my
>>>>> opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and
>>>>> providing quality seriously.
>>>>> Follow up note:
>>>>> When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
>>>>> equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
>>>>> explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead
>>>>> of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than
>>>>> happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their
>>>>> abusive employees."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> not that BBB is legit, but there is this
>>>>> https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/in

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

I wonder how often this kind of thing works to just scare people off
though... I assume they'd eventually lose an actual lawsuit, but even if
the new guys know that, there's a good chance that they're not going to
want to go through the whole mess of getting sued, and just try to keep out
of their way.

Personally, I think asking nicely to try to avoid interfering with the
stuff you have up would be a lot more effective...

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:48 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.
>
> *From:* Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and
> incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the
> people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
> to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh
> caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are
> in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and
> trouble dough in their pockets too.
>
> On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:
>
>> They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything
>> in this country right?
>>
>> In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs
>> and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due
>> to provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
>>>
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their
>>>> old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are
>>>> backed up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rory
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> all you need to know about this outfit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched
>>>> to another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also
>>>> have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an
>>>> issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my
>>>> opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and
>>>> providing quality seriously.
>>>> Follow up note:
>>>> When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
>>>> equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
>>>> explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead
>>>> of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than
>>>> happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their
>>>> abusive employees."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> not that BBB is legit, but there is this https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/
>>>> business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-broadband-in-
>>>> arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of
>>>> cause its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of
>>>> dumb in the judiciary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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. 37
>>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th Street •
>>>> Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>>>
>>>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>>>
>>>> *r...@triadwireless.net*
>>>>
>>>> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

Any local judge would be preempted by FCC.  

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and 
incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the 
people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting to 
see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh caselaw. The 
new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are in play, but if 
they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and trouble dough in their 
pockets too.

On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

  They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in 
this country right?  

  In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs and 
how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due to 
provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations. 

  On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you. 


Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

  We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their 
old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are 
backed up.



  Rory



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
  Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet



  all you need to know about this outfit 



  " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to 
another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also have 
horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an issue. 
(and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my opinion, Greg 
does not take the responsibility of owning a business and providing quality 
seriously.
  Follow up note:
  When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated 
equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I explained 
to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead of finding a 
solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than happy to return 
their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their abusive employees."



  https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city



  not that BBB is legit, but there is this 
https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-broadband-in-arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints



  On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

  man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.



  wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause 
its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in the 
judiciary



  On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net> 
wrote:





  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

  602-426-0542

  r...@triadwireless.net

  www.triadwireless.net



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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Darin Steffl]

We have a competitor that sent a somewhat similar letter up here in
Minnesota. We ignored the letter and nothing happened. They also had such
poor reviews on Facebook that they turned them off.

They also yell at their customers and blame them for everything even when
it's the ISP's fault.

We are taking their customers.

End of story.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> Merca! Its what we do since we arent allowed to beat our wives anymore.
>
> On Mar 1, 2018 8:28 AM, "Seth Mattinen"  wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/18 6:20 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and
>>> incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the
>>> people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
>>> to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh
>>> caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are
>>> in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and
>>> trouble dough in their pockets too.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What is it with companies that are such shitholes that they have nothing
>> but to threaten and intimidate?
>>
>


-- 
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

Merca! Its what we do since we arent allowed to beat our wives anymore.

On Mar 1, 2018 8:28 AM, "Seth Mattinen"  wrote:

> On 3/1/18 6:20 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and
>> incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the
>> people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
>> to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh
>> caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are
>> in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and
>> trouble dough in their pockets too.
>>
>
>
> What is it with companies that are such shitholes that they have nothing
> but to threaten and intimidate?
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/1/18 6:20 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and 
incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting 
the people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be 
interesting to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to 
get fresh caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if 
injunctions are in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably 
get some time and trouble dough in their pockets too.



What is it with companies that are such shitholes that they have nothing 
but to threaten and intimidate?

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

Yeah, that letter isnt about fcc stuff, its about willfully impeding and
incumbants operations. This fcc talk os what theyre probably expecting the
people to focus on, but thats not their target. This could be interesting
to see play out, hopefully it does end up in court just to get fresh
caselaw. The new operators in the area may suffer a bit if injunctions are
in play, but if they weather it, theyll win, probably get some time and
trouble dough in their pockets too.

On Mar 1, 2018 7:42 AM, "Chris Fabien" <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote:

> They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in
> this country right?
>
> In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs
> and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due
> to provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations.
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their
>>> old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are
>>> backed up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> all you need to know about this outfit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched
>>> to another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also
>>> have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an
>>> issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my
>>> opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and
>>> providing quality seriously.
>>> Follow up note:
>>> When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
>>> equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
>>> explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead
>>> of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than
>>> happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their
>>> abusive employees."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> not that BBB is legit, but there is this https://www.bbb.org/phoen
>>> ix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-broadband-in
>>> -arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of
>>> cause its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of
>>> dumb in the judiciary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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. 37
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th Street •
>>> Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>>
>>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>>
>>> *r...@triadwireless.net <r...@triadwireless.net>*
>>>
>>> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Chris Fabien]

They can't stop you, but they can sue you! Can sue anybody for anything in
this country right?

In reality, I think the real answer is, the FCC rules on unlicensed freqs
and how a judge might interpret a case for damages due to lost business due
to provable radio interference, may be two totally different situations.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:13 AM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
> On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:
>
>> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their
>> old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are
>> backed up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>>
>>
>> all you need to know about this outfit
>>
>>
>>
>> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to
>> another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also
>> have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an
>> issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my
>> opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and
>> providing quality seriously.
>> Follow up note:
>> When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
>> equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
>> explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead
>> of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than
>> happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their
>> abusive employees."
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city
>>
>>
>>
>> not that BBB is legit, but there is this https://www.bbb.org/phoen
>> ix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-broadband-
>> in-arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.
>>
>>
>>
>> wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause
>> its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in
>> the judiciary
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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. 37
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th Street •
>> Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net <r...@triadwireless.net>*
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jaime Solorza]

Send them the Part 15 rules...they can't stop you.

Jaime Solorza

On Feb 28, 2018 9:26 PM, "Rory Conaway" <r...@triadwireless.net> wrote:

> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their
> old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are
> backed up.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
>
>
> all you need to know about this outfit
>
>
>
> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to
> another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also
> have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an
> issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my
> opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and
> providing quality seriously.
> Follow up note:
> When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
> equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
> explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead
> of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than
> happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their
> abusive employees."
>
>
>
> https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city
>
>
>
> not that BBB is legit, but there is this https://www.bbb.org/
> phoenix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-
> broadband-in-arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.
>
>
>
> wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause
> its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in
> the judiciary
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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. 37 <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net <r...@triadwireless.net>*
>
> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Dan Parrish]

 I believe the key phrase is, "must accept interference from other sources."

--dan



On 2/28/2018 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:


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
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

holy cow, i just got done reading what i could find on them. thats just a
shitshow of terrible customers on terrible service. We have maybe 10
customers left to shed that we just simply cant provide reliable service
to, I dont even feel bad now, apparently I can all but show up at their
house and use the radio cable to strangle their infant and people will
still pay

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
wrote:

> We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their
> old customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are
> backed up.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
>
>
> all you need to know about this outfit
>
>
>
> " Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to
> another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also
> have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an
> issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my
> opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and
> providing quality seriously.
> Follow up note:
> When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
> equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
> explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead
> of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than
> happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their
> abusive employees."
>
>
>
> https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city
>
>
>
> not that BBB is legit, but there is this https://www.bbb.org/
> phoenix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-
> broadband-in-arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.
>
>
>
> wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause
> its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in
> the judiciary
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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. 37 <https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37=gmail=g>th
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net <r...@triadwireless.net>*
>
> *www.triadwireless.net <http://www.triadwireless.net/>*
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Chuck McCown]

Low hanging fruit for those of you in that area...

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

lmao, they even have their own page called airebeam hostages

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Keefe John <keefe...@ethoplex.com> wrote:

  We have a guy in Wisconsin who tries things like this.

  KJ




  On 2/28/2018 9:57 PM, Simon Westlake wrote:

Not sure what they think they can enforce on unlicensed frequencies..


On 2/28/2018 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:

  �

  �

  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

  602-426-0542

  r...@triadwireless.net

  www.triadwireless.net

  �

  �Yesterdays Home Runs don�t win todays games!�

  �



-- 
Simon Westlake | CEO
simon@sonar.software
(702) 447-1247
https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Robert]

I must have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night but isn't this a form of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

On 2/28/18 8:22 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
All fun and games til the litigation specialists attorney files an 
injunction and some judge thinks this will get his name in the net 
neutrality game as a helper of people halts the target ISP operations


On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Darin Steffl > wrote:


We all know 5ghz is unlicensed and there's nothing they can do about it.

Ignore the letter and deploy where you want. Just don't purposefully
go on the same channel they're on when you can scan and pick a clean
channel if available.

The letter is a scare tactic and nothing more.

On Feb 28, 2018 9:39 PM, "Rory Conaway" > wrote:

__ __

__ __

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. 37
^th
Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542 *

*r...@triadwireless.net *

*www.triadwireless.net *

*__ __*

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

__ __

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/482822665389519/about/

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> lmao, they even have their own page called airebeam hostages
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Keefe John 
> wrote:
>
>> We have a guy in Wisconsin who tries things like this.
>>
>> KJ
>>
>> On 2/28/2018 9:57 PM, Simon Westlake wrote:
>>
>> Not sure what they think they can enforce on unlicensed frequencies..
>>
>> On 2/28/2018 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>>
>> �
>>
>> �
>>
>> 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. 37
>> th Street �
>> Phoenix � AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>> *�*
>>
>> *�Yesterdays Home Runs don�t win todays games!�*
>>
>> �
>>
>>
>> --
>> Simon Westlake | CEOsimon@sonar.software(702) 447-1247https://sonar.software
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

lmao, they even have their own page called airebeam hostages

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Keefe John  wrote:

> We have a guy in Wisconsin who tries things like this.
>
> KJ
>
> On 2/28/2018 9:57 PM, Simon Westlake wrote:
>
> Not sure what they think they can enforce on unlicensed frequencies..
>
> On 2/28/2018 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>
> �
>
> �
>
> 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. 37 th
> Street � Phoenix � AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
> *�*
>
> *�Yesterdays Home Runs don�t win todays games!�*
>
> �
>
>
> --
> Simon Westlake | CEOsimon@sonar.software(702) 447-1247https://sonar.software
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Rory Conaway]

We cover one of the areas with Airebeam and we can’t install over their old 
customers fast enough.  Ken is backed up at least 3 times what we are backed up.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:12 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

all you need to know about this outfit

" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to 
another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also have 
horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an issue. 
(and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my opinion, Greg 
does not take the responsibility of owning a business and providing quality 
seriously.
Follow up note:
When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated equipment 
that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I explained to him 
that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead of finding a 
solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than happy to return 
their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their abusive employees."

https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city

not that BBB is legit, but there is this 
https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-broadband-in-arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.

wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause its 
too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in the 
judiciary

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway 
<r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:


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
602-426-0542<tel:(602)%20426-0542>
r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
www.triadwireless.net<http://www.triadwireless.net/>

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

All fun and games til the litigation specialists attorney files an
injunction and some judge thinks this will get his name in the net
neutrality game as a helper of people halts the target ISP operations

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> We all know 5ghz is unlicensed and there's nothing they can do about it.
>
> Ignore the letter and deploy where you want. Just don't purposefully go on
> the same channel they're on when you can scan and pick a clean channel if
> available.
>
> The letter is a scare tactic and nothing more.
>
> On Feb 28, 2018 9:39 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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. 37
>> th Street •
>> Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>>
>>
>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Rory Conaway]

We do but who knows, maybe Simon is right.  I think a cease and desist letter 
from a couple manufacturers and WISPS is in order.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Darin Steffl
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

We all know 5ghz is unlicensed and there's nothing they can do about it.

Ignore the letter and deploy where you want. Just don't purposefully go on the 
same channel they're on when you can scan and pick a clean channel if available.

The letter is a scare tactic and nothing more.

On Feb 28, 2018 9:39 PM, "Rory Conaway" 
<r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote:


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
602-426-0542<tel:(602)%20426-0542>
r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>
www.triadwireless.net<http://www.triadwireless.net/>

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Keefe John]

We have a guy in Wisconsin who tries things like this.

KJ


On 2/28/2018 9:57 PM, Simon Westlake wrote:

Not sure what they think they can enforce on unlicensed frequencies..

On 2/28/2018 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:


�

�

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. 37^th Street � Phoenix � AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542*

*r...@triadwireless.net *

*www.triadwireless.net *

*�*

/�Yesterdays Home Runs don�t win todays games!�/

�



--
Simon Westlake | CEO
simon@sonar.software
(702) 447-1247
https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

all you need to know about this outfit

" Today is a Great Day!  I cancelled my Airebeam account and switched to
another company. This company has the worst customer service. They also
have horrible internet service. They are very unresponsive when there is an
issue. (and if they did respond, they always blamed the router.) In my
opinion, Greg does not take the responsibility of owning a business and
providing quality seriously.
Follow up note:
When Steven (installer) contacted me to pick up equipment, he stated
equipment that wasn't even theirs. He then proceeded to yell at me. I
explained to him that he was never to contact me again. The owner, instead
of finding a solution, threatened to file theft charges. I am more than
happy to return their equipment, but I don't have to put up with their
abusive employees."

https://www.yelp.com/biz/airebeam-arizona-city

not that BBB is legit, but there is this
https://www.bbb.org/phoenix/business-reviews/internet-providers/airebeam-broadband-in-arizona-city-az-133070/reviews-and-complaints

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.
>
> wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause
> its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in
> the judiciary
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>>
>>
>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Darin Steffl]

Also their Google and Facebook reviews are absolutely horrible. Some of the
worst I've seen for a wisp.

They must be really struggling to stay afloat and offer decent service.

On Feb 28, 2018 9:57 PM, "Steve Jones"  wrote:

> man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.
>
> wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause
> its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in
> the judiciary
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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. 37
>> th Street •
>> Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>>
>>
>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Darin Steffl]

We all know 5ghz is unlicensed and there's nothing they can do about it.

Ignore the letter and deploy where you want. Just don't purposefully go on
the same channel they're on when you can scan and pick a clean channel if
available.

The letter is a scare tactic and nothing more.

On Feb 28, 2018 9:39 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> 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*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Simon Westlake]

Not sure what they think they can enforce on unlicensed frequencies..

On 2/28/2018 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:


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. 37^th Street � Phoenix � AZ 85040*

*602-426-0542*

*r...@triadwireless.net *

*www.triadwireless.net *

**

/�Yesterdays Home Runs don�t win todays games!�/



--
Simon Westlake | CEO
simon@sonar.software
(702) 447-1247
https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

man, that sucks. He probably paid this lawyer too.

wouldnt it be crazy though if this was a loophole nobody thought of cause
its too dumb to work, but we didnt take into account the level of dumb in
the judiciary

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> 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*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>