[WISPA] OT: IP camera with 4G capability
Anyone with source for this? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Anyone using Ceragon IP20's?
Feedback? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
Update Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions going on above our pay grade locally. Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded to me: === FROM: FCC Agent TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted several of the Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the problem and have been met with some resistance to assist you. I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to discuss this problem and open up a discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not cause harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5 General conditions of operation. (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter. (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator. (c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected. (d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited. I propose that we have our first meeting on Wednesday, 6/18/14, at Patrick AFB. Thanks, Don Roberson Sr. Agent Tampa Office Enforcement Bureau FCC Office: 813-348-1741 ext 105 === So, its that easy? Local AF guy makes a request whether reasonable or not, and thats the way it is? I understand moving off the 5765Mhz and having guard space on either side maybe 20Mhz, but they want the whole band to stop being used whether its even in the radar LOS or not, which is an unreasonable request, IMO. This meeting of the minds will apparently happen this coming Wednesday here locally. Anyone have anything to add, other than good luck? Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:49 PM To: sc...@flhsi.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Yes. Thanks ! On 6/2/2014 9:24 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Does this work: Scott Connolley, GS-13, DAF DoD Eastern Area Frequency Coordination Office 45 Space Communications Squadron Patrick Air Force Base Florida COMM: (321) 494-5838 DSN 854 scott.connol...@us.af.mil Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:20 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Guys, I'm working on getting some clarification on this issue. Let's try to hold off on the public
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
If your radio is causing interference to a licensed radio they have -- they can say shut it down. Otherwise a request of shut everything down on the band I don't think holds water On 6/12/14, 1:31 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Update Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions going on above our pay grade locally. Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded to me: === FROM: FCC Agent TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted several of the Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the problem and have been met with some resistance to assist you. I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to discuss this problem and open up a discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not cause harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5 General conditions of operation. (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter. (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator. (c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected. (d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited. I propose that we have our first meeting on Wednesday, 6/18/14, at Patrick AFB. Thanks, Don Roberson Sr. Agent Tampa Office Enforcement Bureau FCC Office: 813-348-1741 ext 105 === So, its that easy? Local AF guy makes a request whether reasonable or not, and thats the way it is? I understand moving off the 5765Mhz and having guard space on either side maybe 20Mhz, but they want the whole band to stop being used whether its even in the radar LOS or not, which is an unreasonable request, IMO. This meeting of the minds will apparently happen this coming Wednesday here locally. Anyone have anything to add, other than good luck? Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 *From*: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com *Sent*: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:49 PM *To*: sc...@flhsi.com *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Yes. Thanks ! On 6/2/2014 9:24 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Does this work: Scott Connolley, GS-13, DAF DoD Eastern Area Frequency Coordination Office 45 Space Communications Squadron Patrick Air Force Base Florida COMM: (321) 494-5838 DSN 854 scott.connol...@us.af.mil Scott Carullo Technical
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
I guess, if you had any doubt, that this shows with no question the pecking order. How would you like to be considering an IPO and have this as part of the Cautions in the disclosure?..I wonder what part of the frequency properties make this band the one for this radar or was it legacy... If legacy, would it be a bad investment to spend the millions or tens of millions to replace it? On 06/12/2014 10:31 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Update Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions going on above our pay grade locally. Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded to me: === FROM: FCC Agent TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted several of the Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the problem and have been met with some resistance to assist you. I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to discuss this problem and open up a discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not cause harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5 General conditions of operation. (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter. (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator. (c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected. (d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited. I propose that we have our first meeting on Wednesday, 6/18/14, at Patrick AFB. Thanks, Don Roberson Sr. Agent Tampa Office Enforcement Bureau FCC Office: 813-348-1741 ext 105 === So, its that easy? Local AF guy makes a request whether reasonable or not, and thats the way it is? I understand moving off the 5765Mhz and having guard space on either side maybe 20Mhz, but they want the whole band to stop being used whether its even in the radar LOS or not, which is an unreasonable request, IMO. This meeting of the minds will apparently happen this coming Wednesday here locally. Anyone have anything to add, other than good luck? Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 *From*: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com *Sent*: Monday, June 02, 2014 12:49 PM *To*: sc...@flhsi.com *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Yes. Thanks ! On 6/2/2014 9:24 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Does this work: Scott Connolley, GS-13,
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
Yes it really is that easy. Welcome to the New World Order. The Government owns the spectrum and we only get to use it if they feel like letting us. End of story. In WW2 they shut down Ham radio for security even though today it is accepted that hams are Helping the Government in emergencies. They don't need us, our customers do. So, its that easy? Local AF guy makes a request whether reasonable or not, and thats the way it is? I understand moving off the 5765Mhz and having guard space on either side maybe 20Mhz, but they want the whole band to stop being used whether its even in the radar LOS or not, which is an unreasonable request, IMO. This meeting of the minds will apparently happen this coming Wednesday here locally. Anyone have anything to add, other than good luck? Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
Thats going to be something we bring up at the meeting. Its going to boil down to a they say vs we say - who do you think is going to lose that battle? They are claiming a radio operating on 5795 on 20Mhz channel will interfere with their radar on 5765 with about a 1Mhz channel width. Further-more, the RFI they are getting on 5765 is not from the radar, its from a beacon the radar interrogates on a space launch vehicle so in other words - the radar only listens on this freq. If they say my radio on 5800Mhz is interfering with their 5765Mhz beacon who gets involved with resolving that? I think the guys that work there are nice fellas, but I conducted my own test during our testing. I turned a radio off, they said - oh looks a lot better. Sounded suspect to me. Next radio I said ok its off (didn't change anything - again it was a test) and they said ok lots better... They just want them all off without regards of the true scientific difference. If FCC is going to get involved they need to just issue a notice in this area and specify what they believe needs to happen to resolve this - not just go on whatever the radar operator says IMO I believe we could all co-exist with a notch cut out from 5755 to 5775. At least thats somewhat reasonable for us if not still difficult to enforce for the general public buying 5Ghz APs from wal mart Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:49 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz If your radio is causing interference to a licensed radio they have -- they can say shut it down. Otherwise a request of shut everything down on the band I don't think holds water On 6/12/14, 1:31 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Update Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions going on above our pay grade locally. Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded to me: === FROM: FCC Agent TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted several of the Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the problem and have been met with some resistance to assist you. I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to discuss this problem and open up a discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not cause harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5 General conditions of operation. (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter. (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator. (c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected. (d) Intentional radiators that
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
Regarding the suspect looks a lot better, my suggestion would be bring a laptop that you can use to access your network remotely and, while you're all there looking at their analyzers, turn off and/or change channels on your radios. It will be harder to make flippant subjective calls like that in a group. If you can show that a minor channel change makes a difference, or better yet that you're not really the interferer, then you may end up with a workable solution. On the flip side, it could backfire and it really is lots better with your radios off. Just like the TDWR interference in Vegas, it seems that cooperation in finding the cause, and fixing it, will go a long way and avoid the shotgun approach. -Kristian On 06/12/2014 11:23 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Thats going to be something we bring up at the meeting. Its going to boil down to a they say vs we say - who do you think is going to lose that battle? They are claiming a radio operating on 5795 on 20Mhz channel will interfere with their radar on 5765 with about a 1Mhz channel width. Further-more, the RFI they are getting on 5765 is not from the radar, its from a beacon the radar interrogates on a space launch vehicle so in other words - the radar only listens on this freq. If they say my radio on 5800Mhz is interfering with their 5765Mhz beacon who gets involved with resolving that? I think the guys that work there are nice fellas, but I conducted my own test during our testing. I turned a radio off, they said - oh looks a lot better. Sounded suspect to me. Next radio I said ok its off (didn't change anything - again it was a test) and they said ok lots better... They just want them all off without regards of the true scientific difference. If FCC is going to get involved they need to just issue a notice in this area and specify what they believe needs to happen to resolve this - not just go on whatever the radar operator says IMO I believe we could all co-exist with a notch cut out from 5755 to 5775. At least thats somewhat reasonable for us if not still difficult to enforce for the general public buying 5Ghz APs from wal mart Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 *From*: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com *Sent*: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:49 PM *To*: sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org *Subject*: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz If your radio is causing interference to a licensed radio they have -- they can say shut it down. Otherwise a request of shut everything down on the band I don't think holds water On 6/12/14, 1:31 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Update Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions going on above our pay grade locally. Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded to me: === FROM: FCC Agent TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted several of the Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the problem and have been met with some resistance to assist you. I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to discuss this problem and open up a discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not cause harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5 General conditions of operation. (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
I've already looked at their SA screens. Remember they have a multi-million dollar receiver attached to a giant 15 meter or so movable dish that can hear down below -120db. I'm not sure how it could have seen one weak radio the way stuff was updating on their flat-screen computer monitors (like white-noise on an old TV screen). As a matter of fact, they couldn't have seen that from the screen they were looking at. They have no idea if the RF they see is from a mile away or 20 miles away, from the side etc... Besides getting into the radar building is a fairly monumental task as far as working with them. Their main RF guy supposedly proposed a sliver about 20 degrees wide heading about 5 degrees north towards the launch pads where the radar looks be the area they wanted RFI removed from. Then they decided at a meeting that just drawing a large 60Km circle around the three radars was easier and safer for their request. Thats when this whole issue went from reasonable to unreasonable. That dish can't hear an access point 60Km away on the back-side or side lobe. Therefore that area should not be included just because it was easier to write. I'm not convinced they have the staff capable of preparing an appropriate request Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.com Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:35 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Regarding the suspect looks a lot better, my suggestion would be bring a laptop that you can use to access your network remotely and, while you're all there looking at their analyzers, turn off and/or change channels on your radios. It will be harder to make flippant subjective calls like that in a group. If you can show that a minor channel change makes a difference, or better yet that you're not really the interferer, then you may end up with a workable solution. On the flip side, it could backfire and it really is lots better with your radios off. Just like the TDWR interference in Vegas, it seems that cooperation in finding the cause, and fixing it, will go a long way and avoid the shotgun approach. -Kristian On 06/12/2014 11:23 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Thats going to be something we bring up at the meeting. Its going to boil down to a they say vs we say - who do you think is going to lose that battle? They are claiming a radio operating on 5795 on 20Mhz channel will interfere with their radar on 5765 with about a 1Mhz channel width. Further-more, the RFI they are getting on 5765 is not from the radar, its from a beacon the radar interrogates on a space launch vehicle so in other words - the radar only listens on this freq. If they say my radio on 5800Mhz is interfering with their 5765Mhz beacon who gets involved with resolving that? I think the guys that work there are nice fellas, but I conducted my own test during our testing. I turned a radio off, they said - oh looks a lot better. Sounded suspect to me. Next radio I said ok its off (didn't change anything - again it was a test) and they said ok lots better... They just want them all off without regards of the true scientific difference. If FCC is going to get involved they need to just issue a notice in this area and specify what they believe needs to happen to resolve this - not just go on whatever the radar operator says IMO I believe we could all co-exist with a notch cut out from 5755 to 5775. At least thats somewhat reasonable for us if not still difficult to enforce for the general public buying 5Ghz APs from wal mart Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 1:49 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz If your radio is causing interference to a licensed radio they have -- they can say shut it down. Otherwise a request of shut everything down on the band I don't think holds water On 6/12/14, 1:31 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Update Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low
Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
I'm going to ask the FCC Enforcement Bureau to reschedule the meeting to June 25 (one week later) so WISPA's FCC Committee Chair (Alex Phillips) and I (WISPA's FCC Committee Technical Consultant) can attend. For any solution to be successful, we need more technical information about how the radar actually operates. We also may be able to apply some of the knowledge we gained when we addressed the 5.6 GHz Terminal Doppler Weather Radar interference situation a few years ago. Hopefully the FCC will agree to our request. We expect that a collaborative approach between the DoD, the FCC and the unlicensed community, which as Scott pointed out is much larger than just WISPs, will be the best and most successful approach. jack (760) 678-5033 On 6/12/2014 10:31 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Update Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions going on above our pay grade locally. Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded to me: === FROM: FCC Agent TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted several of the Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the problem and have been met with some resistance to assist you. I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to discuss this problem and open up a discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not cause harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. 15.5 General conditions of operation. (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to 90.35(g) of this chapter. (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator. (c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected. (d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited. I propose that we have our first meeting on Wednesday, 6/18/14, at Patrick AFB. Thanks, Don Roberson Sr. Agent Tampa Office Enforcement Bureau FCC Office: 813-348-1741 ext 105 === So, its that easy?
[WISPA] Equipment for sale
Hi all, We have some equipment for sale listed below. Please email me OFF LIST, if you are interested and we can talk pricing. I don't monitor the list daily, so please send anything to me directly. (all include power supplies except where noted) 900 Mhz: UBNT Rocket M900 - quantity 5 UBNT NanoStation Loco 900 - quantity 17 UBNT M900 13dbi Sector - model AM-9M13 - quantity 4 2.4Ghz: UBNT Rocket M2 - quantity 15 UBNT 2GHz Titanium Sector - model AM-V2G-T1 - quantity 3 UBNT 2Ghz 16dBi 90-deg Sector - model AM-2G16 - quantity 3 UBNT 2Ghz 15dBi 120-deg Sector - model AM-2G15 - quantity 2 UBNT Nanostation M2 - quantity 100 UBNT Nanostation M2-Loco - quantity 5 UBNT AirGrid 2.4 16 - quantity 2 UBNT AirGrid 2.4 20 - quantity 2 UBNT Powerstation2 - quantity 62 UBNT Nanobridge M2 Feedhorns - quantity 14 - feed horns only; does not include dish; does not include power Hyperlink 2Ghz 17dbi 120-deg Sector - model HG2417P-120 - quantity 4 Hyperlink 2Ghz 14dbi 120-deg Sector - model HG2414SP-120 - quantity 1 *new* PacWireless - 95-deg H-pol 16dbi - model SAH24-16-ANT - quantity 4 PacWireless - 95-deg H-pol 12dbi - model SAH24-12 - quantity 1 PacWireless - 120-deg 16dbi - model SA24-120-16-WB - quantity 4 PacWireless - 90-deg 17dbi - model SA24-90-17 - quantity 4 Thanks Martha -- signature Martha Huizenga 202-546-5898 */DC Access, LLC http://www.dcaccess.net/ Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet! Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/DCAccess or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dcaccess /* */Is your Message Lost in Cyberspace? Promote your business locally with HillAds http://www.hillads.com/* ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] OT: IP camera with 4G capability
http://radiusvision.com/complete-systems/cellular-ip-camera-systems/ On 6/12/2014 6:27 AM, Gino Villarini wrote: Anyone with source for this? Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
