Marlon,
Thank you for your very interesting post. I would have to say that I
agree with most of the sentiments that you've expressed. There is
however ONE point that perhaps you would clarify. You said that you have
operators in your area "running illegal networks... and the WHOLE market
is suffering due to their massive amounts of interference". Is this
interference due to:
a) The "bad" operators are using uncertified equipment that is "dirty" -
thats radiating high-power spurious emissions that are either too loud
or too wide in frequency or both?
b) The baddes are exceeding the + 36 dBm EIRP limit?
c) Dirty buggers were/are ignorant of other in-service WISPs and are
operating on frequencies that were already in use by the other WISPs,
thereby causing interference to the other WISPs?
Thank you for any clarifications that you can add.
jack
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
I remember clear back in 2001 or so. I was fortunate enough to have
breakfast with Michael Marcus. Patrick, i think you were there for this.
I remember him telling the story about FCC certified computers. Back in
the day, it was only legal to sell a computer as a complete certified
system. Then along came Michael Dell. He said, screw the rules, they
are stupid. He started selling anyone any combination of certified
components that they wanted. Soon, there were so many systems out there
that were NOT causing interference issues that it was completely
impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.
Out of that comes today's way to buy a computer. The COMPONENT gets
certified, you mix and match them all you want.
As I recall, Mike M. said that they (the FCC) knew that SOME
combinations WOULD cause a problem. But that the likely hood of it
being an issue was outweighed by the benefits of the new rules.
We've already had one adjustment on the part 15 certification rules
lately. And it was sorely needed. I remember calling the FCC and
talking to John Reed. One of the guys that WROTE the FCC rules. Back
in 1999 when I get started it as ILLEGAL for me to use an Andrew antenna
on a BreezeCOM system. Even though Andrew made the antennas and all
BreezeCOM did was put a different sticker on them.
I remember more than one argument with Patrick (and others) about
whether or not it was ok for me to use the $60 Andrew antennas vs. the
$200 BreezeCOM ones. As it turned out, I was wrong, it wasn't OK. But
the rule was also wrong and has since been changed.
We'll eventually see more of the rules changed. Look at the unique
connector rule. The FCC certifies EVERY new consumer device with an
RPSMA connector on it. It's hardly a unique solution anymore. Yet
anyone can get it certified.
I do NOT recommend that anyone out there build a non certified system.
Mine isn't perfect but it's very close and getting better all of the
time. But what are we really supposed to do? There is NO government
enforcement of the rules. What's the incentive to obey them? I have
operators in my area running illegal networks and I've had very limited
success in getting them fixed let along shut down. And the WHOLE market
is suffering due to their massive amounts of interference.
In a fight (like the fight for usable spectrum) the bad guy always makes
the rules. If one guy goes to high power, all have to. No, two wrongs
don't make a right, but they do make a more usable network.
It's not completely the WISP that looks bad when these discussions take
place. It's also those in government that turn a totally blind eye. No
matter what gets done in the field.
I'll tell you something about the whitespaces too. The broadcasters do
NOT want to see auctioned spectrum. They loose too much control that
way. They'd be fools to push for that. The spectrum WILL be opened up
for someone. Who's the least possible threat to them long term?
Unlicensed. The WISPs are, by far, the best friend that the broadcasters
have in this fight. We want smart radios, good sensing, minimized
interference possibilities etc. etc. etc. AND we'll AUTOMATICALLY get
booted from any channels that they broadcasters want to license and get
back. There's really no down side to them. We take all of the risk.
Laters,
marlon
- Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My Hypothetical Conversation with Julius Knapp,
Chiefof OET
Patrick Leary wrote:
Julie - "Ah, you want that beachfront stuff with high power. Well,
looking at how many WISPs can't be trusted to follow the rules, there is
considerable risk for that, especially with the broadcasters, who tend
to be a vocal and frankly powerful lobby."
:)
As has been posted on this thread,
