[WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated WISP Spectrum become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as professionals you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting more of the same bad behavior? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA bad players committee 4) WISPA bad players committee convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The bad players committee only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the bad players committee agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the bad player is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the bad players committee creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of suspected illegal WISP operations that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide cover. It's still small-scale enough for the we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to tick off the FCC thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?! I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: Marty, That was not a dig :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick generally has to say. (That aint no dig either Patrick) hehehe I was just picking on my brother Leary!! As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in any other arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be those who try to exceed that ir-regardless of how they are generally hurting themselves. It is not just in the UL spectrum we see this - - it's in every avenue of life. I didn't say that made it OK - I am saying that it inevitable! It is true that a few bad potatoes can ruin the whole basket, but that is just life I guess. All we can really do is build our networks in accordance to the current Part 15 rules. I also realize that not all of our systems are not certified by Patrick's definition, but as long as we attempt to build one that could be certified by matching the correct antennas with the correct radios, maintain legal limits and good judgment through manufacturers papers - we will all be OK. I have a WISP in my area that is running two towers with 2 watt Hyperlink amps at the 12db Omni's. Believe me - I know about jack ass operators and detest that type of operator. It really shows ignorance to pull such a stunt, but these types of operators know absolutely nothing anyway. Once again - what we are doing and tolerating is nothing new - - these type folks are everywhere in everything and every business in life - - just look around!
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated WISP Spectrum become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as professionals you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting more of the same bad behavior? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA bad players committee 4) WISPA bad players committee convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The bad players committee only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the bad players committee agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the bad player is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the bad players committee creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of suspected illegal WISP operations that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide cover. It's still small-scale enough for the we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to tick off the FCC thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?! I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: Marty, That was not a dig :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick generally has to say. (That aint no dig either Patrick) hehehe I was just picking on my brother Leary!! As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in any other arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be those who try to exceed that ir-regardless of how they are generally hurting themselves. It is not just in the UL spectrum we see this - - it's in every avenue of life. I didn't say that made it OK - I am saying that it inevitable! It is true that a few bad potatoes can ruin the whole basket, but that is just life I guess. All we can really do is build our networks in accordance to the current Part 15 rules. I also realize that not all of our systems are not certified by Patrick's definition, but as long
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Add a step before this- just contact the offender first, air your concern, try to work it out locally. Less trouble/intervention/attention for all parties involved. I still believe most people are decent. No need to call the dogs unless you are forced to. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated WISP Spectrum become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as professionals you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting more of the same bad behavior? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA bad players committee 4) WISPA bad players committee convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The bad players committee only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the bad players committee agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the bad player is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the bad players committee creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of suspected illegal WISP operations that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide cover. It's still small-scale enough for the we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to tick off the FCC thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?! I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: Marty, That was not a dig :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick generally has to say. (That aint no dig either Patrick) hehehe I was just picking on my brother Leary!! As far as UL operators - it is no different for us than it is in any other arena in the world. If there are limits placed there will always be those who try to exceed
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
That sounds like an excellent idea Brian! I don't think that WISPA has the money or the time to chase down illegal operators. I also don't think it is something that WISPA ought to get in to, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for WISPA to get behind its members and send out a letter informing those who are surely operating outside Part 15 rules that they have caught the attention of WISPA and a formal complaint will be sent to the FCC if not rectified in 15 days. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated WISP Spectrum become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as professionals you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting more of the same bad behavior? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA bad players committee 4) WISPA bad players committee convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The bad players committee only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the bad players committee agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the bad player is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the bad players committee creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of suspected illegal WISP operations that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide cover. It's still small-scale enough for the we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to tick off the FCC thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude of it's unlicensed spectrum, what do you EXPECT?!?!?! I'm sure that WISPA can get some expert advice about the wording for the formal referral to the FCC to the effect that WISPA isn't complaining about interference issues (which, everyone operating under Part 15 must accept) but rather WISPA is reporting suspected illegal, high-profile operations in violation of FCC Part 15 rules. The FCC doesn't have the resources for wild-goose chases, but if you really do your homework and the FCC can be reasonably sure that they won't be wasting their time, then they are much more likely to act. Thanks, Steve On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 07:49 AM, Mac Dearman wrote: Marty, That was not a dig :-) No offense intended. I agree 100% with what you said and most of what Patrick generally has to say. (That aint no dig either
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Mac, There are many things the amateur radio community does that an organization like WISPA could use as an organization for examples on how to accomplish tasks. Frequency coordination and this voluntary policing of the airwaves are two situations that come to mind. Emergency communications and disaster recovery efforts are another. For those of you might not understand all the function the ham radio community can do, a good site to look at is www.arrl.org. A wealth of information here. For those on the list who are already hams, pardon the use of the bandwidth. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Mac Dearman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) That sounds like an excellent idea Brian! I don't think that WISPA has the money or the time to chase down illegal operators. I also don't think it is something that WISPA ought to get in to, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for WISPA to get behind its members and send out a letter informing those who are surely operating outside Part 15 rules that they have caught the attention of WISPA and a formal complaint will be sent to the FCC if not rectified in 15 days. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Webster Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Mac: Aren't you one of those who wants to see dedicated WISP Spectrum become available, like 3650 or television broadcast whitespace? Do you think there's an incentive by the regulators to grant such spectrum exclusively to WISPs, when, as professionals you know about such behavior, and do nothing? For the regulators to create WISP-only spectrum would be seen as overtly supporting more of the same bad behavior? WISPA... of, by, and for WISPs, could take on some of these bad players as peers. Here's how I see it potentially working: 1) You suspect a bad player is operating in your immediate area 2) You gather as much information as you can - put together a BRIEF report documenting what you REALLY know - hard facts like data from spectrum analyzer, photos of towers and/or radios that aren't legal, lat/long of known base stations, etc. 3) You present this to the WISPA bad players committee 4) WISPA bad players committee convenes to discuss whether or not you may well have a case of interference. The bad players committee only has the time and budget available to proceed with a handful of such cases per year. 5) IF the bad players committee agrees with your conclusions, they select a volunteer to come to your area to provide independent verification as to whether the bad player is really operating illegally. Said volunteer is compensated at least minimally - travel expenses, hotel, a SMALL stipend, all paid for out of a WISPA budget 6) If the volunteer agrees with you, then the bad players committee creates a formal complaint to the FCC field office nearest the suspected violation with documentation, certification of the independent volunteer that in their direct observations and professional opinion, there's reasonable suspicion that the bad player is operating illegally. The complaint is submitted with the full force of WISPA,. 7) WISPA follows up; if the FCC investigates, then all is well. If the FCC deigns not to investigate, WISPA can escalate - possibly press releases, etc. WISPA needs to hold the FCC accountable for following through on the very few cases of suspected illegal WISP operations that WISPA refers to the FCC. As I see it, this process has sufficient checks and balances, and involves WISPA to the point where WISPA can provide cover. It's still small-scale enough for the we're just a bunch of small guys with limited resources nature of WISPA and its limited budget. Having WISPA deal with the FCC only after internal vetting and developing reasonable grounds for suspicion removes the potential for an individual WISP to tick off the FCC thinking that they're just whining about a competitor and the FCC's initial attitude
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Mac Dearman wrote: That sounds like an excellent idea Brian! I don't think that WISPA has the money or the time to chase down illegal operators. I also don't think it is something that WISPA ought to get in to, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for WISPA to get behind its members and send out a letter informing those who are surely operating outside Part 15 rules that they have caught the attention of WISPA and a formal complaint will be sent to the FCC if not rectified in 15 days. Question I have is outside part-15 rules. At what point do we say, clean up your act? Are we saying using kit built systems?, uncertified gear?, or big honking omni's with big honking amps to make they get though some nlos stuff? Not looking to argue, just to get your opinion clear. Thanks George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players
Brian: Amateur Radio processes was one of the mental models I used in my proposal. You were right on in noting the similarities. Thanks, Steve (N8GNJ) On Feb 8, 2007, at Feb 8 09:55 AM, Brian Webster wrote: Steve, What you are suggesting here is very similar to what the ham radio community does now. I would add a step in your process, that first the offending WISP be contacted via official WISPA correspondence explaining what it is we are doing and the planned course of action through the FCC and give them a chance to correct the problems voluntarily. That's what the hams do and many times that works. If this process were to work, we might actually get recognition from the FCC as a monitor for this purpose. Thank You, Brian Webster --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already. This reminds me of the 'professional installer' debate from about 4-5 years ago. Much ado about nothing. PS Every FCC enforcement official I have met has said the same basic thing If your power is legal, and you are operating in the UL bands, we have better things to do than come check to see if you have the right stickers on your equipment. This is not to say they can't. It is to say this is the way things work in the real world. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already. This reminds me of the 'professional installer' debate from about 4-5 years ago. Much ado about nothing. PS Every FCC enforcement official I have met has said the same basic thing If your power is legal, and you are operating in the UL bands, we have better things to do than come check to see if you have the right stickers on your equipment. This is not to say they can't. It is to say this is the way things work in the real world. -- Blair Davis AOL IM Screen Name -- Theory240 West Michigan Wireless ISP 269-686-8648 A division of: Camp Communication Services, INC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 2/8/2007 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Inline Patrick Leary wrote: How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. I am rural. What is illegal produce? If I grew it in my backyard, is it illegal? Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? No. What we want it the REMOVAL of worthless rules for the sake of rules. The removal of protecionist regulations that favor large established companies at the expense of the small fry. Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. That is the cost of doing business, for you. Not my problem. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, Get real. Private property. or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. Again, private property. Zoning laws are a completely different subject and you know it. But, since you asked, if the tower, even if it falls, will remain on his/her property, no one else should be able to say anything about it. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. There is a difference between placing someone else life at risk with an unsafe vehicle on the public road and using an uncertified radio transmitter that otherwise complies with the requirements. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. I can't and don't speak for Forbes. The requirements, as now set, make the innovation that originally helped create this industry nearly impossible to do for the small guys. I can't help but believe that this is what the big guys want. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm with you. But, if it turns into a witch hunt for those who, other than certification, operate within the part 15 rules, count me out. Too many 'rules for the sake of rules' already
RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...)
Patrick, I agree and appreciate you frustration on this issue! I too remember when I had to compete in the computer business when we only offered FCC certified computer systems, but the 'shade-tree' computer builder was peddling his goods for less money. It wasn't fair to those following the rules. However, today we are still here and all of those 'shade-tree' resellers have long come and gone from my area. I also point out that the a major difference here is perspective...Most of those that are non-compliant are using the 'shade-tree' talents for their own 'internal' use and not reselling uncertified systems to my knowledge. The different perspectives...using one's own concoction vs. a vendor selling a non-certified system against a certified one, is a value proposition for the purchaser to consider. Are there any differences in law to using vs. selling non-certified equipment? I would hope the non-compliant user is aware of their potential liability and has factored that into their 'cost of business' if enforcement is applied on them. - Cliff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) How many of you operate in farm country? You got any problem with illegal produce flooding your market? I bet your community might have something to say about that. Are you asking if those of us who have the ethics to make the required investments to operate legally in this country (and in every country we operate in) want protection from those who are illegal? Why we have some gall, don't we? Listen, we sell into literally over 150 countries. We spend massive amounts each year to be compliant with the regulations of each country. Compliance often requires specific hardware or software changes, not merely certification. Do I want respect and protection from those who by intentionally ignore the rules are able to sell at lower prices? You darned sure bet I do and I have more than an expectation of such -- I have a right. In your world a competitive operator should be able to get space on your tower for free, or at least erect one without having to go through the local bureaucratic hurdles. In your world anyone should be able drive anything on the freeway, and if you get hurt, too damned bad. Forbes, what you are advocating is called relativism. Relativism is an insidious problem that grows roots and proliferates if not brought under control. Or maybe you only care about rules that when violated damage you? Such an attitude is dangerous and selfish. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) Amen to that, it's called 'Vendor Protectionism'. I remember when the companies doing low voltage pre-wiring in buildings lobbied to make only certified contractors be able to do Cat5/6 work in housing and an Apprentice Program was required. They knew full well that if another company wanted to go into the wiring business, like a WISP who wants to wire the rest of their house, they would not be able to because no competitor would allow my employee to get Apprentice training from them to compete against them. It's using the law to protect your income and the most ridiculous use of the law. I agree that if there is good power usage and the same interference as caused by certified gear, leave them alone. WISPA is a lobbying group for a easier access to frequencies and a group that educates each other as to the best methods and equipment. As soon as we become an exclusive trade group that tries to force people who don't agree with us out we have lost our mission and become just another scared industry that tries to hide behind the law instead of helping people get Internet where they couldn't before. I battle competition by being better at marketing and service not by some law or exclusive club; it's called the free market place with minimum government interference. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: Dealing with bad players (was SPAM ?...) I've been sitting back watching this debate/holy war for a day or so now and decided to throw my $.02 in I'd bet that the vast majority of 'bad operators' are only 'bad' due to lack of certification. Most do not run over power limits. Most do not operate outside the UL bands. If you want to help reduce over-powered or out of band operation, I'm
