To follow up on myself here...
On Oct 13, 2015, at 13:19 , Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 19:29 , Matt Mathis wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering if some of these conflicting uses are important enough to
>> blank them out everywhere, in spite
I'm wondering if some of these conflicting uses are important enough to
blank them out everywhere, in spite legal use in some areas? Doppler radar
may be wanted everywhere some day.
Also create an "unknown" geo for default use, which only uses channels that
are globally approved.
Thanks,
--MM--
> On 13 Oct, 2015, at 20:29, Matt Mathis wrote:
>
> Doppler radar may be wanted everywhere some day.
Doppler radar is great, but my understanding is that newer installations use a
different frequency band that doesn’t interfere with the unlicensed bands.
- Jonathan
On Oct 13, 2015, at 19:29 , Matt Mathis wrote:
> I'm wondering if some of these conflicting uses are important enough to blank
> them out everywhere, in spite legal use in some areas? Doppler radar may be
> wanted everywhere some day.
As much as I dislike to be
Anyone who's an American citizen want to write a short to-the-point
response suggesting that this was vendor error, caused by not using the
database that linux uses for wi-fi cards?
I want them to have a public "out" from the current scheme of telling
the vendors to protect their code.
I
How does a router that transmits at milliwatts interfere with airport
equipment? This seems like such an isolated case. At the very least would
it not require the routers to be relatively close?
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015, 13:20 David Collier-Brown wrote:
> Anyone who's an American
Here's a draft, below.
Also at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-HSewmPustGmV00E8u7KZ_8srNhKX_jMSSZxGcyuTaI/edit?usp=sharing
On 08/10/15 04:20 PM, David Collier-Brown wrote:
Anyone who's an American citizen want to write a short to-the-point
response suggesting that this was vendor error,