Re: [WISPA] [FCC Committee] $25,0000 FCC TDWR Enforcement Action

[Marlon K. Schafer]

This is GREAT news!

We don't need any blatent repeat offenders in our midst.

It's not like this is a system out in the middle of no where and not hurting 
anything

Looks like it's owned by Steven McGhie.  Anyone know who that is?

He got some good press in 2003.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E6D91238F935A25752C1A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" 
To: "WISPA General List" ; ; "WISPA's 
FCC Committee" 
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 12:29 PM
Subject: [FCC Committee] $25, FCC TDWR Enforcement Action


>
> An FCC announcement today reported that FCC enforcement action led to a 
> Utah
> company that was interfering with the TDWR system that serves the Salt 
> Lake City
> International Airport.
>
> The company was fined $25,000 for
>
> 1. Using equipment on an frequency that the equipment was not certified to
> operate on.
>
> 2. Running excessive power.
>
> 3. Disabling DFS.
>
> 4. Repeatedly and willfully violating the Communications Act and Part 15 
> rules.
>
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
> Serving the WISP, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
> ___
> FCCcommittee mailing list
> fcccommit...@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcccommittee 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] [FCC Committee] sub 3.7 gig spectrum, comments needed was -- Re: FCC Chairman JuliusGenachowskiAnnouncesSeniorStaff for Development of NationalBroadband Plan

[Marlon K. Schafer]

- Original Message - 
From: "Stephen Coran" 
To: 
Cc: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: [FCC Committee] sub 3.7 gig spectrum,comments needed was -- Re: 
FCC Chairman JuliusGenachowskiAnnouncesSeniorStaff for Development of 
NationalBroadband Plan


> It would be contrary to WISPA's previous views in the TV white spaces
> proceeding to now endorse sensing.

Yeah.  Our ORIGINAL stance DID support sensing though.

Either way, we could support sensing as an underlay mechanism across a 
larger part of the spectrum and not hurt the Whitespaces issue.

>
> The draft Outline I'm working on advocates a spectrum audit to determine
> where spectrum is underutilized and where it can be made available more
> efficiently.

That's a tricky one though.  I know that in the past Steve Stroh had told us 
that all of an "educational TV band" 2.5 or something like that, was 
broadcasting the same show, at the same time.  Just as place holders so that 
when the FCC showed up with their spectrum anlyzers the channels showed "in 
use".  Just asking people who's using what will not likely be productive for 
us, we've seen how much money will be spent on spectrum squatting 
mechanisms, let along spectrum purchasing mechanisms.

>  Perhaps that's the 900 MHz band.  Very important to keep
> in mind: the FCC is looking for hard data, not anecdotes, so broad
> claims about the lack of paging systems, hoarding of Part 101 spectrum,
> etc., will not be considered credible and, in fact, might detract from
> WISPA's overall message.  I'd rather let others who have the time and
> resources make the case about underutilization in other bands and simply
> support the idea of spectrum audits.

I disagree with that.  At least for rural markets (this seems to be where 
the focus is anyway).

Our job is to tell them what we think we need as the industry moves forward. 
They may say yes, they may say no.  But to not even ask is an automatic no. 
And asking does no harm.

marlon

>
> There's a lot more to the Outline that I've sent to Jack.  I am waiting
> for input from him (he worked into the wee hours on this last night)
> and, once its in good shape, I'm sure there will be an opportunity for
> FCC committee input, beyond the contributions that have already been
> posted in response to Jack's earlier post.
>
>
> Stephen E. Coran
> Rini Coran, PC
> 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600
> Washington, D.C. 20036
> 202.463.4310 - voice
> 202.669.3288 - cell
> 202.296.2014 - fax
> sco...@rinicoran.com - e-mail
> www.rinicoran.com
> www.telecommunicationslaw.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential
> and may be protected by legal privilege.  If you are not the intended
> recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use
> of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited.  If you have received
> this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to
> the sender and deleting or destroying the e-mail and any attachments
> without retaining any copies.  Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in
> this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing
> or recommending to another party any matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fcccommittee-boun...@wispa.org
> [mailto:fcccommittee-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 10:00 AM
> To: fcccommit...@wispa.org
> Cc: WISPA General List
> Subject: [FCC Committee] sub 3.7 gig spectrum,comments needed was -- Re:
> FCC Chairman Julius GenachowskiAnnouncesSeniorStaff for Development of
> National Broadband Plan
>
> Hmmm, I thought that there was one with something like 100 questions on
> it.
> I must have my issues mixed up.
>
> Anyway here's an idea that I think is worth of discussion.
>
> I think we should toss out the idea that sensing mechanisms should be
> allowed so that ANY open frequencies can be used.
>
> A couple of easy examples would be 2.5 ghz bands.  Those are NOT used in
> large parts of the country.  Today's wifi chips will go up to those
> frequencies with a firmware change!  Wifi already has a listen before
> talking mechanism.  It shouldn't be impossible to add a little bit of
> intelligence and coordination to the mechanism and allow a nearly free
> expansion of the 2.4 gig wifi band.
>
> The same could be said for 900mhz.  Most of what's on either side of it
> is paging systems.  Yet many paging systems are long gone now,
> especially in rural areas.  Why not open up the bands on an as available
> basis?
>
> If we can convince the FCC to allow these types of mechanism we could
> have a unlicensed underlay that g

Re: [WISPA] [FCC Committee] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Jack Unger]

Marlon,

Good luck with your individual White Space filing.

I urge everyone who believes they have a better, a more constructive or 
a more practical idea than WISPA's filing to go to the FCC website and 
make an individual filing with the FCC immediately.

Here's the link to file  
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+Spaces&Send=Continue>

It's important to file by next Tuesday, October 28th because that's the 
last day that the FCC is legally allowed to take Comments before they 
vote at their November 4th meeting.

Of course for those of you who believe that the WISPA filing IS good and 
that it DESERVES your support, you can go to the above link and simply 
say "I am a WISP and I support WISPA's  position". It's as easy as that.

Thank you. We appreciate everyones help.

Jack Unger
Chair - WISPA FCC Committee


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first went 
> there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical 
> flaws in our proposals.  I said much of this at the committee level but to 
> no avail.
>
> First, let me say this though.  The filing is masterful.  It's a GREAT 
> document.  My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or the 
> hard work that's gone into it.  My heartburn is content based.
>
> Well, most of it is anyway.  I have a problem with WISPA changing it's 
> stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without having consulted with the 
> membership on this issue.  Our last team came back from DC and told us what 
> our new position was.  That's NOT what I help found WISPA for.  I could have 
> just stayed with a couple of the other associations that I've been a part of 
> and been man handled like that.
>
> Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE the licensed lite 
> concept.  I just don't like having a committee that will make a major change 
> without discussion before hand.  If there was discussion that said we were 
> going to move from unlicensed to licensed lite and I missed it then I missed 
> it.  I know there had been discussion about the idea but nothing voted on by 
> anyone when it came to an official stance.  Not the way to run this railroad 
> in my, not so, humble opinion.
>
> Now, to the whitespaces issue.
>
> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels.  We give up 3 
> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area.  A 
> TV station goes live and we don't loose the channel that they are on, we 
> loose it and 2 on each side.  This means that in any market that has as 
> little as 1/3rd of the channels in use by licensed operators (TV stations 
> AND mics) will be totally useless for us.  Why not simply set the out of 
> band emissions standards high enough that we CAN use adjacent channels?  I 
> begged for that language, it satisfies both us and the broadcasters.  I know 
> it's not technically possible today.  So what?  Just tonight as I was 
> working on an AP I saw a customer connected at the 18meg speed with a signal 
> level of -96.  Who'd have imagined that would be possible just a couple of 
> year ago?
>
> Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism.  I use circles on a map.  I 
> know how inaccurate they really are.  They also change dramatically as the 
> technology changes.  When I started my WISP in 2000 a 15 mile cell size was 
> the max.  And if we got anywhere near 1 meg with a 4 watt EIRP system that 
> also amped the receive signal by 14ish dB we were oh so happy.  Now I can go 
> even further than that and get 2 to 3 megs with NO amp and an eirp of 1 watt 
> or so.  Same exact CPE units that were in place when we pulled the AP'd ap 
> system out.  Actual signal measurement is really the only way to accurately 
> determine interference issues.  Well, OK, I guess one could just put a large 
> enough exclusion zone around the broadcasters to make sure that there is no 
> interference.  Unfortunately that also means we end up with even less market 
> potential.
>
> Here is my idea for whitespaces.  This is what I'll be personally filing. 
> I'll fine tune it and likely add some ideas that slip my mind right now. 
> I'm still more than a bit miffed that there wasn't even a vote on our filing 
> (I know I'm whining, but I'm well and truly pissed).
>
> Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be 
> found that will work.  Lets be honest here guys.  NO one knows IF the FCC 
> will even allow white spaces use let alone with a sensing system.  Just how 
> much R and D do you think was put into this project

Re: [WISPA] [FCC Committee] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****

[Brian Webster]

As one of the active FCC committee members doing this work, I would like to
point out some important things that have taken place in the last few weeks.
The WISPA "Licensed-Lite" proposal has gained support in full or a large
part by the following organizations and brought them to the table to talk
with us:

MSTV,
- They represent ABC (and Disney), CBS, NBC (and General Electric), FOX
and PBS. They also represent many of the wireless microphone users. This
group has huge influence at the FCC and in congress.

FiberTower
Sprint
T-Mobile
Rural Telecommunications Group
CompTel

The momentum is as high as ever been for our organization. The media is
going to start using the buzz word "Licensed-Lite". If all WISP's could at
least file comments to the FCC that say I am Joe WISP and I support the
WISPA "Licensed-Lite" proposal that would make a big difference.

We need to keep the momentum going, numbers and voices count. Not only as an
industry organization, but as independent operators.

PLEASE FILE COMMENTS WITH THE FCC. Time is running out before the meetings
and the commissioners minds get made up. They need time to formulate their
own thoughts and position on the topic.


Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick Harnish
  Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:32 AM
  To: 'WISPA General List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Motorola
Canopy User Group'
  Cc: 'WISPA Board Members List'; 'WISPA's FCC Committee'
  Subject: [FCC Committee] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!


  Wispa Members and List Users,



  Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186,
Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for
unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band.  The submission can
be found at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_documen
t=6520176838.  Please review our comments first.  Jack Unger, Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent hours lobbying, discussing,
researching and writing these comments which encourage unlicensed use of the
TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV
transition.  We owe all of these people many thanks and it is our
responsibility to support their efforts by submitting our support through
individual comments.



  While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became
apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry against
this proposal.  I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US
in opposition to this FCC proposal.  I did see several which supported the
use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered.
There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket.  Others
see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well.



  It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of
you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments or
at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our
comments.  I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email.
This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC
commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to
unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband.  You can
review all comments at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret
rieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186.



  Please go to
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S
paces&Send=Continue to file your comments today.  The deadline is quickly
approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to publicize the rules for these
bands on November 4th.  It is essential that you take 5-10 minutes out of
your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file your comments.



  Rick Harnish

  President

  WISPA





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Mike Hammett]

So?

That just gives the WISP extra incentive to make sure things work...  they 
could lose their livelihood.  Hams have and do install equipment wherever we 
install gear.  They have gone further than we have in that they have 
satellites.


I know plenty of Hams.  I actually took all of the practice tests and was 
working on Morse Code before I put it aside to work on something that will 
make me money instead of just cost me money.  :-)  I certainly intend to 
pursue that again once my livelihood has been established.


I know that Amateur operators have made a pile of innovations.

Just about anyone can pass the most basic Amateur test and thus be permitted 
to manufacture almost any device he so chooses, whether its garbage or not. 
At least with WISPs, those that are DIY are (largely or completely) using 
FCC certified components.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:51 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey


For personal use only- not for resale.
And for non commercial use only.

If the test is such a "joke", and if you want to "experiment" then by all
means, knock yourself out, get a Ham (not HAM) license and experiment. Maybe
you will help develop some new technology.
But don't in a minute think that there is any comparison whatsoever between
Amateur Radio and Wireless ISPs other than the obvious.
Some Hams became WISPS- thet really helped the industry gain some credible
experience.  I came from both Ham and 2-way commercial roots, with a little
IT and Voice thrown in along the way.

Some WISP operators became Hams... Probably to satisfy the desire to
experiment.

Mike- Hams are not homebuilding or piecing together networks, installing
them in high places and offering their use for money like WISPS are. There's
a lot of difference.

And for Jeromie- be careful what you wish for.  The FCC *could* outlaw
for-profit use of Part 15 spectrum altogether.  The WiMax and Cellco boys
would LOVE to see that, so don't wish for a license unless you really really
want one and are ready to pay 10 times the price for gear plus deal with 10
times the paperwork.

I don't foresee an available licensed band though anytime soon. WISPS cannot
even follow what few rules there are now.  Why in the world would FCC think
that we could follow more stringent ones?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey


I hate it when someone says me too, but...me too.  ;-)

A lot of the things the FCC has are just silly...  like PC with wireless vs.

our stuff.  Why a HAM can take a test any joke can pass and then manufacture

gear himself, but we cannot use piece-it-together gear.  I don't care so
much about the telco network.  If we get all of the other things we want
(heck, even a subset) on the wireless side, the telco is irrelevant.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey



I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my
mouth is.

In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be:

I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple
in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one
wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be
pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The
license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can
solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot
of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All
installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else,
the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license #
on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license
will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation,
or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This
has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out
giving away personal company information. This would be best as a
retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be
political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can
to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive
so both should get the same treatment.

Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a
embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas
but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested wit

RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Ralph]

For personal use only- not for resale.
And for non commercial use only.

If the test is such a "joke", and if you want to "experiment" then by all
means, knock yourself out, get a Ham (not HAM) license and experiment. Maybe
you will help develop some new technology.
But don't in a minute think that there is any comparison whatsoever between
Amateur Radio and Wireless ISPs other than the obvious.
Some Hams became WISPS- thet really helped the industry gain some credible
experience.  I came from both Ham and 2-way commercial roots, with a little
IT and Voice thrown in along the way.

Some WISP operators became Hams... Probably to satisfy the desire to
experiment.
 
Mike- Hams are not homebuilding or piecing together networks, installing
them in high places and offering their use for money like WISPS are. There's
a lot of difference.

And for Jeromie- be careful what you wish for.  The FCC *could* outlaw
for-profit use of Part 15 spectrum altogether.  The WiMax and Cellco boys
would LOVE to see that, so don't wish for a license unless you really really
want one and are ready to pay 10 times the price for gear plus deal with 10
times the paperwork.

I don't foresee an available licensed band though anytime soon. WISPS cannot
even follow what few rules there are now.  Why in the world would FCC think
that we could follow more stringent ones?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 2:55 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey


I hate it when someone says me too, but...me too.  ;-)

A lot of the things the FCC has are just silly...  like PC with wireless vs.

our stuff.  Why a HAM can take a test any joke can pass and then manufacture

gear himself, but we cannot use piece-it-together gear.  I don't care so 
much about the telco network.  If we get all of the other things we want 
(heck, even a subset) on the wireless side, the telco is irrelevant.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey


>I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my
>mouth is.
>
> In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be:
>
> I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple 
> in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one 
> wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be 
> pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The 
> license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can 
> solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot 
> of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All 
> installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else, 
> the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license # 
> on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license 
> will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation, 
> or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This 
> has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out 
> giving away personal company information. This would be best as a 
> retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be 
> political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can 
> to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive 
> so both should get the same treatment.
>
> Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a 
> embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas 
> but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested with that antenna. 
> I would like to see very clear rulings on matching parts. Part of the 
> same, I would like to the allowance of changing cables with out 
> breaking cert.
>
> Abandon the USF, or at least reform it drastically. That rural telcos 
> should not get away with cherry picking while getting USF (I know 
> Qwest is doing this too, just picked up a dozen people they will not
> serve) but its my local that upsets me the most with it.
>
> I want  tariffs reinstated and . Both Qwest and my 
> local rural telco refuse to sell copper on the grounds they do not 
> have to. I think its stupid that a copper company will not sell 
> copper. Personally I would break the physical company off from the 
> services company, but I know I am dreaming. VZ was at least honest and 
> said they did not want to and so would not. VZ is abandoning copper as 
> fast as they can, so lets make them sell it to some one and not rip it 
> 

Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Can you double-check that Larry?  It's my understanding that USF is ONLY for 
dialtone (well, voice as cell phone companies get it too).


Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey



For what is worth, I believe that the USF ALREADY includes broadband
services.

My understanding is that in order to qualify for USF funding for your
broadband services, you must also be conducting business as a ILEC or CLEC
in that service area.  In other words, telephone companies that service
rural area can draw USF funds in order to pay for broadband deployments.
However, non-telephone companies cannot tap those same funds to provide
broadband services.

- Larry



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List
Cc: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

Hi All,

The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that 
you'd


like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try
to create movement on.

Examples might be:

Certified components vs. certified systems.

Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.

Expand USF to include broadband services.

?

thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Mike Hammett]

I hate it when someone says me too, but...me too.  ;-)

A lot of the things the FCC has are just silly...  like PC with wireless vs. 
our stuff.  Why a HAM can take a test any joke can pass and then manufacture 
gear himself, but we cannot use piece-it-together gear.  I don't care so 
much about the telco network.  If we get all of the other things we want 
(heck, even a subset) on the wireless side, the telco is irrelevant.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey


I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my 
mouth is.


In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be:

I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple
in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one
wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be
pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The
license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can
solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot
of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All
installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else,
the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license #
on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license
will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation,
or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This
has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out
giving away personal company information. This would be best as a
retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be
political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can
to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive
so both should get the same treatment.

Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a
embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas
but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested with that antenna.
I would like to see very clear rulings on matching parts. Part of the
same, I would like to the allowance of changing cables with out
breaking cert.

Abandon the USF, or at least reform it drastically. That rural telcos
should not get away with cherry picking while getting USF (I know
Qwest is doing this too, just picked up a dozen people they will not
serve) but its my local that upsets me the most with it.

I want  tariffs reinstated and . Both Qwest and my
local rural telco refuse to sell copper on the grounds they do not
have to. I think its stupid that a copper company will not sell
copper. Personally I would break the physical company off from the
services company, but I know I am dreaming. VZ was at least honest and
said they did not want to and so would not. VZ is abandoning copper as
fast as they can, so lets make them sell it to some one and not rip it
out of the ground. If nothing else it should become city property for
them to lease to anyone at the same rates.

On 8/3/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hi All,

The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that 
you'd
like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like us to 
try

to create movement on.

Examples might be:

Certified components vs. certified systems.

Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.

Expand USF to include broadband services.

?

thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

S

Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Jeromie Reeves]

I was going to offlist this, but, I might as well put my foot where my mouth is.

In my opinion the top things I want addressed would be:

I would like to see a WISP License like a Ham License. Its very simple
in idea but I think it would truly change the industry. Any one
wanting to be a wisp would get access to what ever spectrum can be
pulled from the FCC, including all the bands available right now. The
license would allow us to produce gear in the same way a ham can
solder up a radio and be legal. The test would need to include a lot
of things the ham tests do, a lot of things that the CWNP. All
installers would need to be certified if they assemble the unit, else,
the assembler will need to be. They will need ot put their license #
on the unit as well as a unit number or such. That unit number+license
will need to be filed with the fcc, but not its location of operation,
or, nothing more specific then the county/city it operates in. This
has the side effect of giving the FCC some hard numbers with out
giving away personal company information. This would be best as a
retroactive ruling with grace on old installs. I am not trying to be
political but if they can give grace to illegal aliens then they can
to wisps too, both are breaking the law and both are being productive
so both should get the same treatment.

Clearer component cert: IE, what/why is there a difference from a
embedded board to a PC or laptop. Laptops ship with built in antennas
but no way are all certified mini pci cards tested with that antenna.
I would like to see very clear rulings on matching parts. Part of the
same, I would like to the allowance of changing cables with out
breaking cert.

Abandon the USF, or at least reform it drastically. That rural telcos
should not get away with cherry picking while getting USF (I know
Qwest is doing this too, just picked up a dozen people they will not
serve) but its my local that upsets me the most with it.

I want  tariffs reinstated and . Both Qwest and my
local rural telco refuse to sell copper on the grounds they do not
have to. I think its stupid that a copper company will not sell
copper. Personally I would break the physical company off from the
services company, but I know I am dreaming. VZ was at least honest and
said they did not want to and so would not. VZ is abandoning copper as
fast as they can, so lets make them sell it to some one and not rip it
out of the ground. If nothing else it should become city property for
them to lease to anyone at the same rates.

On 8/3/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd
> like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try
> to create movement on.
>
> Examples might be:
>
> Certified components vs. certified systems.
>
> Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.
>
> Expand USF to include broadband services.
>
> ?
>
> thanks,
> Marlon
> (509) 982-2181
> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
> 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Mike Hammett]

Amen


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Blair Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey



#1 Certified Components!!!

Being able to mix-n-match parts to make it work HERE is my biggest issue!

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Hi All,

The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that 
you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like us 
to try to create movement on.


Examples might be:

Certified components vs. certified systems.

Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.

Expand USF to include broadband services.

?

thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/




--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Larry Yunker]

For what is worth, I believe that the USF ALREADY includes broadband
services.  

My understanding is that in order to qualify for USF funding for your
broadband services, you must also be conducting business as a ILEC or CLEC
in that service area.  In other words, telephone companies that service
rural area can draw USF funds in order to pay for broadband deployments.
However, non-telephone companies cannot tap those same funds to provide
broadband services.

- Larry

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 1:09 PM
To: Principal WISPA Member List
Cc: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

Hi All,

The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd

like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try 
to create movement on.

Examples might be:

Certified components vs. certified systems.

Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.

Expand USF to include broadband services.

?

thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Blair Davis]

#1 Certified Components!!!

Being able to mix-n-match parts to make it work HERE is my biggest issue!

Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:

Hi All,

The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that 
you'd like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like 
us to try to create movement on.


Examples might be:

Certified components vs. certified systems.

Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.

Expand USF to include broadband services.

?

thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
1999!

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 



--
Blair Davis

AOL IM Screen Name --  Theory240

West Michigan Wireless ISP
269-686-8648

A division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] fcc committee survey

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Hi All,

The FCC Committee would like to know your top few issues (3 to 5) that you'd 
like us to PROACTIVELY work on.  Things, mainly, that you'd like us to try 
to create movement on.


Examples might be:

Certified components vs. certified systems.

Drop the 6' antenna requirement for 6 gig.

Expand USF to include broadband services.

?

thanks,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC Committee

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Calea
3650
900mhz
I want to start action on a true pro installer mechanism that allows the 
wisps to self certify installations.


And there are a couple of other goings on that aren't ready for distribution 
yet.


Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Committee



Okay, Marlon,

What issues are left on the table currently?

Regards,

Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC Committee

[Peter R.]

Okay, Marlon,

What issues are left on the table currently?

Regards,

Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] FCC committee changes

[Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181]

Hi All,

It turns out that our FCC committee list was open to all that wanted to get 
on it.  So we'll leave the FCC list as is and mainly use it for info that's 
ok for public consumption but more detailed than the average guy will want 
to keep track of.


In the mean time, I need to rebuild our FCC committee.  I'd like 5 to 7 
dedicated people for the committee.  It would be very nice to have better 
participation from people that study the issues.


Who amoung us will step up to this plate?  (or as the case may be, belly up 
to this bar ;-)


Please send me an OFF list note and I'll add you to the new 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] list.


thanks!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/