RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
All Steve's points reflect my understanding as well. I do not believe it was intentionally designed to mess with other systems, especially since its initial design was made long before the presence of these systems in the marketplace (even though this was not introduced until 2002 as a commercial product, the design was in place almost a decade before I believe). Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Stroh Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I echo Mike's contention that Canopy was developed directly for use by Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers... but not necessarily the small, highly entrepreneurial Wireless ISPs. In my discussions with some key Canopy personnel over the years, some of whom were remarkably candid, some interesting things came out: * Canopy was originally designed to take advantage of the burgeoning demand for Broadband Internet Access in ulta-high-density markets such as China. For a variety of reasons, that market never actually materialized, but Motorola (barely) decided to continue Canopy anyway * Canopy was almost killed several times. One manager "fell on his sword" and retired prematurely as a result of his forceful, but successful lobbying to let Canopy emerge as a product * Motorola was eventually surprised at how well Canopy was received by the market. For some time Canopy was kept "at arm's length" within Motorola, which during that time Motorola barely acknowledged that Canopy was actually a Motorola product. Even after Motorola grudgingly embraced Canopy as an "official" product, there was at least one very serious attempt to "shop the Canopy division around" to other BWIA vendors. I heard this from several vendors who Motorola approached. * Part of Motorola's reluctance to embrace Canopy is that it cannibalized some of Motorola's system integration work to build public safety Broadband Wireless systems - Motorola was horrified when some public safety agencies actually deployed Canopy systems themselves (no lucrative systems integration contract)... on the (talk about unintended consequences) "reputation" that Canopy was a Motorola product. * Canopy was designed for very large deployments by those not necessarily highly skilled in RF issues - hence the one-piece unit. If a service provider "followed the Canopy deployment instructions scrupulously, it almost always worked. * Motorola KNEW, well in advance, that there would eventually be more 5 GHz spectrum made available in the US - what's now called the 5.4 GHz band, thus spectral efficiency wasn't an overriding criteria in Canopy's original design. * Canopy's three design criteria were that it be simple to deploy, robust and reliable in operation, and cheap to manufacture and sell. Deep down, Canopy's modulation is (pretty much, kind of) FM, adapted for Broadband and Digital operation. (Yes, I know this is probably technically inaccurate and horribly oversimplified, but that's the way it was described as the genesis of Canopy's modulation scheme - it was based on the robustness of FM communicaitons, of which Motorola is a world class expert. * The 2.4 GHz and 902-928 MHz versions of Canopy were purely an afterthought, not part of the original plans for Canopy; both were developed only in response to large deployments who needed the frequency diversity and the penetration characteristics of 902-928 MHz. Thanks, Steve On 9/13/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Canopy was not initially developed for the military. It was built ground up > for WISPs. When it was designed, it was the best that there was, but > internal issues kept it from the market for a few years. During that time, > the market changed and Moto could no longer count on some of the things they > had when they designed it. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wirel
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
I echo Mike's contention that Canopy was developed directly for use by Broadband Wireless Internet Access Service Providers... but not necessarily the small, highly entrepreneurial Wireless ISPs. In my discussions with some key Canopy personnel over the years, some of whom were remarkably candid, some interesting things came out: * Canopy was originally designed to take advantage of the burgeoning demand for Broadband Internet Access in ulta-high-density markets such as China. For a variety of reasons, that market never actually materialized, but Motorola (barely) decided to continue Canopy anyway * Canopy was almost killed several times. One manager "fell on his sword" and retired prematurely as a result of his forceful, but successful lobbying to let Canopy emerge as a product * Motorola was eventually surprised at how well Canopy was received by the market. For some time Canopy was kept "at arm's length" within Motorola, which during that time Motorola barely acknowledged that Canopy was actually a Motorola product. Even after Motorola grudgingly embraced Canopy as an "official" product, there was at least one very serious attempt to "shop the Canopy division around" to other BWIA vendors. I heard this from several vendors who Motorola approached. * Part of Motorola's reluctance to embrace Canopy is that it cannibalized some of Motorola's system integration work to build public safety Broadband Wireless systems - Motorola was horrified when some public safety agencies actually deployed Canopy systems themselves (no lucrative systems integration contract)... on the (talk about unintended consequences) "reputation" that Canopy was a Motorola product. * Canopy was designed for very large deployments by those not necessarily highly skilled in RF issues - hence the one-piece unit. If a service provider "followed the Canopy deployment instructions scrupulously, it almost always worked. * Motorola KNEW, well in advance, that there would eventually be more 5 GHz spectrum made available in the US - what's now called the 5.4 GHz band, thus spectral efficiency wasn't an overriding criteria in Canopy's original design. * Canopy's three design criteria were that it be simple to deploy, robust and reliable in operation, and cheap to manufacture and sell. Deep down, Canopy's modulation is (pretty much, kind of) FM, adapted for Broadband and Digital operation. (Yes, I know this is probably technically inaccurate and horribly oversimplified, but that's the way it was described as the genesis of Canopy's modulation scheme - it was based on the robustness of FM communicaitons, of which Motorola is a world class expert. * The 2.4 GHz and 902-928 MHz versions of Canopy were purely an afterthought, not part of the original plans for Canopy; both were developed only in response to large deployments who needed the frequency diversity and the penetration characteristics of 902-928 MHz. Thanks, Steve On 9/13/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Canopy was not initially developed for the military. It was built ground up > for WISPs. When it was designed, it was the best that there was, but > internal issues kept it from the market for a few years. During that time, > the market changed and Moto could no longer count on some of the things they > had when they designed it. > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com -- Steve Stroh Editor / Analyst, Stroh Publications LLC 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Canopy was not initially developed for the military. It was built ground up for WISPs. When it was designed, it was the best that there was, but internal issues kept it from the market for a few years. During that time, the market changed and Moto could no longer count on some of the things they had when they designed it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:58 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations ".I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed..." Mac, That will happen when the 'cow jumps the moon'. Don't know if you all know the story of how Moto Canopy was developed ? It was developed for the military to begin with ...you take it from thereevery thing that you all dislike about the Moto Canopy system were specifically designed as 'features' . -:) Faisal Imtiaz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:50 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I disagree totally :) with all respect! I also think that Canopy ought to be illegal in the USA. They built something that is totally spectrally unfriendly - on purpose! The commercial that they use to air was "the last man standing." I didn't say that Canopy didn't build some pretty good gear - I said I hate their guts and wouldn't hang it if it were given to me for free due to the noise they create. I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed. I can produce that commercial/ad in court and if you think you would stand a chance in civil court against an ad like that - - you are in for a surprise - - -unlicensed spectrum or not! We (all the WISP's) have a pact in N. Louisiana - - no one buys Canopy! Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Peterson Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things going against you in this. 1. A free market economy. 2. License Free spectrum. You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If you can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your antennas with a .22 you might have a chance. License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all other equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued Canopy both on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen the Wireless Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such as amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. David Peterson WirelesGuys Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Jack, I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where you have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy and creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit in the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present the evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be responsible for your lost income. My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this is and what grounds he bases this line of thought. Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of George Rogato > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Onlist for my reply. > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > harm to the business or operation and or for
RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
> Behalf Of Allen Marsalis > > BTW, I owe you a steak Mac. If you ever make it to Shreveport, I > will name the place. You won't be sorry. Mac you are one hellova > guy and I will never forget camp sagnasty God Bless. > > Allen > [Mac says] You better watch it - I will be in Shreveport about Supper time tonight :) (Supper is equal to Dinner for all you Yanks - we have 3 meals a day in the South: breakfast, dinner and supper) Camp Shagnasty still has all the fine benefits of cooking, eating, drinking and comradery! We have managed to get started playing Texas Hold 'em here on the weekends for a $5.00 buy in and that has been a lot of fun, a BIG A HDTV with all the football channels and we have been known to do some other things as well, but I don't think it's wise to speak of such on list since it may draw a real big crowd :) Come on over anytime - guaranteed you won't leave unscathed or hungry! Mac ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
hat is a tough pill to swallow. > > 2. It now opens the original offended WISP to legal battles and lawsuits > himself by the originator of the noise. If the WISP turns his AP's around > that means he no longer has clients attached and it is absolutely > INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE. > > 3. It also proves that the operator is not a professional at all and has no > place here at WISPA or any professional wireless organization in the > Country. > > I don't think that you as a professional consultant would actually suggest > this eh? I am going to choose to think that was just rambling on list and > get on with the thread since it is about as an unprofessional statement as I > have read on any WISPA list this year. Clarification would be a good thing > at this point. > > Thanks, > Mac > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Clint Ricker > > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:50 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > > Situations > > > > Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years > > back the following solution that had worked for him in such > > situations: > > > > 1. Go to the offending provider > > 2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers > > away > > 3. After which point, you will have nothing better to do with your > > wireless gear than to turn it around and blast their APs. > > > > Is there legal recourse? Perhaps, but civil would be the only way > > that I can see...not to mention that time / expense / trouble spent in > > such a pursuit is not to be understated. See a good telecom lawyer if > > you decide to head down that route; if you are having a major problem, > > then the money spent getting their viewpoint on the matter is worth > > it > > > > A well drawn up cease and desist letter from a good attorney (if you > > are out in the boonies, don't use a local guy, pay for a telecom > > lawyer). It is probably bluffing because I doubt you have the > > resources for a full on litigation, but, then again, they probably > > don't either... > > > > Remember, one of the liabilities of unlicensed is, well, that it is > > unlicensed. Which means you don't actually have rights to anything. > > Which means, as is FCC policy, that "take interference" is policy... > > > > There are reasons why companies are bidding in the GDP of a small > > country to get licensed over unlicensed > > > > > > > > On 9/12/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is > > > using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved. > > > > > > or any unlicensed frequency > > > > > > Matt Liotta wrote: > > > > No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove > > to a > > > > jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that > > is > > > > interfering with your business then you can certainly win a > > tortuous > > > > interference suit against the company in question regardless of > > whether > > > > the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should > > immediately > > > > send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After > > the > > > > deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an > > injunction > > > > to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A > > > > couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both > > done. If > > > > you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof. > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > --- > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th > > 2007 at > > > > ISPCON ** > > > > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com > > ** > > > > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > > > > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > > > > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > > > > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > > > > > > -
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
David Peterson wrote: if he is deliberately attempting to interfere with your business instead of pursuing his normal course of business. As one guy pointed out, I am not a lawyer. This is the direction I would think would be succesfull. Deliberately interfering. Not just performing. ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Clint, You were doing fairly well leading this thread until you stumbled (or smooth fell down) on point #3. If a WISP were to act/re-act in a fashion such as that it would elicit several consequences: 1. Whatever chance the offended WISP had at legal recourse is now defunct and irrelevant. It is the same as "throwing in the towel." It is comparable to complete surrender and admission to defeat in the industry that he had chosen. It is admission and belief that the other guy is better than I am and that is a tough pill to swallow. 2. It now opens the original offended WISP to legal battles and lawsuits himself by the originator of the noise. If the WISP turns his AP's around that means he no longer has clients attached and it is absolutely INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE. 3. It also proves that the operator is not a professional at all and has no place here at WISPA or any professional wireless organization in the Country. I don't think that you as a professional consultant would actually suggest this eh? I am going to choose to think that was just rambling on list and get on with the thread since it is about as an unprofessional statement as I have read on any WISPA list this year. Clarification would be a good thing at this point. Thanks, Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Clint Ricker > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:50 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years > back the following solution that had worked for him in such > situations: > > 1. Go to the offending provider > 2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers > away > 3. After which point, you will have nothing better to do with your > wireless gear than to turn it around and blast their APs. > > Is there legal recourse? Perhaps, but civil would be the only way > that I can see...not to mention that time / expense / trouble spent in > such a pursuit is not to be understated. See a good telecom lawyer if > you decide to head down that route; if you are having a major problem, > then the money spent getting their viewpoint on the matter is worth > it > > A well drawn up cease and desist letter from a good attorney (if you > are out in the boonies, don't use a local guy, pay for a telecom > lawyer). It is probably bluffing because I doubt you have the > resources for a full on litigation, but, then again, they probably > don't either... > > Remember, one of the liabilities of unlicensed is, well, that it is > unlicensed. Which means you don't actually have rights to anything. > Which means, as is FCC policy, that "take interference" is policy... > > There are reasons why companies are bidding in the GDP of a small > country to get licensed over unlicensed > > > > On 9/12/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is > > using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved. > > > > or any unlicensed frequency > > > > Matt Liotta wrote: > > > No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove > to a > > > jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that > is > > > interfering with your business then you can certainly win a > tortuous > > > interference suit against the company in question regardless of > whether > > > the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should > immediately > > > send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After > the > > > deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an > injunction > > > to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A > > > couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both > done. If > > > you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof. > > > > > > -Matt > > > --- > - > > > > > > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th > 2007 at > > > ISPCON ** > > > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com > ** > > > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > > > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > > > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > > > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > > >
RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Hey Mac, You can disagree with disrespect, this is opinion. :> However, let me break this down for you and others on this thread. If 1 guy moves in the area, follows the rules and raises the noise floor, should you be able to engage in anti-competitive practices by asking that he be shut down? What if 15 move into your area and all compete? The only way that I could see having a leg to stand on is if he is deliberately attempting to interfere with your business instead of pursuing his normal course of business. As one guy pointed out, I am not a lawyer. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:50 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I disagree totally :) with all respect! I also think that Canopy ought to be illegal in the USA. They built something that is totally spectrally unfriendly - on purpose! The commercial that they use to air was "the last man standing." I didn't say that Canopy didn't build some pretty good gear - I said I hate their guts and wouldn't hang it if it were given to me for free due to the noise they create. I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed. I can produce that commercial/ad in court and if you think you would stand a chance in civil court against an ad like that - - you are in for a surprise - - -unlicensed spectrum or not! We (all the WISP's) have a pact in N. Louisiana - - no one buys Canopy! Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Peterson > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things > going against you in this. > > 1. A free market economy. > 2. License Free spectrum. > > You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than > you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. > This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any > judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If you > can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your antennas > with a .22 you might have a chance. > > License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. > Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of > business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all other > equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued Canopy both > on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen the Wireless > Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) > > Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such as > amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. > > David Peterson > WirelesGuys Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mac Dearman > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Jack, > >I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the > interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where > you > have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy > and > creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit > in > the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present > the > evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be > responsible for your lost income. > > My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this > discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this > is and > what grounds he bases this line of thought. > > Mac > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of George Rogato > > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > > Situations > > > > Onlist for my reply. > > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > > harm > > to the business or operation and or for financial gain. > > > > I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would b
RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Clint, Your solution as you stated it has no place on the WISPA list. We will not allow this kind of (presumed) advice to penetrate our list. I'm referring to point No. 3 in particular. It goes against the WISPA Code of Ethics and against FCC policy. I ask that you refrain from making suggestions like this again. Respectfully, Rick Harnish -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 2:50 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years back the following solution that had worked for him in such situations: 1. Go to the offending provider 2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers away 3. After which point, you will have nothing better to do with your wireless gear than to turn it around and blast their APs. Is there legal recourse? Perhaps, but civil would be the only way that I can see...not to mention that time / expense / trouble spent in such a pursuit is not to be understated. See a good telecom lawyer if you decide to head down that route; if you are having a major problem, then the money spent getting their viewpoint on the matter is worth it A well drawn up cease and desist letter from a good attorney (if you are out in the boonies, don't use a local guy, pay for a telecom lawyer). It is probably bluffing because I doubt you have the resources for a full on litigation, but, then again, they probably don't either... Remember, one of the liabilities of unlicensed is, well, that it is unlicensed. Which means you don't actually have rights to anything. Which means, as is FCC policy, that "take interference" is policy... There are reasons why companies are bidding in the GDP of a small country to get licensed over unlicensed On 9/12/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is > using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved. > > or any unlicensed frequency > > Matt Liotta wrote: > > No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a > > jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that is > > interfering with your business then you can certainly win a tortuous > > interference suit against the company in question regardless of whether > > the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should immediately > > send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After the > > deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an injunction > > to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A > > couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both done. If > > you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof. > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at > > ISPCON ** > > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Dustin from one of the WISPs down in Florida related a couple of years back the following solution that had worked for him in such situations: 1. Go to the offending provider 2. Relate to them that, if they proceed, they will drive your customers away 3. After which point, you will have nothing better to do with your wireless gear than to turn it around and blast their APs. Is there legal recourse? Perhaps, but civil would be the only way that I can see...not to mention that time / expense / trouble spent in such a pursuit is not to be understated. See a good telecom lawyer if you decide to head down that route; if you are having a major problem, then the money spent getting their viewpoint on the matter is worth it A well drawn up cease and desist letter from a good attorney (if you are out in the boonies, don't use a local guy, pay for a telecom lawyer). It is probably bluffing because I doubt you have the resources for a full on litigation, but, then again, they probably don't either... Remember, one of the liabilities of unlicensed is, well, that it is unlicensed. Which means you don't actually have rights to anything. Which means, as is FCC policy, that "take interference" is policy... There are reasons why companies are bidding in the GDP of a small country to get licensed over unlicensed On 9/12/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is > using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved. > > or any unlicensed frequency > > Matt Liotta wrote: > > No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a > > jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that is > > interfering with your business then you can certainly win a tortuous > > interference suit against the company in question regardless of whether > > the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should immediately > > send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After the > > deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an injunction > > to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A > > couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both done. If > > you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof. > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at > > ISPCON ** > > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > > > > > > 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/ > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at > ISPCON ** > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > 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/ > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
At 08:49 PM 9/12/2007, Mac Dearman wrote: We (all the WISP's) have a pact in N. Louisiana - - no one buys Canopy! Wrong!! See www.bluebirdwireless.com... NW is now polluted thanks to motos sales team infecting our 911 center and recruiting their employees to quit and join the private sector. (blue bird wireless) Which BTW is the nations largest "prepay: provider located a mile from me. And ironically is MobilePro's closest competition... Or was... LOL BTW, I owe you a steak Mac. If you ever make it to Shreveport, I will name the place. You won't be sorry. Mac you are one hellova guy and I will never forget camp sagnasty God Bless. Allen ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
".I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed..." Mac, That will happen when the 'cow jumps the moon'. Don't know if you all know the story of how Moto Canopy was developed ? It was developed for the military to begin with ...you take it from thereevery thing that you all dislike about the Moto Canopy system were specifically designed as 'features' . -:) Faisal Imtiaz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:50 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I disagree totally :) with all respect! I also think that Canopy ought to be illegal in the USA. They built something that is totally spectrally unfriendly - on purpose! The commercial that they use to air was "the last man standing." I didn't say that Canopy didn't build some pretty good gear - I said I hate their guts and wouldn't hang it if it were given to me for free due to the noise they create. I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed. I can produce that commercial/ad in court and if you think you would stand a chance in civil court against an ad like that - - you are in for a surprise - - -unlicensed spectrum or not! We (all the WISP's) have a pact in N. Louisiana - - no one buys Canopy! Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of David Peterson > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two > things going against you in this. > > 1. A free market economy. > 2. License Free spectrum. > > You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" > than you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. > This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any > judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If > you can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your > antennas with a .22 you might have a chance. > > License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. > Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of > business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all > other equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued > Canopy both on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen > the Wireless Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) > > Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such > as amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. > > David Peterson > WirelesGuys Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Mac Dearman > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Jack, > >I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the > interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - > where you have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs > some Canopy and creates the inability to recover from the noise - - > that is a law suit in the making. I am sure you would have to do all > you could do and present the evidence of such, but the one who knocked > you oout of business would be responsible for your lost income. > > My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this > discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this > is and what grounds he bases this line of thought. > > Mac > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of George Rogato > > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > > Situations > > > > Onlist for my reply. > > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > > harm to the business or operation and or for financial gain. > > > > I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be > worthy > > of taking to court. > > > > But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be > brou
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Can-o-pee. (thanks Bill) I was given a Canopy 2.4 GHz starter kit... sold it. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I disagree totally :) with all respect! I also think that Canopy ought to be illegal in the USA. They built something that is totally spectrally unfriendly - on purpose! The commercial that they use to air was "the last man standing." I didn't say that Canopy didn't build some pretty good gear - I said I hate their guts and wouldn't hang it if it were given to me for free due to the noise they create. I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed. I can produce that commercial/ad in court and if you think you would stand a chance in civil court against an ad like that - - you are in for a surprise - - -unlicensed spectrum or not! We (all the WISP's) have a pact in N. Louisiana - - no one buys Canopy! Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Peterson Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things going against you in this. 1. A free market economy. 2. License Free spectrum. You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If you can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your antennas with a .22 you might have a chance. License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all other equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued Canopy both on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen the Wireless Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such as amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. David Peterson WirelesGuys Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Jack, I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where you have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy and creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit in the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present the evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be responsible for your lost income. My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this is and what grounds he bases this line of thought. Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of George Rogato > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Onlist for my reply. > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > harm > to the business or operation and or for financial gain. > > I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be worthy > of taking to court. > > But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be brought > against the offending party. The same way the Ricco statutes were first > used against the mob and in other racketeering cases. > > > Statutory remedies for intentional acts. Many statutes provide remedies > for intentional harms. Civil rights statutes provide remedies for > intentional discrimination. Consumer fraud statutes provide remedies > for > unlawful trade practices. The federal RICCO statute provides remedies > for victims of conspiratorial intentional conduct. > > http://www.rnoon.com/law_for_laymen/litigation/intent.html > > > Jack Unger wrote: > > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > > out ther
RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
I disagree totally :) with all respect! I also think that Canopy ought to be illegal in the USA. They built something that is totally spectrally unfriendly - on purpose! The commercial that they use to air was "the last man standing." I didn't say that Canopy didn't build some pretty good gear - I said I hate their guts and wouldn't hang it if it were given to me for free due to the noise they create. I would love to see their gear recalled and outlawed. I can produce that commercial/ad in court and if you think you would stand a chance in civil court against an ad like that - - you are in for a surprise - - -unlicensed spectrum or not! We (all the WISP's) have a pact in N. Louisiana - - no one buys Canopy! Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Peterson > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:32 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things > going against you in this. > > 1. A free market economy. > 2. License Free spectrum. > > You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than > you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. > This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any > judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If you > can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your antennas > with a .22 you might have a chance. > > License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. > Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of > business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all other > equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued Canopy both > on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen the Wireless > Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) > > Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such as > amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. > > David Peterson > WirelesGuys Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mac Dearman > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Jack, > >I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the > interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where > you > have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy > and > creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit > in > the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present > the > evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be > responsible for your lost income. > > My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this > discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this > is and > what grounds he bases this line of thought. > > Mac > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of George Rogato > > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > > Situations > > > > Onlist for my reply. > > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > > harm > > to the business or operation and or for financial gain. > > > > I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be > worthy > > of taking to court. > > > > But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be > brought > > against the offending party. The same way the Ricco statutes were > first > > used against the mob and in other racketeering cases. > > > > > > Statutory remedies for intentional acts. Many statutes provide > remedies > > for intentional harms. Civil rights statutes provide remedies for > > intentional discrimination. Consumer fraud statutes provide remedies > > for > > unlawful trade practices. The federal RICCO statute provides remedies > > for victims of conspiratorial intentional conduct. > > > > http://www.rnoon.com/law_for_laymen/litigation/intent.html > > > > > > Jack Unger wrote
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
I believe that if someone wilfully interferes with your business you would have a case. Perfect example would be if your competition operated on the same non overlapping channell when other clear channels are available and you notified them that they were interfering with your system. Your canopy example does not really relate to the issue. Motorola could make guns if they wanted to but that doesnt make them killers. As such, just because they make a spectrally inefficient radio does not make them an interferer. Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: "David Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:32:05 To:"WISPA General List" Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things going against you in this. 1. A free market economy. 2. License Free spectrum. You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If you can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your antennas with a .22 you might have a chance. License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all other equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued Canopy both on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen the Wireless Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such as amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. David Peterson WirelesGuys Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Jack, I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where you have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy and creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit in the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present the evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be responsible for your lost income. My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this is and what grounds he bases this line of thought. Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of George Rogato > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Onlist for my reply. > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > harm > to the business or operation and or for financial gain. > > I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be worthy > of taking to court. > > But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be brought > against the offending party. The same way the Ricco statutes were first > used against the mob and in other racketeering cases. > > > Statutory remedies for intentional acts. Many statutes provide remedies > for intentional harms. Civil rights statutes provide remedies for > intentional discrimination. Consumer fraud statutes provide remedies > for > unlawful trade practices. The federal RICCO statute provides remedies > for victims of conspiratorial intentional conduct. > > http://www.rnoon.com/law_for_laymen/litigation/intent.html > > > Jack Unger wrote: > > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > > out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in > > order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable > > evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I > know > > of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be > made > > in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. > > > > Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior > > please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > jac
RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things going against you in this. 1. A free market economy. 2. License Free spectrum. You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If you can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your antennas with a .22 you might have a chance. License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all other equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued Canopy both on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen the Wireless Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such as amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. David Peterson WirelesGuys Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Jack, I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where you have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy and creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit in the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present the evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be responsible for your lost income. My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this is and what grounds he bases this line of thought. Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of George Rogato > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Onlist for my reply. > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > harm > to the business or operation and or for financial gain. > > I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be worthy > of taking to court. > > But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be brought > against the offending party. The same way the Ricco statutes were first > used against the mob and in other racketeering cases. > > > Statutory remedies for intentional acts. Many statutes provide remedies > for intentional harms. Civil rights statutes provide remedies for > intentional discrimination. Consumer fraud statutes provide remedies > for > unlawful trade practices. The federal RICCO statute provides remedies > for victims of conspiratorial intentional conduct. > > http://www.rnoon.com/law_for_laymen/litigation/intent.html > > > Jack Unger wrote: > > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > > out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in > > order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable > > evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I > know > > of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be > made > > in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. > > > > Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior > > please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > jack > > > > --- > - > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 > at ISPCON ** > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > --- > - > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > --- > - > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >
Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
The relation to the McDonalds question would be if they built their store in front of your door, preventing you from getting customers. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "David Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:32 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations I would have to disagree with most of this thread. You have two things going against you in this. 1. A free market economy. 2. License Free spectrum. You can no more sue for someone putting up wireless in your "area" than you can if you owned a restaurant and McDonalds moved in next door. This is a critical component of American society, so I doubt that any judge would even allow the suit to ever get in front of a jury. If you can prove they are doing something illegal, like shooting your antennas with a .22 you might have a chance. License free spectrum means that you are going to get interference. Period. If interference were actionable, then Canopy would be out of business. Let's face it guys, Canopy interferes with most of all other equipment in its spectrum. By now, someone would have sued Canopy both on their equipment and on their marketing. (Who has seen the Wireless Thug pic at the shows. I know I have.) Your best bet is to prove that they are using unauthorized gear such as amps, etc. and cajole the FCC into investigating. David Peterson WirelesGuys Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Jack, I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where you have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy and creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit in the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present the evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be responsible for your lost income. My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this is and what grounds he bases this line of thought. Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Onlist for my reply. It's also a good onlist discusion. I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause harm to the business or operation and or for financial gain. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be worthy of taking to court. But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be brought against the offending party. The same way the Ricco statutes were first used against the mob and in other racketeering cases. Statutory remedies for intentional acts. Many statutes provide remedies for intentional harms. Civil rights statutes provide remedies for intentional discrimination. Consumer fraud statutes provide remedies for unlawful trade practices. The federal RICCO statute provides remedies for victims of conspiratorial intentional conduct. http://www.rnoon.com/law_for_laymen/litigation/intent.html Jack Unger wrote: > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in > order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable > evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know > of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made > in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. > > Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior > please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? > > Thanks in advance, > > jack > --- - ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** --- - WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ ---
RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
If you are a lawyer, or you can cite specific case law or examples. (URL is required) then continue this thread. If not.. Don't! :) ryan (usually a great producer of list noise, but not today!) ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Jack, I don't think it would have to be anything illegal about the interference. If someone moves into an area established by you - where you have an ongoing business and (for instance) someone hangs some Canopy and creates the inability to recover from the noise - - that is a law suit in the making. I am sure you would have to do all you could do and present the evidence of such, but the one who knocked you oout of business would be responsible for your lost income. My partner (20% owner) is a Corporate attorney and we have had this discussion on several occasions. I will ask him what his take on this is and what grounds he bases this line of thought. Mac > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of George Rogato > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:09 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference > Situations > > Onlist for my reply. > It's also a good onlist discusion. > > I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who > intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause > harm > to the business or operation and or for financial gain. > > I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be worthy > of taking to court. > > But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be brought > against the offending party. The same way the Ricco statutes were first > used against the mob and in other racketeering cases. > > > Statutory remedies for intentional acts. Many statutes provide remedies > for intentional harms. Civil rights statutes provide remedies for > intentional discrimination. Consumer fraud statutes provide remedies > for > unlawful trade practices. The federal RICCO statute provides remedies > for victims of conspiratorial intentional conduct. > > http://www.rnoon.com/law_for_laymen/litigation/intent.html > > > Jack Unger wrote: > > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > > out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in > > order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable > > evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I > know > > of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be > made > > in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. > > > > Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior > > please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > jack > > > > --- > - > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 > at ISPCON ** > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > --- > - > 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Isn't that only to licensed users? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Steve Stroh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations Jack: If you can reasonably allege that what's going on IS in fact malicious interference, that IS actionable by the FCC. Even if the spectrum in question is license-exempt spectrum, malicious interference is specifically prohibited. Thanks, Steve On 9/12/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? Thanks in advance, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com (Man I get tired of cleaning up all that automatic drivel that gets appended to every posting to this list). -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Issue is that if you are using legal 2.4 equipment and the new guy is using legal 2.4 equipment, the fcc is not going to get involved. or any unlicensed frequency Matt Liotta wrote: No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that is interfering with your business then you can certainly win a tortuous interference suit against the company in question regardless of whether the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should immediately send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After the deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an injunction to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both done. If you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Jack: If you can reasonably allege that what's going on IS in fact malicious interference, that IS actionable by the FCC. Even if the spectrum in question is license-exempt spectrum, malicious interference is specifically prohibited. Thanks, Steve On 9/12/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in > order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable > evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know > of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made > in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. > > Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior > please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? > > Thanks in advance, > > jack > > -- > Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > FCC License # PG-12-25133 > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers > Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com (Man I get tired of cleaning up all that automatic drivel that gets appended to every posting to this list). -- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.stevestroh.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Your options for recourse are going to depend largely upon the state in which you operate. However, most states are now recognizing either in common law or via statute some of the following: Tortious Interference with Business Relations Tortious Interference with Contract Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Rights Note that these are all CIVIL remedies. I doubt that you would have much luck getting CRIMINAL remedies since the D.A.'s offices rarely have the resources to chase down their current case load. The key to ANY of these remedies will be to establish the intentional and malicious nature of your competitor's actions. If you can show that the competitor has no clients in the area and is just blasting interference for the sake of taking out your system, you might have something to work with, but if your competitor can show that he has even one client in receiving service from the offending radio system, you would have a lot harder time getting a judge to believe that the actions are improper competition rather than "natural competition". Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant / Law Student / Ex-WISP [EMAIL PROTECTED] DISCLAIMER: The message is not to be construed as legal advise for actual legal advise you need to speak to a licensed attorney within your jurisdiction. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? Thanks in advance, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
A neighboring WISP to me ran in to this last year when a new competitor moved in and placed towers (20' taller than the existing WISP) within 1/4 mile of all the existing WISPs towers. I ended up attempting to help the existing WISP but was unable to prove anything besides noisy 2.4 GHz. They had an open case with the FBI and as far as I know the end result nothing more than some shoulder shrugging from all parties. The interference eventually went away (or at least was minimized.) That existing WISP was just sold a few months ago, and I have customers running from both of them to my service, so I guess it worked out well in the end for me :) Graham On 9/12/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies > out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in > order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable > evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know > of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made > in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. > > Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior > please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? > > Thanks in advance, > > jack > > -- > Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > FCC License # PG-12-25133 > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 > Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers > Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com > > > > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at > ISPCON ** > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > 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/ > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
No need to get into complicated legal territory. If you can prove to a jury that a company is not complying with FCC rules in a way that is interfering with your business then you can certainly win a tortuous interference suit against the company in question regardless of whether the FCC will commence enforcement. Additionally, you should immediately send the company a cease and desist letter with a deadline. After the deadline you file a compliant with state court and ask for an injunction to have the court force the company to cease their interference. A couple hours of your attorney's time should be able to get both done. If you have to litigate the hours will go through the roof. -Matt ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
Onlist for my reply. It's also a good onlist discusion. I have always believed that there is some way to combat someone who intentionally causes interference with an existing network to cause harm to the business or operation and or for financial gain. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't even give any advice that would be worthy of taking to court. But, to me, it's just unbelievable that criminal case can't be brought against the offending party. The same way the Ricco statutes were first used against the mob and in other racketeering cases. Statutory remedies for intentional acts. Many statutes provide remedies for intentional harms. Civil rights statutes provide remedies for intentional discrimination. Consumer fraud statutes provide remedies for unlawful trade practices. The federal RICCO statute provides remedies for victims of conspiratorial intentional conduct. http://www.rnoon.com/law_for_laymen/litigation/intent.html Jack Unger wrote: It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? Thanks in advance, jack ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations
It's hard for me to accept that there are a few inconsiderate bullies out there who would intentionally and maliciously jam other WISPs in order to take over the customer base. I have recently seen probable evidence of just such behavior. Because the FCC has no law (that I know of) against this disgraceful behavior, legal recourse needs to be made in state court and state laws do vary from state to state. Would anyone who has fought against this type of unethical behavior please share with me (offlist please) what State law(s) they used? Thanks in advance, jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/
