[WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
This is an example of Part-15 rules been broken, this has been going on for years ant they recently fined, http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269874A1.html Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an example of Part-15 rules been broken, this has been going on for years ant they recently fined, http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269874A1.html So they were running out-of-band AND over-power at 71 sites for 5 years, and they're getting off with a fine for $20k? Sounds like a pretty light fine to me. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
Yeah ... but they got the bad press.. . Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:45 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an example of Part-15 rules been broken, this has been going on for years ant they recently fined, http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269874A1.html So they were running out-of-band AND over-power at 71 sites for 5 years, and they're getting off with a fine for $20k? Sounds like a pretty light fine to me. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
True .. Are you seeing subscribers turn over from them to you? Did it make the press in PR such that the average subscriber would actually know about it? On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah ... but they got the bad press.. . Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
This just hit the press today... but I wouldt count of subscribers noticing it much Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... True .. Are you seeing subscribers turn over from them to you? Did it make the press in PR such that the average subscriber would actually know about it? On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah ... but they got the bad press.. . Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
Section 15.1(b) of the Rules states that an intentional radiator that is not in accordance with the requirements of Part 15 must be licensed, Is there and what is the licensing policy for UNII band? what is co-channel MSS operations?-indicated as a reason why 5.1Ghz is only allowed indoors to prevent interferrence with it. It sounds like this is a black eye for Axxelera as well as Neptune. Maybe Axxelera should share paying the fine? Wonder what about Axxelera didn't allow it to comply? The ISP adding their own antennas? Or just not having variable power settings? Was the gear non-compliant jsut for 5.3 and 5.1, and compliant for 5.8G? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an example of Part-15 rules been broken, this has been going on for years ant they recently fined, http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269874A1.html So they were running out-of-band AND over-power at 71 sites for 5 years, and they're getting off with a fine for $20k? Sounds like a pretty light fine to me. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
Well that depends how noisy the 5.3 and 5.8 bands are that the custoemrs got turned to. Even worse news if you are using 5.3 and 5.8. That means there is likely going to be an interference war, customers' quality of service is going to go down. It could result in multiple WISPs loosing customers, IF CUSTOMERS have non-wireless options. These are the things that create doubt in customer's minds. Not necessarilly the details of the violation, but the never knowing when there could be an interference problem effecting QOS. I'd argue that Neptune network's illegal use of spectrum, prevented interference for unlicensed broadband in PR. If someone were to break the rules, I'd rather them broadcast in 5.1G, than in 5.3G at overpowered levels. Exceeding power limts, creates interference for the legal competitors. Broadcasting at 5.1, just causes liabilty for the law breaker. That statement is being made assuming that he was not causing 5.1G interference with other legal 5.1G licensed users. So are the legal licenced holder's currently actively using 5.1Ghz? I'm in no way condoning illegal use of spectrum, I'm just discussing the severity of the violation, and the severity of a violation should effect the fine that is imposed for inforcement. For example someone who breaks the law, as a defenses measure to temporarilly get their subscribers up, after interference took them down on their intial legal channels, should be treated more leaniently than a gross abuser. In Neptune's case, it was a clear planned violation at a large number of sites for a long amount of time. I'd argue that that case was a gross abuser, and required little leaniency. But I'd have to argue that $20,000 is a pretty cheap fine and leanient, to more or less operate like they have a license for 5 years. Neptune was clearly a winner in that event. But I think the FCC was leanient in this case, because Neptune immediately conformed on request. I'm pretty sure Neptune could have been given a $10,000 fine per site, if the FCC really wanted to be nasty. But its a difficult thing though, when ISPs are serving the underserved. If the WISP is fined to heavilly, they go out of business and consumers suffer (Schools, hospitols, Students, etc). So I think the FCC is sending a warning to the industry on this one. Get legal, or it could get ugly. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:16 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... This just hit the press today... but I wouldt count of subscribers noticing it much Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... True .. Are you seeing subscribers turn over from them to you? Did it make the press in PR such that the average subscriber would actually know about it? On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah ... but they got the bad press.. . Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
The wisp was using stock Axxelera gear, the problem was the channels used were either 5.1 (which is unii indoor only ) or non part 15 at all. Im under the impression that the Axxelera gear doesn't have a way to control power Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... Section 15.1(b) of the Rules states that an intentional radiator that is not in accordance with the requirements of Part 15 must be licensed, Is there and what is the licensing policy for UNII band? what is co-channel MSS operations?-indicated as a reason why 5.1Ghz is only allowed indoors to prevent interferrence with it. It sounds like this is a black eye for Axxelera as well as Neptune. Maybe Axxelera should share paying the fine? Wonder what about Axxelera didn't allow it to comply? The ISP adding their own antennas? Or just not having variable power settings? Was the gear non-compliant jsut for 5.3 and 5.1, and compliant for 5.8G? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dylan Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an example of Part-15 rules been broken, this has been going on for years ant they recently fined, http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269874A1.html So they were running out-of-band AND over-power at 71 sites for 5 years, and they're getting off with a fine for $20k? Sounds like a pretty light fine to me. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
It's not clear at all if they have fully complied, the investigation was last summer were we started seeing interference problems on the site under investigation... the interference later disappeared go figure Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:46 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... Well that depends how noisy the 5.3 and 5.8 bands are that the custoemrs got turned to. Even worse news if you are using 5.3 and 5.8. That means there is likely going to be an interference war, customers' quality of service is going to go down. It could result in multiple WISPs loosing customers, IF CUSTOMERS have non-wireless options. These are the things that create doubt in customer's minds. Not necessarilly the details of the violation, but the never knowing when there could be an interference problem effecting QOS. I'd argue that Neptune network's illegal use of spectrum, prevented interference for unlicensed broadband in PR. If someone were to break the rules, I'd rather them broadcast in 5.1G, than in 5.3G at overpowered levels. Exceeding power limts, creates interference for the legal competitors. Broadcasting at 5.1, just causes liabilty for the law breaker. That statement is being made assuming that he was not causing 5.1G interference with other legal 5.1G licensed users. So are the legal licenced holder's currently actively using 5.1Ghz? I'm in no way condoning illegal use of spectrum, I'm just discussing the severity of the violation, and the severity of a violation should effect the fine that is imposed for inforcement. For example someone who breaks the law, as a defenses measure to temporarilly get their subscribers up, after interference took them down on their intial legal channels, should be treated more leaniently than a gross abuser. In Neptune's case, it was a clear planned violation at a large number of sites for a long amount of time. I'd argue that that case was a gross abuser, and required little leaniency. But I'd have to argue that $20,000 is a pretty cheap fine and leanient, to more or less operate like they have a license for 5 years. Neptune was clearly a winner in that event. But I think the FCC was leanient in this case, because Neptune immediately conformed on request. I'm pretty sure Neptune could have been given a $10,000 fine per site, if the FCC really wanted to be nasty. But its a difficult thing though, when ISPs are serving the underserved. If the WISP is fined to heavilly, they go out of business and consumers suffer (Schools, hospitols, Students, etc). So I think the FCC is sending a warning to the industry on this one. Get legal, or it could get ugly. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:16 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... This just hit the press today... but I wouldt count of subscribers noticing it much Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dylan Oliver Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:16 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... True .. Are you seeing subscribers turn over from them to you? Did it make the press in PR such that the average subscriber would actually know about it? On 2/1/07, Gino Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah ... but they got the bad press.. . Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- 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/ -- 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] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
Are you saying that it was you who reported them to the FCC? If so, had you tried working it out with them first or ? Gino Villarini wrote: It's not clear at all if they have fully complied, the investigation was last summer were we started seeing interference problems on the site under investigation... the interference later disappeared go figure Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
Nop, it wasn't me, Another local wisp reported them. The docs are on the FCC website Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Ireton Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:01 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Local WISP Fined by FCC ... Are you saying that it was you who reported them to the FCC? If so, had you tried working it out with them first or ? Gino Villarini wrote: It's not clear at all if they have fully complied, the investigation was last summer were we started seeing interference problems on the site under investigation... the interference later disappeared go figure Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- 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] Local WISP Fined by FCC ...
If memory serves, MSS is Mobile Satellite Service. Like many vendors, Axxcelera makes gear that is flexible in its frequency coverage and power output. MANY countries allow higher power outputs than US, as well as different spectrum usage. It's certainly not illegal to manufacture such devices. But with Part 15 systems, it's the responsibility of the USER to insure that such equipment is being used properly, and in this case, the WISP wasn't doing so, having selected parameters that were not in accordance with US FCC Part 15.547 rules. I also think they got off easy with a $20,000 fine. Their entire network could have been summarily shut down if the FCC felt that they were causing interference with a licensed service, not to mention that the FCC can request arrest and forfeiture of offenders. Thanks, Steve On Feb 1, 2007, at Feb 1 07:32 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Section 15.1(b) of the Rules states that an intentional radiator that is not in accordance with the requirements of Part 15 must be licensed, Is there and what is the licensing policy for UNII band? what is co-channel MSS operations?-indicated as a reason why 5.1Ghz is only allowed indoors to prevent interferrence with it. It sounds like this is a black eye for Axxelera as well as Neptune. Maybe Axxelera should share paying the fine? Wonder what about Axxelera didn't allow it to comply? The ISP adding their own antennas? Or just not having variable power settings? Was the gear non-compliant jsut for 5.3 and 5.1, and compliant for 5.8G? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
