Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest

2005-08-03 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 

That looks great!  Care to head up the submission of this to the FCC?

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



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

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest



Some thoughts..

I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons:

The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in space 
used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients, employees and 
cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered "common" in 
term.


The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know,  the usual 
"You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you" rules of Part 
15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to their 
operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is 
interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the 
Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the 
best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the 
equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about "health 
risks".


The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in 
Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than the 
specific area required by Continental.  This leads to spectral waste by 
distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In 
addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference to 
Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the signal 
is now more accessible over a larger area.


No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is 
presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the 
pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease 
agreement with Massport "reaks" or attempts to "coordinate frequency use". 
An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish Massport for its 
attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized under the 
Commission's rules.


And finally...I dislike greedy landlords...The only reason they 
(Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at 
stake. And this is no different than paying a "license fee" or "frequency 
coordination fee" for which the Federal Communications Commission says 
there should be none.


Maybe Continental could become the "official WISPA air carrier" after we 
reply...  :-D


I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that come 
to mind.


-B-




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


Thanks Harold!

Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this 
issue.  This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps 
which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD.


Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Open Spectrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unlicensed Advocates" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest



Released:  07/29/2005.  OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL
AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No.  05-2213). (Dkt No
05-247). Comments Due:  08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due:  09/13/2005.
OET. Contact:  Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt>

___
Unlicensed_advocates mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates






--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest

2005-08-03 Thread Tom DeReggi 
I agree, we need to firmly stand behind Continental.  This is a clear case 
where Continental should have the right to broadcast its signal, without 
exception under OTARD rules.  The common antenna exception also doesn't 
really apply for this type of situation where the antenna does not have any 
safety or cosmetic side effects, because it is compeltely located with the 
confines of Continental's space.
The OTARD rule was never intended to be a mechanism to avoid interference or 
prevent businesses or home owners from doing their own thing within their 
space.


Mass Authorities's request is also illegal on other grounds not related to 
OTARD. Its clear they are trying to establish a relationship with a single 
airport service provider giving that provider preferencial treatment. 
Landlords are no allowed to gives exclusive access to a single ISP, or 
discrimate from a specific provider. The fact that they allowed one ISP, 
could be grounds that they would need to allow additional ISPs at similar 
terms.


However, there is nothing to prohibit the landlord from establishing 
exclusive marketing agreements or endorsements, nor licensing the the use of 
equipment placement of unlicensed spectrum with in the areas of the airport 
controlled by the landlord.


Its impossible to licence the right to allow radio waves to enter a space!!.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc


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

To: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:21 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest


Yes.  You should be concerned about landlords cutting exclusive deals with 
telcos and cable cos to prohibit competing wireless networks.  I'm not 
talking about roof top access; I'm talking about asserting control over 
internal networks so that you can't reach business customers.  The OTARD 
rules started because cable companies cut exclusive deals with landlords 
to keep out DBS receivers.


Harold

At 06:41 PM 8/2/2005, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 wrote:

Thanks Harold!

Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this 
issue.  This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps 
which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD.


Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Open Spectrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unlicensed Advocates" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest



Released:  07/29/2005.  OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL
AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No.  05-2213). (Dkt No
05-247). Comments Due:  08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due:  09/13/2005.
OET. Contact:  Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf>
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt>

___
Unlicensed_advocates mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/2005




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest

2005-08-03 Thread Harold Feld 
Yes.  You should be concerned about landlords cutting exclusive deals 
with telcos and cable cos to prohibit competing wireless 
networks.  I'm not talking about roof top access; I'm talking about 
asserting control over internal networks so that you can't reach 
business customers.  The OTARD rules started because cable companies 
cut exclusive deals with landlords to keep out DBS receivers.


Harold

At 06:41 PM 8/2/2005, Marlon K. Schafer \(509\) 982-2181 wrote:

Thanks Harold!

Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on 
this issue.  This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type 
systems or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD.


Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Open Spectrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unlicensed 
Advocates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest



Released:  07/29/2005.  OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL
AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No.  05-2213). (Dkt No
05-247). Comments Due:  08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due:  09/13/2005.
OET. Contact:  Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290




___
Unlicensed_advocates mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest

2005-08-03 Thread Scott Reed 




I agree.  Continental is a tennant and has exclusive use of the space.  Don't see that as different that any other MTU.  And they are not wanting to receive the same signal that MASSPORT is sending out, they want their own, if I read it right.


Scott Reed 


Owner 


NewWays 


Wireless Networking 


Network Design, Installation and Administration 


www.nwwnet.net

-- Original Message 
---

From: Bob Moldashel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


To: WISPA General List  


Sent: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:52:34 -0400 


Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest 



> Some thoughts.. 
> 
> 

I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons: 
> 

> 

The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in  
> 

space used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients,  
> 

employees and cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered  

> 

"common" in term. 
> 
> 

The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know,  the  

> 

usual "You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you" rules 
 
> 

of Part 15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to  
> 

their operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is  

> 

interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the  
> 

Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the  

> 

best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the  
> 

equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about "health  

> 

risks". 
> 
> 

The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in  
> 

Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than  
> 

the specific area required by Continental.  This leads to spectral waste  

> 

by distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In  

> 

addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference  

> 

to Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the  
> 

signal is now more accessible over a larger area. 
> 
> 

No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is  

> 

presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the  
> 

pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease  

> 

agreement with Massport "reaks" or attempts to "coordinate 
frequency  
> 

use".  An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish 
Massport  
> 

for its attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized  

> 

under the Commission's rules. 
> 
> 

And finally...I dislike greedy landlords...The only reason they  

> 

(Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at  
> 

stake. And this is no different than paying a "license fee" or  

> 

"frequency coordination fee" for which the Federal Communications  

> 

Commission says there should be none. 
> 
> 

Maybe Continental could become the "official WISPA air carrier" after 
we  
> 

reply...  :-D 
> 
> 

I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that  
> 

come to mind. 
> 
> 

-B- 
> 
> 

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

> Thanks Harold! 
> 

> 
> 

> Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on  

> 

> this issue.  This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems 
 
> 

> or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD. 
> 

> 
> 

> Thoughts? 
> 

> Marlon 
> 

> (509) 982-2181                  
                 Equipment sales 

> 

> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                
    Consulting services 
> 

> 42846865 (icq)                  
                  And I run my own 
wisp! 
> 

> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) 
> 

> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless 
> 

> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam 
> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

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

> To: "Open Spectrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
"Unlicensed  
> 

> Advocates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> 

> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM 
> 

> Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest 
> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

>> Released:  07/29/2005.  OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM 
CONTINENTAL 
> 

>> AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS 

> 

>> ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S 
> 

>> OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA N

Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest

2005-08-02 Thread Bob Moldashel 

Some thoughts..

I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons:

The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in 
space used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients, 
employees and cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered 
"common" in term.


The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know,  the 
usual "You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you" rules 
of Part 15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to 
their operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is 
interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the 
Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the 
best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the 
equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about "health 
risks".


The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in 
Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than 
the specific area required by Continental.  This leads to spectral waste 
by distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In 
addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference 
to Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the 
signal is now more accessible over a larger area.


No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is 
presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the 
pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease 
agreement with Massport "reaks" or attempts to "coordinate frequency 
use".  An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish Massport 
for its attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized 
under the Commission's rules.


And finally...I dislike greedy landlords...The only reason they 
(Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at 
stake. And this is no different than paying a "license fee" or 
"frequency coordination fee" for which the Federal Communications 
Commission says there should be none.


Maybe Continental could become the "official WISPA air carrier" after we 
reply...  :-D


I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that 
come to mind.


-B-




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


Thanks Harold!

Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on 
this issue.  This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems 
or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD.


Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Open Spectrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unlicensed 
Advocates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest



Released:  07/29/2005.  OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL
AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No.  05-2213). (Dkt No
05-247). Comments Due:  08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due:  09/13/2005.
OET. Contact:  Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290




___
Unlicensed_advocates mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates






--
Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest

2005-08-02 Thread Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 

Thanks Harold!

Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this 
issue.  This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps 
which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD.


Thoughts?
Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



- Original Message - 
From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Open Spectrum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Unlicensed Advocates" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest



Released:  07/29/2005.  OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL
AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS
ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No.  05-2213). (Dkt No
05-247). Comments Due:  08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due:  09/13/2005.
OET. Contact:  Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290




___
Unlicensed_advocates mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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