rcial 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 Mali
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,
f 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
> 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 Shr
fessional 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
&g
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.
-
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
> Subj
nal 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 thin
aking 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 Situa
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 be
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 priva
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
quot;
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! T
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.
-
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
L 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 i
OTECTED]>
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. L
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 W
: [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
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
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
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]> wro
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
C
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
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 c
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 a
26 matches
Mail list logo
