Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Clint Ricker
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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Rick Harnish
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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread David Peterson
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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Mac Dearman
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread George Rogato
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.

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Clint Ricker
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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Mac Dearman
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Mike Hammett
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Steve Stroh
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,

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-13 Thread Patrick Leary
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread George Rogato
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Matt Liotta
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Graham McIntire
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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Larry Yunker
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Steve Stroh
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]

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread George Rogato
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Mike Hammett
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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Mac Dearman
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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread D. Ryan Spott
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Mike Hammett
General List wireless@wispa.org 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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread David Peterson
] 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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread lakeland
- From: David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:32:05 To:WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Mac Dearman
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

Re: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Mike Hammett
, 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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
: 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

RE: [WISPA] Legal Charges used in Malicious Interference Situations

2007-09-12 Thread Allen Marsalis
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