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 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

2007-09-13 Thread Rick Harnish
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/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

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

2007-09-13 Thread David Peterson
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 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

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

2007-09-13 Thread Mac Dearman
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 **
  
   ---
 -
  
   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

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.




** 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

2007-09-13 Thread Clint Ricker
 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 **
   
---
  -
   
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

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 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

2007-09-13 Thread Mike Hammett
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' wireless@wispa.org
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 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

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, 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

2007-09-13 Thread Patrick Leary
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 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

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 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/


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 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

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 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

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
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

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] 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

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 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

2007-09-12 Thread Mike Hammett

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 wireless@wispa.org
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

2007-09-12 Thread Mac Dearman
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

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 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

2007-09-12 Thread Mike Hammett
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 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 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

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http

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

2007-09-12 Thread David Peterson
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
 
 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

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

2007-09-12 Thread lakeland
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 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.  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

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

2007-09-12 Thread Mac Dearman
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 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

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

2007-09-12 Thread Mike Hammett

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' wireless@wispa.org
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 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

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

2007-09-12 Thread Faisal Imtiaz
 
.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
 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

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 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/