Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest
I agree. Continental is a tennant and has exclusive use of the space. Don't see that as different that any other MTU. And they are not wanting to receive the same signal that MASSPORT is sending out, they want their own, if I read it right. Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- Original Message --- From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:52:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Some thoughts.. I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons: The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in space used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients, employees and cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered common in term. The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know, the usual You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you rules of Part 15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to their operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about health risks. The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than the specific area required by Continental. This leads to spectral waste by distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference to Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the signal is now more accessible over a larger area. No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease agreement with Massport reaks or attempts to coordinate frequency use. An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish Massport for its attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized under the Commission's rules. And finally...I dislike greedy landlords...The only reason they (Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at stake. And this is no different than paying a license fee or frequency coordination fee for which the Federal Communications Commission says there should be none. Maybe Continental could become the official WISPA air carrier after we reply... :-D I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that come to mind. -B- Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Thanks Harold! Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this issue. This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Feld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Open Spectrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Unlicensed Advocates [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Released: 07/29/2005. OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No. 05-2213). (Dkt No 05-247). Comments Due: 08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due: 09/13/2005. OET. Contact: Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt ___ Unlicensed_advocates mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group
Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest
That looks great! Care to head up the submission of this to the FCC? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Some thoughts.. I agree that we should support Continental for the following reasons: The use of the wireless system used by Continental is constructed in space used exclusively by Continental and/or its agents, clients, employees and cannot be used by any others. As such it is not considered common in term. The system uses unlicensed spectrum which has, as we all know, the usual You can't interfere with me...I can't interfere with you rules of Part 15. And they (Massport) cannot complain about interference to their operations without proving same is occuring. And if Continental is interfering with Massport's system, they should be contacting the Commission's Enforcement Bureau. Obviously that has not occured (to the best of our knowledge). The Commission already has type accepted the equipment in use and, as such, Massport cannot complain about health risks. The requirement to use the master antenna system would result in Continental's signal being broadcast all over the airport rather than the specific area required by Continental. This leads to spectral waste by distributing Continental's signal all over Massport's facilities. In addition, there is now an increased chance of experiencing interference to Continental's operations as well as increased security risk as the signal is now more accessible over a larger area. No entity should have a right to restrict the use of RF spectrum that is presently governed by the Federal Communications Commission. While the pettition does not pertain to this matter directly, Continental's lease agreement with Massport reaks or attempts to coordinate frequency use. An effort should be made to have the Commission admonish Massport for its attempts to perform a function for which they are not authorized under the Commission's rules. And finally...I dislike greedy landlords...The only reason they (Massport) are even making an issue is because there is more money at stake. And this is no different than paying a license fee or frequency coordination fee for which the Federal Communications Commission says there should be none. Maybe Continental could become the official WISPA air carrier after we reply... :-D I'm sure I can come up with more but these are the main thoughts that come to mind. -B- Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Thanks Harold! Guys, it seems to me that we should jump in bed with Continental on this issue. This same rule would certainly apply to mesh type systems or aps which have, thus far, not been covered under OTARD. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Harold Feld [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Open Spectrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Unlicensed Advocates [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:42 PM Subject: [Unlicensed_advocates] Of Potential interest Released: 07/29/2005. OET SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FROM CONTINENTAL AIRLINES FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING WHETHER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON ANTENNA INSTALLATION ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. (DA No. 05-2213). (Dkt No 05-247). Comments Due: 08/29/2005. Reply Comments Due: 09/13/2005. OET. Contact: Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290 http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2213A1.txt ___ Unlicensed_advocates mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kumr.lns.com/mailman/listinfo/unlicensed_advocates -- Bob Moldashel Lakeland Communications, Inc. Broadband Deployment Group 1350 Lincoln Avenue Holbrook, New York 11741 USA 800-479-9195 Toll Free US Canada 631-585-5558 Fax 516-551-1131 Cell -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http
