Again, I repeat, the sky is not falling but a few corrections: On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 15:50:47 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Had your original post said, "2 WISPS were sued over use of channel >1 so I'd advise against that one - see the story here >--- www.arrl.com/2.4/ghz/dispute" then we'd all know about it! I never said a WISP was sued. I was responding to your claim the FCC does not enforce Part 15 regulations. If you want a link, here is one that is not bogus as yours was: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2001/02/15/2/ And of course, the reason this got to the FCC was that the WISP, Darwin Networks, was incredibly stupid and arrogant.... a little bit of common sense goes a long way in conflict resolution. But purposely trying to interfere with hams reporting interference, even if they have the personality of Ross Perot, is not the way to do it. >But - if someone came over and copped an attitude "HAMS ARE PRIMARY >USERS OF 2.4 GHZ AND I HAVE DETERMINED YOU ARE CAUSING INTERFERENCE >IN OUR BAND, THEREFORE YOU MUST MOVE IMMEDIATELY OR I WILL CALL THE >FCC ON YOU" - then I'd just tell them the area code is 202. Good >luck, and get off my property. And leave it on channel 1 all night. > Probably with a continuous signal strength test running to make >sure they are not interfering with me. I agree, a good attitude goes a long way... none the less, where I come from, the law is the law, and that was my point. Good manners and abiding by the law aren't always the same thing. Yet lack of one does not negate ones obligation to abide by the other. BTW, a piece of sincere advice if you intend to do the above. Turn in your ham license. Not because I don't want you to be a ham, but when you hold a radio license, the FCC does not need a warrant to inspect your station (read your part 97 rules). http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/b.html#103 Your experiences with the FCC do not match mine. They do react, and if you were to play out the scenario you suggest above, you indeed might get their attention. Hence you want to be able to tell them to go get the Federal Marshals + warrant, and that would give you time to hide things and disconnect your 1.5kw amp. Right now, by holding that ham license, you have agreed to allow them to conduct warrantless searches of your station... and that might include your commercial WISP as well. >But saying they should not use channel 1 because hams are primary in >that band is a poor way to do it. "avoid" and "should not use" are not the same thing. This is what I said that is getting you so upset: ->Quoting Brian Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ->> ->>If I had a choice between channels 1-11, which one would be the ->>best to use? - ->Avoid channel 1 as it is the only channel hams are really doing ->anything on (Oscar 40's downlink is in that area). They have ->priority over part 15 traffic. And if you don't like the last sentence, petition the FCC to have that changed. As supposedly an RF engineer for "45 years", you should already know this. Even so, hams do not have a right to the band and clearly, the damn has burst. Yet the law is the law, and to rub it in the FCC's face is only to invite sanctions. Bottom line, there has _never_ been a conflict between the Part 15 hobbyist community (this list) and amateur (ham) radio to my knowledge. If you know something different, please post it, otherwise lets move on as the sky is not falling. I personally like what I see here in general and was only trying to counter your misinformation. Thanks -- Jeff King, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 10/11/2003 -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
