state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost
ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action.
There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or
competitors.
I disagree. The reason is....
I have the right to install a Point to Point Link between any two buildings
that I want. And if that is to pass low volume monitoring traffic so be it.
If it happens to pass through a Competor's link so be it. Knowing that it
passes a competitor's link and will take it down is irrelevent, as I can
establish a legitimate need to install that link. I've made no threat to
anyone for the specific case that arises, in that process, and I have a
legitimate purpose other than to take someone down. I just don't care that
I know someone will go down as a result, in that scenario. That is
absolutely no different than the original installer that isntalled with ZERO
care of who they were going to take down when they isntalled. The difference
is the tables are turned and it forces the original party to take the burden
of the cost, and motivate the interfering party to be more considerate,
after they demonstrated that they originally did not have any consideration.
I've never seen a case won where, Provider A takes down PRovider B, And then
Provider B equalizes things to defend their link, and Provider A tried to
SUE provider B, when Provider B was the original one that got Harmed by A.
There would be absolutely no sympathy for the situation of Provider A. If
anything, it could be argued by PRovider B, that Provider A initiated
intentional harm, and knew you were there to harm you. That would be jsut
as easy to prove as the reverse. Bringong attention to this type of thing in
Court would jsut be foolish. It would be a different story If Provider B
pointed directly at Provider A, in a way that it could be proven that the
intent was solely to harm. Your mentality suggests that it is the burden of
the person that gets interfered with to eat the cost to identify and source
out the new interferer. It takes time and money to identify the person that
interferes with me. I believe it is the New Entrant that has the
responsibility to make sure they minimize the chances they will not step on
an existing someone.
Its also harder to prove intentional harm, when you haven't identified who
the individual is that you are harming.
Its a simple morality issue of...
1. Do on to others as you would want them to do for you.
2. when that fails, eye for an eye, to get them to think about rule 1.
3. when they find you, and the phone call comes in, work amicably to
resolve.
I'm not sure there is a better way to deal with interference. However, I am
open to suggestions.
The truth is, its rare that this methodology has to ever occur. The reason
is that most WISPS and integrators respect etiquette. And we always first
look if there is a more cost effective way to resolve the problem, such as
narrow our antenna beam, or repointing around interference. And if we can
easilly find the other party, we'd usually try an make a call first. But the
problem occurs when, the other party is not easily found, (the antenna is
easy to find, the responsible party isn't always in a timely manor), and the
link quality can not be quickly be resolved. The provider that gets
interferred with is desperate and has a client to answer to, and then
extreme measures are needed. When at that point, its about survival, and
setting an example, because the last thing you want is a loose canon
integrator in town.
I am not making any accusation of whether you are or are not deploying
responsibly with etiquette, but simply defending my case of how interference
gets dealt with in the real world. But the problem isn't me and my
suggestions. I only had to use the equalizer once, and it was effective, and
I even shared the cost of upgrading gear to make a resolutiuon to co-exist.
What needs to be understood is there are a lot of players out there, and
they are likely to respond the way that I suggested.
The bully or I'm stronger approach just doesn't work in unlicensed, the only
things that works is maximum effort to avoid interference.
With that said I believe that this thread is getting way beyond the scope of
what the original thread was. As the intent of the thread was whats a good >
100mbps FDX radio, and it appears suggestions like Exalt, are going in the
right direction, as responsible choices.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] high throughput backhaul options
Tom DeReggi wrote:
If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the
interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio
using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our cellsite
or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be taken down
(made unusable) within 24 hours, that I promise and guarantee. Why do I
say that, because I'm follow your advise Bob, business is business. What
comes around goes around. I got a radio on the shelf that I call the
Equalizer ready and waiting, and 200 class A/B roof tops to create a
ligitimate PtP link to take it down. NOBODY is above/invulnerable to
interference. And a tech is fooling theirself is their strategy is they
are always going to deploy smarter than the next guy. We all have the
same gear available to us.
The above both in your suggested course of action and the fact that you
state it on a public mailing list easily searchable by Google almost
ensures a law suit should you ever take your suggested course of action.
There are numerous better ways to deal with interference and/or
competitors.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
