Inline reply's On 2/8/2011 11:31 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: I agree with this totally.On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Charles N Wyble <char...@knownelement.com> wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1On 02/08/2011 02:23 PM, Jack Unger wrote:Comments inline. jack On 2/8/2011 2:09 PM, Blair Davis wrote:Some serious enforcement is in order. Major fines for repeated offense... $100K or more for 2nd offense...Serious fines and maybe total revocation of $Individual/$corp to transmit RF at all. I am all for the steel boot <after> the first warning. Sometimes slipups happen. Repeated slipups is clear intent. Why? Because it will likely raise the cost of the equipment quite a bit to include the GPS hardware and the database access system...Last month we recommended to the FCC OET that they publicize actions against offenders who they locate. This would help get the message out that this is a serious problem and that enforcement is in fact taking place.That would be nice to see for many reasons.Is that covered at http://fcc.gov/eb/Orders/Welcome.html or http://fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/ ?I'd rather see the TDWR band notched out than any kind of required GPS and database...Why? I think we operators need to work out a policing deal with the FCC. If there was a easy way for the FAA/FCC to let us know that interference is happening at site ABC. Maybe a simple email list that we sign up to. This would be more akin to hams self policing. I do /not/ want to lose the band. Maybe we need a database that we can report links that we see and their locations/suspected locations. I know I have seen many illegal links and reports to the FCC fall on deaf ears so long ago I stopped trying to report it. I could go for a 'licensed lite' system for the 5.4 band... but, if there is no better enforcement on 5.4 than there is on 3.65, what is the point?Notching may be the ultimate outcome for all new equipment. The disadvantage is that notching deprives everyone from using the spectrum, even the 90% of operators who are nowhere near a TDWR system.Maybe the FCC needs to 'notch' the TDWR areas, like the 3.650 exclusion zones. I would hate for such large areas to lose access but /I/ do not want to lose access because others are being /%$#@/ I mentioned this a month or two back...Very true.What is going on with the 3.65 stuff? I still think we need some kind of license enforcement there...Why?WISPA recently had it's first 3650 Steering Committee meeting and it was agreed that major work (education, best practices, possible rules changes, etc.) is needed because the interference situation is getting way out of hand.Hmmm. Interesting. That's news to me. Where does one see info about the violations? Is it happening on private lists or something? I don't recall any complaints on the WISPA general list about it. There arealso more and more illegal (unlicensed) "bootleggers" using the band. One solution (among many) is to use a regional email list to coordinate between different operators. This is in use now in Phoenix.Hmmmm. Well illegal/unlicensed use is a clear enforcement action and should be referred to the FCC EB. Coordination among entities... as I recall that was very vague in the R&O.Is the FCC feeling pressure to do the enforcement side of its job and not wanting to, or is it unable, or ? I am all for helping them clean things up. How can we as wisps do this and how can wispa help us and the FCC? A) WISPS need a open place to report things we see B) The FCC needs a place to report to us when it see's/receives a report of interference. Thoughts? In an area with NO other registered 3.65 locations, I have already found 3.65 gear in use. Especially, UBNT NSM365 gear used as PtP to link up house to barn and so on... I have proposed that equipment sellers be required to check for an FCC license before selling 3.65 gear. I also KNOW of a WISP that was planning on deploying 3.65 gear without a license at all. - -- Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars http://www.knownelement.com Mobile: 626 539 4344 Office: 310 929 8793 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNUgaFAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAteVwP/iZ/0b6im8NQhJXXIJxR+0V9 3vhg+UegyqimJJkMPnwKBdSrW/i2FBVDc1LHftkn1aEOjj5GamoeiAnV6umG3VbF r23XC5vvUCr3drosgprLr3FHXi2wQE+D+ToYCB+YdU3bklvHD/AJ4hTZKfM6ZDJK Vo4cNflKC28o+D9qlwvjheFflhkxf1dBl7eAJe+wvxtHXqgE/tfOig+20wRXBQea ruyD40BWNLPOCqcjafHCto3zzgTMX03hqwKqT8a+bvdqOrAoAHsZUIv7RFhOY6Xv oVMJZMDgzrZUUCq+LHBgZZ33+Xr94uABqKz+1JMjwdCPUNe8POBOU7st6RkHPjkj l+J55/xlV7KMq3eS+pvGEVFY7Vt26oPo1AHhIvdutkrkYVtWmAvcmPQAReTmUfZQ QsdGv/U/mqms2Kd0ujSaGFvQk8kwC5Nl5Hi7nnObc5nbRao53z/KiB4PGycfIiw9 N5IcL8Cay+nl+OqYYX4VdIU2laWFQh7Vst5ZH+MXk3wXvGFb0TIKexLimAdXO66Z 3kHWXYZhEUAQ+QQQ6mJLKWAly1tlmyL3FqLrUQKNpISEWpysqOuxxpBw8jlwrdaj Xq9F36fRZvj8CqyImQdPQaFQq5NKdANMHTXS5b3G8cBNF1/NJQUJb/8ecwuK2iw6 FtnI80BWXzQwIe/bfPci =3Dzr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/