Exactly... and this conversation just took a hair pin into exactly WHY we're being "muscled out" of the frequencies.
Guys -- if you're going to run, play by the rules. No unlocked radios, compliance with DFS, set to US country code, etc. Matt Hoppes Director of Information Technology Indigo Wireless +1 (570) 723-7312 On 2/14/14, 6:01 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > We're talking about DFS certification requirements for CPEs. They exist :P > > *Josh Reynolds* > Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS > j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com > > On 02/14/2014 01:46 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> The DOD only cares that you stop using the channel. It's up to you if >> you want it to work somewhere else. ;-) >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *"Josh Reynolds" <j...@spitwspots.com> >> *To: *wireless@wispa.org >> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:58:13 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 >> frequencies? >> >> CPE must be DFS compliant as well. CPE has to be able to respond to >> channel change requests from the AP, etc. >> >> *Josh Reynolds* >> Chief Information Officer >> SPITwSPOTS >> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com >> >> On 02/14/2014 12:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> It seems technically quite easy. Set compliance mode on an older >> device and associate to one that is compliant. >> >> Does DFS certification only apply to AP operations or CPE >> operations as well? I'm guessing the former. If that's the case, >> UBNT hasn't done the paperwork to get them certified as CPE >> either, but should be a lot easier as they don't need to pass all >> of the other business. Also, that makes more sense... that your >> AP control what happens in a given area. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *"Matt Hoppes" <mhop...@indigowireless.com> >> *To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> *Cc: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> *Sent: *Friday, February 14, 2014 3:31:32 PM >> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 >> frequencies? >> >> Ummm. And how are you connected uncertified devices to a DFS >> equipped sector? >> >> On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:17, Art Stephens <asteph...@ptera.com >> <mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote: >> >> We have over 600 Airgrids deployed (Which did not get DFS >> approval but we are using the frequencies listed and DFS on >> the Rocket Sectors they connect to. I have been chasing >> jumping bunny rabbits (False Positives from competitors >> putting up new APs)) - cost to replace $6000 not including >> labor costs. And money grows on trees. >> >> All of our other equipment I have reprogrammed and updated to >> bring them up to "legal". >> >> Same with Power Bridges - No DFS - So when the Nano beams came >> out 5.7-5.8 No DFS that triggered my question about the lower >> frequencies whether it seemed like they were going to be >> withdrawn and sold off to the highest bidder. It is all about >> the money after all. >> >> Are we the only ones that deployed so many Airgrids?. >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List >> Account) <li...@packetflux.com <mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> >> wrote: >> >> Yes but the lower ones require DFS and lower power and a >> certified radio. >> >> Your original message was complaining about the removal of >> compliance test mode. The specific purpose of compliance >> test mode is to permit a radio to operate outside of legal >> limits. For instance over the legal power limit or on >> DFS bands without DFS enabled or outside legal channels >> for that radio. >> >> UBNT has stated over and over that their intent was not to >> prevent any legal operation of their radio. I haven't >> heard of any instances where not having compliance mode >> has resulted in a meaningful impact to a legal operator. >> I hate to defend them but in this case it seems like they >> may have gotten it nearly correct. >> >> Is there a specific frequency and power you're using you >> think is legal but isn't permitted unless you turn on >> compliance test mode? >> >> On Feb 12, 2014 2:08 PM, "Art Stephens" >> <asteph...@ptera.com <mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote: >> >> 5265-5320 >> 5500-5580 >> 5660-5700 >> 5735-5840 >> >> Are these not USA channels? >> If am wrong let me know and I will change them. >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller >> <par...@cyberbroadband.net >> <mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>> wrote: >> >> >> Forrest...what is your offlist email ? >> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" >> <li...@packetflux.com <mailto:li...@packetflux.com>> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org >> <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>> >> Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the >> 5265 - 5700 frequencies? >> Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM >> >> >> I'm going to agree with others... >> >> Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to >> the FCC, and it sounds like you are definitely >> running outside the limits since you are whining >> about the ability to run your radios in a mode >> which seems to have no use than to exceed the limits. >> >> I will also add that if you're running all your >> radios hotter than they should be that your nose >> floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My >> experience over the years is that radios are >> designed to run at a specific tx power and if >> you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of >> channel bleed over. Even if the radios don't do >> this you are introducing far more rf than is >> likely needed causing an overall rising of the >> noise floor. >> >> Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. >> We've just all either dealt with an operator like >> you are now or have been an operator like you are >> now. And right now we're trying to gain >> credibility with the FCC which is hard to do when >> some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. >> Which makes us a bit grumpy. >> >> I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would >> love to help you better understand what you are >> doing to yourself and help you improve your >> operations which will in turn improve your quality >> of service. Heck, I'd drive over there for a >> weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed. >> >> In any case please ask for help in appropriate >> spots and let us help you reap the rewards of a >> correctly and legally operating network. >> >> On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens" >> <asteph...@ptera.com <mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> >> wrote: >> >> Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is >> trying to muscle wisps out of these frequencies. >> Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I >> can only speak from that platform. >> First the latest firmware update removes >> compliance test which for about 40% of our >> equipment deployed would render them unusable >> since 5735 - 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher >> noise levels in our area, >> Second is new product released only >> supports 5735 - 5840. >> Seems like DFS is such a pain that >> manufacturers do not want to mess with it. >> Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only >> support 5725-5850 for USA. >> Worldwide version which we are not allowed to >> buy or deploy supports 5170-5875. >> >> Seems the only alternative is to go with >> licensed P2MP which makes more money for the >> FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet >> up for both wisps and consumers. >> >> -- >> Arthur Stephens >> Senior Networking Technician >> Ptera Inc. >> PO Box 135 >> 24001 E Mission Suite 50 >> Liberty Lake, WA 99019 >> 509-927-7837 <tel:509-927-7837> >> ptera.com <http://ptera.com> >> facebook.com/PteraInc >> <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> | >> twitter.com/Ptera <http://twitter.com/Ptera> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> "This message may contain confidential and/or >> propriety information, and is intended for the >> person/entity to whom it was originally >> addressed. >> Any use by others is strictly prohibited. >> Please note that any views or opinions >> presented in this email are solely those of >> the author and are not intended to represent >> those of the company." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Arthur Stephens >> Senior Networking Technician >> Ptera Inc. >> PO Box 135 >> 24001 E Mission Suite 50 >> Liberty Lake, WA 99019 >> 509-927-7837 <tel:509-927-7837> >> ptera.com <http://ptera.com> >> facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> | >> twitter.com/Ptera <http://twitter.com/Ptera> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> "This message may contain confidential and/or >> propriety information, and is intended for the >> person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. >> Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note >> that any views or opinions presented in this email are >> solely those of the author and are not intended to >> represent those of the company." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Arthur Stephens >> Senior Networking Technician >> Ptera Inc. >> PO Box 135 >> 24001 E Mission Suite 50 >> Liberty Lake, WA 99019 >> 509-927-7837 >> ptera.com <http://ptera.com> >> facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> | >> twitter.com/Ptera <http://twitter.com/Ptera> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety >> information, and is intended for the person/entity to whom it >> was originally addressed. >> Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any >> views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of >> the author and are not intended to represent those of the >> company." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
