I was just speaking theoretical. Don't do any of the things I mentioned. 



----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Matt Hoppes" <mhop...@indigowireless.com> 
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 5:03:53 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? 

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 

_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Reply via email to