Yup. Definitely looks like DFS non compliant radios. Sent from my iPad
On Feb 14, 2014, at 22:08, "Jim Patient" <[email protected]> wrote: > Anyone happen to notice the noise on the San Juan TDWR station lately? Must > be a bunch of Airgrids down there J > > https://tinyurl.com/pohpj6o > > > Jim > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List Account) > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 8:27 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? > > I guess the point I was trying to make was that every one of those airgrids > have been illegal to operate in 5.4 since day one. If you're unfortunate > enough to get the FCC's attention you could be fined dearly for operating out > of spec. > > A bit of history. The 5.4 frequency block used to be military and civilian > radar only. As part of the conditions of us gaining access to the band the > concept of DFS was created. The specific purpose of DFS was to protect the > existing, licensed, and primary users of the band. All operations in 5.4 > must use DFS to ensure that radios shut down instead of interfering with the > existing, primary users. Without DFS we would have never been permitted in > the band. > > As hardware came out which was capable of transmitting in the band some > implemented DFS and was certified and legal to operate in 5.4. And some of > it, like the airgrids, could transmit in the 5.4 band but were not legal to > operate in those bands in the US. > > One of the primary users in the 5.4 band is TDWR. This detects micro bursts > at airports where they're common. This is a public safety system run by the > FAA. A couple of years ago the FAA started having interference caused by > various unlicensed operations in this band. Several operators were fined and > as fallout the frequencies used by TDWR were carved out of the band and > cannot be used anywhere even in areas where TDWR isn't used. In addition the > FCC started tightening down on equipment sold in the US and capable of > operating in these bands. > > Which gets us to where we are now. UBNT and others are releasing firmware > updates specifically designed to deny illegal operation. This includes > removing compliance test mode. In theory legal operations should not be > impacted, but operations which should never have been permitted in the first > place will no longer be possible. > > In the bigger picture, illegal operations is a definite strike against our > credibility when we either ask for more bands or defend the ones we already > have, especially if there needs to be some sort of protection to existing > users of the band. > > On Feb 14, 2014 2:17 PM, "Art Stephens" <[email protected]> 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) > <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Forrest...what is your offlist email ? > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <[email protected]> > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> 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 > ptera.com > facebook.com/PteraInc | 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > 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 > facebook.com/PteraInc | 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > 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 > facebook.com/PteraInc | 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
