Good point on RADAR fragility. We need to keep asking for more spectrum where we are the priority without government users above us, but we will only get that in higher, non-foliage penetrating spectrum. AKA things the cellular guys don't want.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181)" <[email protected]> To: [email protected], "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 12:29:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using5630-5800 Mhz Yeah, it’s unfortunately part of the risk we take to use an otherwise free band. It’s important enough now though that they really need to come up with a large chunk of protected space for us. The really stupid part of all of this? If the RADAR systems are that fragile, what good are they really going to be for anyone in today’s world? marlon From: Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:31 AM To: Jack Unger ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using5630-5800 Mhz Update.... Last week we (along with other RF users in the community) were invited to the AFB to meet the folks that run the radar there and to see the spectrum analyzer screens. During this meeting, it was discussed that what the AF was trying to accomplish was to remove all users within 60Km from using 5630-5800Mhz. It was discussed that this seemed to be a doomed request because of the sheer number of users in the spectrum within such a large geographical area. How would they remove all users from this spectrum, even within several miles of the radar... lots of hotels, condos, businesses etc... literally thousands of them. I'm not sure if they are going after the low hanging identifiable fruit or if they really plan on going door to door... They said things were sort of in a holding pattern with the FCC because they were contacted by a WISPA rep and others and there were some discussions going on above our pay grade locally. Well, here we are today. I guess the outcome of those meetings was that we need to stop using the spectrum identified. Here is the email sent from the FCC field officer to the local range folks that was forwarded to me: ======================================= FROM: FCC Agent TO: CONNOLLEY, SCOTT D GS-13 USAF AFSPC 45 SCS/SCOT Subject: Meeting to discuss Interference to Radar at Patrick AFB Scott, I've reviewed your report concerning radio interference to a C-Band (5 GHz) tracking radar at Patrick AFB. I understand that you have contacted several of the Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISP's) in the area to advise them of the problem and have been met with some resistance to assist you. I would like to have a meeting with you and the WISP's to discuss this problem and open up a discussion as to what steps can be taken to find a solution. WISP's operate under Part 15 of the FCC Rules and may not cause harmful interference. 47 C.F.R. § 15.5 General conditions of operation. (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter. (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator. (c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected. (d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited. I propose that we have our first meeting on Wednesday, 6/18/14, at Patrick AFB. Thanks, Don Roberson Sr. Agent Tampa Office Enforcement Bureau FCC Office: 813-348-1741 ext 105 ======================================= So, its that easy? Local AF guy makes a request whether reasonable or not, and thats the way it is? I understand moving off the 5765Mhz and having guard space on either side maybe 20Mhz, but they want the whole band to stop being used whether its even in the radar LOS or not, which is an unreasonable request, IMO. This meeting of the minds will apparently happen this coming Wednesday here locally. Anyone have anything to add, other than good luck? Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 >From : "Jack Unger" <[email protected]> Sent : Monday, June 02, 2014 12:49 PM To : [email protected] Subject : Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Yes. Thanks ! On 6/2/2014 9:24 AM, Scott Carullo wrote: Does this work: Scott Connolley, GS-13, DAF DoD Eastern Area Frequency Coordination Office 45 Space Communications Squadron Patrick Air Force Base Florida COMM: (321) 494-5838 DSN 854 [email protected] Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 >From : "Jack Unger" mailto:[email protected] Sent : Monday, June 02, 2014 12:20 PM To : "WISPA General List" mailto:[email protected] Subject : Re: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz Guys, I'm working on getting some clarification on this issue. Let's try to hold off on the public speculation for a little while on this very public email list while I try to get more information. If anyone has additional concrete information, please email it to me. Specifically, does anyone have a link to DoD Eastern Area Frequency Coordination Office? Thanks, jack On 6/2/2014 9:13 AM, Patrick Leary wrote: <blockquote> I'd be shocked if the military could claim unilateral authority for restricting 170 MHz of long-established ISM spectrum (nor 120 MHz of UNII). I hope we read an authoritative opinion via from Steve Coran. Patrick Leary M 727.501.3735 From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 11:52 AM To: [email protected] ; WISPA General List; [email protected] Subject: [WISPA] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz I am following up in hopes that some of you smart fellas can offer suggestions. Recap: USAF Calls / emails asking to please identify all 5Ghz emitters operating on or near 5765Mhz and either turn them off or change RF settings to not fall under that category so that RFI to their tracking radar can be reduced. How the radar works: Apparently the radar has multiple modes for tracking / interrogating space-bound craft. In its primary mode, it sends a pulse out on 5672Mhz and then listens for the echo (normal radar operation). It then has another mode, where it sends an interrogation request to the vehicle (satellite / rocket etc) on 5690Mhz and then listens for a reply from the vehicle on 5765Mhz at least for some commercial space launches. DoD military launches etc. also are tracked / interrogated this same way but the listen freq. is something other than 5765Mhz (probably classified). So - the prob the USAF has with RFI is related to hearing the vehicle interrogation response on 5765Mhz - and only while sitting on the pad and the first few seconds of flight. A few seconds after launch, the gigantic parabolic dish (~65db gain on 5Ghz) with its <1deg beam-width has effectively muted out most of the RFI to the sides as it starts to track up. We (and others / cable company etc) worked with them to not only re-program our equipment we felt could be causing RFI to their radar, but to track down others we could see operating equipment centered on their 5765Mhz freq. We were able to continue this process until the radar was able to track / interrogate successfully, from what information I was relayed. We attempted to work with them to be good neighbors and hopefully avoid a situation where we were told all emitters regardless of their effect on the radar (even ones that were not causing them issues) would need to be removed from service in some fashion. Here we are today. The USAF has now decided to create a 60Km zone around each of their tracking radars and request that we not only keep equipment off the 5765Mhz they listen on but everything in the range from 5630 - 5800 Mhz just for good measure. I feel such a blanket request is not reasonable. Cut and past from their DoD Eastern Area Frequency Coordination Office: =========== Mr WISP, I received the 5 GHz exclusion the range is requesting around their radars (Graphic available here: http://flhsi.com/files/radar.PNG ). The spheres are centered on each radar and have a radius of 60 km. No emitters in these spheres should be allowed to transmit from 5630 - 5800 MHz. I am drafting up a request for public notice to FCC today. When approved, I will let you know. =========== So my question is this.... Is it realistic or even remotely possible this becomes an FCC official rule? I would ask anyone / everyone with a vested interest in this (do you use 5Ghz?) to respond. Thank you for your time. Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 Image removed by sender. >From : "Scott Carullo" mailto:[email protected] Sent : Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:02 PM To : [email protected] Subject : [WISPA] Air Force Base / KSC Launch RFI Question Good morning, We operate between two local Air Force bases and near KSC as well. We were notified recently that the AFB has resorted to using an older radar system that was previously retired due to the newer range radar system catching fire or something to that effect. During the two months or so the repairs are expected to take we have had several space launches scheduled during this window from CCAFS / KSC. The USAF has fired up the old radar and has recently contacted us asking about equipment we have in the area at customer premises. I asked the frequency coordinator what freq their radar uses he said the center freq was 5735 and that it had a very wide bandwidth of like 100 Mhz basically taking the whole ISM/UNII bands worth of spectrum in 5Ghz. So any way to the point... When the USAF shows up and says hey, I see you are using FCC approved equipment in accordance to the FCC spectrum rules the equipment was designed to operate in on freq 5765Mhz - but I need you to turn it off to see if its your equipment we are seeing - and if it is please change freq "preferably below 5600 MHz or above 5850 MHz" (actual quoted request). Obviously we can't accommodate their request for several reasons,most notably because the equipment nor the FCC allows it. I'm just curious if any of you have had anything like this happen and what your response was / would be. I try to be a nice neighbor and work with them any way possible but them trying to shut down the whole 5Ghz non-licensed upper band all our equipment uses (including every other cable and wireline providers wifi 5Ghz equipment in the county) to work their range RFI issues is a bit much and ultimately unattainable within the 3 days they have left prior to launch, IMO. Any insight or suggestions you smart fellers have would be appreciated. I am particularly interested in those more intimate with FCC rules regarding this situation. Do I have to comply? Do they have legal justification to just say - turn it off... etc Thanks... I appreciate your time in responding. Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 Image removed by sender. ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ************************************************************************************ _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list [email protected] http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" Serving the WISP Community since 1993 760-678-5033 [email protected] </blockquote> -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" Serving the WISP Community since 1993 760-678-5033 [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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
