I would very much second that statement - make sure you are following all the rules for 90z going forward.
Mark > On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, but tricky part is going to be stuff that's still operating legally > under an unexpired license that the SAS can't manage. I think it would be > wise to make sure everything is properly registered and you're not doing > anything questionable if you plan to keep operating under the old rules much > beyond April. > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I was told when I asked about examples being made that hopefully SAS will > sort things out on its own. If it goes outside of SAS being able to manage an > issue, such all illegal operators, particularly when more sensing capability > comes into play with SAS 2.0, you do not want to be the guy who gets nailed. > Apparently this iteration of the SAS modality is an entry run for a much > larger spectrum management, as is the cowboy days are over moving forward > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com > <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Yeah, I agree, they probably will make an example out of a few operators. But > I don't see any reason why they'd bother with somebody who still has a valid > license. They'll probably go after some guys that are blatantly running some > old Ubiquiti or WiMax gear after their license expires. > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:56 AM Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net > <mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote: > > > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com > > <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > <cut> > > > I would assume that if a CBRS operator puts up gear that you're interfering > > with, it's going to be handled pretty much the same way it was under the > > old rules (in other words, work it out with eachother, or shut up and live > > with it)... there's a reason that they made 3650-3700 GAA only. > > > > I would expect the FCC to make an example of a couple of operators who > continue to operate 90z equipment illegally after the license expires. We > all have too much to lose here if the operators are not running legally and > the mobile industry starts another attempt to push everyone out that isn’t a > mobile carrier. > > Mark > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
