It 10/24/2022 is what your license says then yes, that is correct. Mark
> On Feb 26, 2020, at 10:37 AM, Chris Fabien <ch...@lakenetmi.com> wrote: > > So sounds like consensus is we can continue to operate under the NN license > until 10/24/2022? > I do have these AP locations registered and will double check power is within > limits. > Thanks > Chris > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, 10:32 AM Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net > <mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote: > 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 >> <mailto: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 <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> > <SmartSelect_20200226-103532_Chrome.jpg>-- > 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
