It seems to me, that just about anybody with the proper knowledge could start a service like that... you'd basically just have to be willing/able to take on the liability for any FCC fines that somebody got on a system that you certified.
One downside to the FCC doing it, is that I think a lot of people would be hesitant to invite the FCC to look at their stuff. WISPA could certainly do it though... heck, they could make it a requirement for membership and clean up the whole industry a lot. On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:47 AM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > I always wished the FCC, or better yet, WISPA would offer a network audit > service. Just to come in and verify compliance. Tier one is just looking at > your configs, doesnt cost a huge amount, tier 2 they actually do EIRP > verification and all that in the field for a bigger price. Id rather pay > some outfit a couple grand than the FCC a whole lot more. I know the FCC > normally issues a cease order before a fine if you have an honest mistake, > but at some point it will just be a fine. People in the past have said "I > can take a look", thats all fine and good, so can I. But can you certify it? > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:41 AM Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: > >> 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> 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> >>> 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> >>> 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> >>>> 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> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Feb 25, 2020, at 5:20 PM, Mathew Howard <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 >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> <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 >> > -- > 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
