Quite the opposite. You don't know what the customer did before you got
there and after you left. And even a "small" mistake could be a $50,000
problem. A consultant would be crazy to accept liability for FCC fines,
quite the opposite: You'd want them to sign an agreement indemnifying
you from any liability for FCC fines.
On 2/26/2020 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
<SmartSelect_20200226-103532_Chrome.jpg>--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
