It would be like any certification, paperwork documents what, specifically was certified, the mechanism and testing methodologies used, equipment used for testing, environment it was tested in. Base it off the FCC hardware certification. Indemnification for the operator against faulty testing procedure, indemnification for the certifier for putting hands in the cookie jar. Its not a novel concept. Ala cart testing. from free self audit checklist to remote review all the way up to meters in front of antenna with az/el/coordinate, etc. It wouldnt be cheap, but it would be cheaper than a fine The process would have to be something that gives value, not something like a A+ BBB rating that you can just buy. It gives the operator something to present to entities when trying to gain access, like municipalities. Maybe in the long run it gets you a leg up on funding requests. Its not stepping on vendor toes, because vendors dont currently offer it. Its a niche market with high liability for a vendor who doesnt want to be thorough. Maybe thats all WISPAS role is, certifying the certifier.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:51 AM Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: > There have been discussion at the WISPA board level regarding having a > for-profit entity that could do things like this. There were not a lot of > good ideas presented as to what the ‘for profit’ version of the > organization would do that wouldn’t end up stepping on the toes of the > vendor and consultant members though. If you have good suggestions as to > what the ‘for profit’ version should like like the organization is > certainly interested in hearing them. Any revenue and or profit that > WISPA can make helps to cover overhead costs and keep dues down - as long > as it doesn’t result in a boycott by vendors. > > Mark > > On Feb 26, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> 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> > 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 > > > -- > 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
