If you were certified, and you received a fine, then whoever did the certification absolutely should be the one accountable. Thats the entire purpose, ensuring you are compliant. Its no different the your CPI in CBRS
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:02 PM Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com> wrote: > True, but then any certification you did wouldn't mean much. The only way > I see that you can make a certification actually mean something is if it > gives them so level of guarantee that they won't get fined. > > Although, I guess if it's a certification that comes from an organization > with enough credibility that everyone can assume they actually do know what > they're talking about (WISPA being the obvious one), then it could mean > something without accepting any liability. > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:41 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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> >> 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
