> I don’t know where you’re doing your licensing but I pay about $500 every 10 > years for my license links.
I should have clarified - CA operator here. I expect Industry Canada fees differ quite a bit, but that's about our average for licensing in the upper bands. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Hoppes [mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:43 PM To: Emille Blanc Cc: Bradley Burch; Sean Donelan; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCC Takes Action Against WISPs That Interfered with FCC Weather Radar I don’t know where you’re doing your licensing but I pay about $500 every 10 years for my license links. And $25,000 is what you paid to use the link in legally possibly causing wanton endangerment to life, and then you have to stop using it. > On Aug 22, 2019, at 5:31 PM, Emille Blanc <emi...@abccommunications.com> > wrote: > > $25k seems like a cheap fine, really. Have you seen the price of spectrum > these days? > And links operating in a licensed spectrum tend to incur $1k per link per > year in usage fees. > >> Most gear now will hop frequencies automatically if they receive a DFS >> interference. >> If your gear supports this, turn it on. > > Said gear almost always has an option to ignore it too, thanks to different > regulatory requirements. > > North-American operator: Hey, you're actually in India, so don't do DFS on > those channels! > Radio equipment: 'Kay. > > Queue argument for doing it right and having a link in a non-DFS susceptible > channel to survive those many-minute long radar event triggered outages. > And counter-argument for the increased costs, so what's the point in using > cheap 5GHz radios and spectrum in the first place? > Counter-counter-argument that 5GHz gear is so cheap! Such throughput! Wow! > > I've seen and heard these stories before, and that's usually how it goes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bradley Burch > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:09 PM > To: Sean Donelan > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: FCC Takes Action Against WISPs That Interfered with FCC Weather > Radar > > > Most gear now will hop frequencies automatically if they receive a DFS > interference. > > If your gear supports this, turn it on. > Brad, > >> On Aug 22, 2019, at 3:42 PM, Sean Donelan <s...@donelan.com> wrote: >> >> I haven't been paying attention to the WISP market, so I'm not up to speed >> on these issues. >> >> >> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-fines-against-wisps-and-issues-warning-industry-0 >> >> The Federal Communications Commission’s Enforcement Bureau today announced >> proposed fines and issued a formal industry warning related to devices that >> apparently caused interference to the Federal Aviation Administration’s >> terminal doppler weather radar station in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The >> Enforcement Bureau proposed three separate $25,000 fines against wireless >> Internet service providers Boom Solutions, Integra Wireless, and WinPR. >> >> [...] >> >> In addition to the proposed fines, the Bureau’s Enforcement Advisory warned >> operators, manufacturers, and marketers of Unlicensed National Information >> Infrastructure devices that these devices must be certified under FCC rules. >> Such devices that operate in the 5.25 GHz to 5.35 GHz and 5.47 GHz to 5.725 >> GHz bands risk interfering with radar systems if not properly configured to >> share the spectrum >> >> [...] >
