Ouch!!!! On Aug 22, 2019, at 5:51 PM, Emille Blanc <emi...@abccommunications.com> wrote:
>> 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 >>> >>> [...] >> >
