[Commotion-discuss] Interesting discussion on WISPA listserv about the cable ISP hotspots

[Joshua Breitbart]

No, not federal, obviously. I'm thinking more like using design
standards or noise pollution. Has anyone got creative there?

On 11/15/13 1:10 PM, Ben West wrote:
> I believe the nature of FCC certification of unlicensed devices is that the
> devices (and their users) have to tolerate potentially destructive
> interference.  This could mean that operator(s) of unlicensed devices may
> chose to configure their radios so as to render the spectrum unusable (even
> by their own radios), whether by intention or by negligence, that being
> their prerogative.
> 
> Things like HAM and military radar will indeed impose external restrictions
> on where/when unlicensed devices may be used, but as long as any device is
> not broadcasting above the TX power limit stipulated in its certification,
> there is nothing bodies like the FCC would be empowered or inclined to do.
> 
> I would like to think there are some paths available for lodging complaints
> about poor spectrum usage by specific parties, even for unlicensed bands,
> but I'm fairly certain those paths would be steeply uphill.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Joshua Breitbart <breitbart at newamerica.net
>> wrote:
> 
>> Is there any way to regulate that kind of hardware and noise pollution
>> at the local level?
>>
>> On 11/15/13 12:03 PM, Ben West wrote:
>>> There is an interesting discussion going on right now on the WISPA
>> listserv
>>> (Wireless Internet Service Provider Association) about the hotspots being
>>> hung on coax lines by US cable ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner, etc to
>>> distribute service via 802.11 to existing subscribers.
>>>
>>> This was brought about by Comcast's recent appeal to the FCC to free up
>>> more of the 5.GHz band for more "unlicensed" use (aka so they can use the
>>> band for cheaper):
>>>
>> http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-testifies-to-congress-today-in-support-of-gigabit-wi-fi-2
>>>
>> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/496570-Comcast_to_Congress_Freeing_Up_More_5_GHZ_WiFi_Spectrum_Is_Crucial.php?rssid=20065
>>>
>>> The WISPA discussion archive is only visible to list members, but those
>>> interested should be able to subscribe here:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> The actual hotspot being deployed is a product made by Ruckus, which
>>> apparently retails for a thrifty 5000$US.
>>>
>> http://www.ruckuswireless.com/press/releases/20130610-ruckus-adds-zoneflex-7781cm-access-point-to-its-portfolio
>>> http://www.ruckuswireless.com/products/zoneflex-outdoor/7781cm
>>>
>>> Much of the discussion on the WISPA lists includes concern over the cable
>>> operators' apparent apathy over the spectrum pollution they cause
>> (possibly
>>> in 2.4GHz *and* 5.8GHz) by scattering these devices all over creation.
>>  It
>>> would seem that ensuring appropriate TX power levels, so that even the
>>> cable operators' own subscribers get good connection to the APs, may not
>> be
>>> a high priority. :(
>>>
>>> A potential upshot is that the very high price for the Ruckus unit could
>> be
>>> used by listmembers here for their own funding applications, to the
>> effect
>>> of, "the cable company pays $5000 for just one of their fancy hotspots!
>>> The same funds could build a mesh across this entire block."  Member of
>> the
>>> WISPA list have already jumped on this very fact, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Commotion-discuss mailing list
>>> Commotion-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commotion-discuss mailing list
>> Commotion-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-discuss
>>
>>
> 
>