EvilByDesire
Premium
join:2002-09-03
Grotto | Cool
Hey, the fcc is actually GOOD for something now... |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Not worth the Brouhaha?
Then why did he stir it up? DUH! 
--
Nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out. |
|
amdfanboy
join:2004-09-15
Rowlett, TX | Who said they are regulating the spectrum?
They could just ban routers and AP's. Last time I checked, those were wern't classified as the "2.4GHz spectrum". Anyway... |
|
gadvice123
join:2004-09-16
Salt Lake City, UT
| PRIVATE dorm
They could just ban routers and AP's. Last time I checked, those were wern't classified as the "2.4GHz spectrum". Anyway...
Remember this was a PRIVATE dorm, not owned by the University with PRIVATE DSL and Cable internet. Some of the people living inthe dorm are not even students. |
|
amdfanboy
join:2004-09-15
Rowlett, TX | Hmm, I didn't know that. In that case I am glad they stopped and I don't even see how they did it in the first place. I thought this was on campus with campus Internet. |
|
PhoenixDown
-- Wants FIOS
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
clubs:   | reply to gadvice123
If its off site then why do they care?
--
Final Fantasy |
|
Mem
join:2002-01-03
USA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to gadvice123
"Residency at Waterview Park Apartments is restricted to UTD students, faculty, staff, and their respective spouses and children."
»www.utdallas.edu/student/slife/h···dex.html |
|
rengaw03
join:2002-09-13
Spokane, WA
| reply to amdfanboy
Re: Who said they are regulating the spectrum?
Who said they were regulating the spectrum? They did.
University of Texas was banning all wireless routers and access points, regardless of whose network they were part of. In short, they were creating a forbidden use of the 2.4GHz spectrum, or in other words, regulating it. |
|
jazzy112
join:2003-12-05
Fargo, ND
| FCC Just protecting their right
to charge enormously high prices for the licensed frequencies.
Some of you are thinking, WTF? If someone were allowed to regulate an unregulated frequency, that would reduce the interest in licensing. Because, If an ISP and a Realator were to Join forces they could tell enough people where to shove it, without paying for the license. |
|
SanJoseNerd
Premium
join:2002-07-24
San Jose, CA
| What debate?
The cited FCC document specifically states that colleges and universities cannot prohibit the use of devices and antennas which are otherwise permitted by FCC rules. This is a rare case where an FCC ruling is actually crystal clear. I don't see how there can be any debate. |
|
exocet_cm
In memory of dadkins
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
clubs:
 ·Cox HSI
·Suddenlink
 ·Cingular Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
·Charter Pipeline
| Obsolutely...
freakin funny!
"There's still some debate over whether or not a landlord owns the airwaves that traverse his property"
HAHA!!! I demand that you keep your airwaves away from my land!
--
I know that God is real, but I don't think He created this vast universe just for us.
Seti@Home & Seti@Boinc |
|
korym
Go Wisp's
ExMod 1999-03
join:1999-12-23
Richmond, VA
clubs:
|  Lots of controversy?
Seems like a lot of posts here reflect the same type of controversy on the hotspots discussion list, archived at:
»www.mail-archive.com/hotspots%40···016.html
Did the University have the right to try to control a federally-mandated ruling, i.e. the FCC's Part 15? On the other hand, if the University owns the apartments, could they enforce rules that do not utilize Part 15, i.e. outside OTARD's jurisdiction?
Interesting. 
Regards,
Kory
--
WISP & Wi-Fi Hotspot Industry News |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to SanJoseNerd
Re: What debate?
Read closely the language at the bottom of page 2 of the PDF file.
"By their terms, these rules apply, among other things, to customer antennas - one meter or less in size - used for transmitting and/or receiving any fixed wireless signal of any commercial nonbroadcast communications signal that is transmitted via wireless technology to or from a customer location." (Emphasis added.) The "commercial" requirement is repeated in the next sentence as well. Additionally, it's not "to or from" a customer location--it's "within" a customer location.
If you're buying Internet access from a WISP, I think this language covers your connection point. If, however, you are just using your own Wi-Fi setup to connect with service you already have, it's not commercial communications because you aren't paying someone for the wireless service involved. (And before you start paying $1 to your neighbor and collecting 1$ from him, recall that commercial wireless service requires FCC approval....)
(For clarity, "broadcast" as used in these FCC rules means transmitted for intended reception by multiple users. A transmission for intended reception by a single receiver is a "nonbroadcast" transmission.)
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
