 
EvilByDesire
Premium
join:2002-09-03
00000 | 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... | |
|  | rengaw03
join:2002-09-13
Spokane, WA
| 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. | |
| 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 | Re: PRIVATE dorm 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. | |
| | | | | 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. | |
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| 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! | |
| | | | | |
|
|
U. Texas Backs Off Wi-Fi Ban
·
·
·
Lots of controversy?