Re: the economies of scale of a Worldcon, and how to make this topic relevant to Nanog

[Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>]

On 9/23/12, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
> Do FCC regs actually permit that, license-free-band be damned?
[snip]
In the US, operation of  802.11 WiFi  devices in the unlicensed bands
is authorized under part 15 of FCC regulations only;   LICENSED radio
operators,  may  be able to operate wireless networking devices e.g.
WiMax under different rules,  within  their allocated frequency range.

If you know of an access point  that is manufactured and marketed that
intentionally causes radio interference when operated,  then that
might be grounds for a complaint against the FCC certification of the
device,   but  sending forged protocol transmissions that look like
'reject' messages might not count, or may be a gray area; I have not
heard of a ruling on.....  I suppose it is an open question?


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3fb4a93ba82bbca4b37c178c76f1f968&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.16&idno=47


"
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator
is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused
and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the
operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or
unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM)
equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission
representative that the device is causing harmful interference.
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful
interference has been corrected.

(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave)
are prohibited.
"


--
-JH