Best of the ISP-Lists

News

FCC Fines Puerto Rico WISP $20,000

The FCC needs to produce clear and simple guidelines, or almost every WISP in the U.S. could be liable for fines.

by Alex Goldman ISP-Planet Managing Editor [Febuary 1, 2006]

On the ISP-Wireless list in February, GW wrote:

This is an example of Part-15 rules being broken. This has been going on for years and they recently fined:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-269874A1.html

[CB replied] "Seems someone was out to get them or they were interfering with a licensed operator. Not saying it was right, just that it seems they were singled out since several locations were checked at the same time."

[GW agreed] "Yeah, another local WISP new about the infringement and referred it to the local FCC office."

What the FCC did
On this advice, we looked up the finding, available in .doc and .pdf format at the link noted above.

The FCC reports that they found that San Juan, Puerto Rico-based Neptuno Networks operated 68 sites using Axxcelera equipment in various 5 GHz frequencies.

When approached by the FCC, the WISP admitted that its equipment was overpowered, according to the rules, and that the equipment had been running in this configuration for the past five years.

If we read the order correctly, the FCC could have fined the WISP $10,000 per site, for a total of $680,000, but chose instead to fine the company $20,000 (for two sites?), perhaps choosing to be lenient because the WISP had cooperated with the investigation.

The investigation took place in June of 2006. The fine was issued on January 23, 2007.

So what, exactly, are the rules? The order lists several, including 47 C.F.R. 15.407. We tried looking it up on the FCC's own website, but had no luck with a search system that looks no more sophisticated than that which public libraries had 15 years ago. Luckily, google exists. A quick search led us to this document, which, though comprehensive, is neither clear, nor succinct, nor useful.

Before issuing fines to businesses which have been operating for years without harming anyone, the FCC should make the rules clear.

For example, the FCC says, "Section 15.407(e) of the Rules provides that '[w]ithin the 5.15-5.25 GHz band, U-NII devices will be restricted to indoor operations to reduce any potential for harmful interference to co-channel MSS operations." Yet, we suspect that other WISPs in the U.S. are operating in this band outdoors, and believe that they are allowed to do so. Many (but not all) members of the ISP-Wireless list appear to be aware of this part of the U-NII rules.

Whose fault is this?
It is not clear whether or not the WISP knew that it was violating any rules. According to the FCC, Neputuno had purchased Axxcelera equipment licensed for the U-NII bands, but was operating the equipment in some U-NII bands and in some bands that are not U-NII unlicensed.

Should Axxcelera be liable? The FCC could not hold Axxcelera liable, because its equipment had already been certified. But the FCC neatly dodges saying whether or not the equipment had been altered or changed in order to violate the rules, writing:

"The Axxcelera equipment used by Neptuno is certified for use in the U-NII bands and complies with the technical requirements set forth in Section 15.407 of the Rules. According to the equipment's specifications, it operates at power levels far in excess of the general radiated emission limit specified in Part 15. Also according to the equipment's specifications, users cannot alter the equipment's power settings. Therefore, based on the information available to us, Neptuno operated its intentional transmitters at power levels greater than allowed in Section 15.209 of the Rules."

We interpret this to mean that the FCC chose not to investigate Axxcelera.

We believe that this case is important not because of the specific details of any infraction by Neputuno or Axxcelera, but because the FCC has consistently failed to provide realistic and understandable rules for operation (although the FCC is doing better than it was five years ago, when Jim Wagner wrote the article linked to below).

We urge that regulation be simplified. We urge the FCC to make it easier to deploy new wireless broadband services.

For a start, the FCC's Wireless Broadband Task Force could make a list of all rules pertaining to wireless broadband.

Feedback
DR on the ISP-Wireless list replies:

The Axxcelera gear that the WISP was using is old Adaptive Broadband gear (AB-Access). I happen to have the manual for this system sitting on my desk.

Page 1-3 of the U-NII Configuration and User's Guide System 4.1/EMV4.2, dated 8/21/00 says: "Lower band (channels 0-4) are for indoor use only as dictated by the [FCC]..." Below this is a chart that shows that 5.15-5.25 have a max power of 200mW EIRP.

I recall that this is covered a number of different places throughout the /very/ comprehensive documentation.

Now what's the point of the above? The article says: "It is not clear whether or not the WISP knew that it was violating any rules." If they didn't know, it's their own fault. They failed to read the documentation and failed to read the rules that cover the spectrum they chose to use.

—End