[MLB-WIRELESS] 2.4Ghz band, legal stance, wireless stuff

[Tony Langdon, VK3JED]

>The ermm *cough*hypothetical*cough* situation involves a large structure in
>the city, equipment that has been in place for quite a number of years, and
>possibly interferance caused by a business (an ISP for example) that has
>only just placed equipment there in the past month or so. There is a good
>chance there was no site survey done by them to check for existing
>equipment in the same band.

The answer is "it depends".  If both users of the spectrum are running 
under the class licence (either spread spectrum or LIPD), then there's no 
protection from each other.  However, if one of the parties is running a 
licenced service, then they are usually afforded protection from the 
unlicenced devices.  For example, a 2.4 GHz ATV repeater legally has 
protection from WLANs (though with an increasing number of hams in here, 
any conflict resolution might be done as a "gentlemens' agreement" as a 
first preference).

If the affected service is not operating within the ISM band, then the 
answer depends on the cause of the interference.  If the cause is due to 
out of band emissions from WLANs, then the WLANs are operating illegally 
(watch those power hacks!).  OTOH, if the cause is due to a deficiency in 
receiving equipment (e.g. image interference in a downconverter), then the 
problem lies with that gear and not the WLANs.

73 de Tony, VK3JED
http://vkradio.com 


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message