Re: private 5G networks?

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> If we are talking about wifi 6E on 6 GHz sitting in a parking lot trying
> to cause harmful interference within legal limits will not successfully
> harm the operation within a building, especially not if the owner has a
> security perimeter. Harmful interference on purpose is not legal in any
> case.

Even with a security perimeter, a cantenna or yagi can easily bridge the
gap.

While you are correct that it's just as illegal to intentionally interfere
with the unlicensed wifi bands as it is with CBRS, the difference is that
the FCC and regulatory bodies are much more likely to investigate and take
action against intentional interference in these frequency ranges than they
would be in the unlicensed wifi bands.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 5:44 PM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
wrote:

> tir. 30. nov. 2021 23.19 skrev Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>:
>
> > In my view there is no practical difference. The owner has full control
> > > of his warehouse and it would be very illegal for any outside party to
> > > install any device at all including unauthorised wifi devices.
> >
> >  Nothing illegal about someone sitting in a parking lot next door with a
> > pineapple turned up to 11 that's washing out all the normal wifi spectrum.
>
> If we are talking about wifi 6E on 6 GHz sitting in a parking lot trying
> to cause harmful interference within legal limits will not successfully
> harm the operation within a building, especially not if the owner has a
> security perimeter. Harmful interference on purpose is not legal in any
> case.
>
>
> > It would be illegal to do that with CBRS.
>
> On the other hand, saboteurs rarely care about legal and can easily jam
> either system.
>
> And yet, this is simply not a real problem. Did you know that a larger
> number of train transit systems are controlled by WiFi? Block that WiFi
> signal and the trains stop city wide. But has this ever happened?
>
> Regards
>
> Baldur
>
> >