Ray, Perhaps this is a terminology issue. There must be some specification for emissions (intended or not) that the device must meet during certification / testing. I believe you're focusing on intentional emissions, and Andy is speaking to any emissions.
I don't think it's reasonable to state that a device it must have 0W -Inf dBm emissions at channel 38, if it intends to use any channels nearby? -vince On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 18 Sep 2013, at 22:01, Andy Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > lots of interesting stuff... :) > > Andy, your examples are good. If the FCC regime folks want to specify > channel edge emission masks that's OK with me, so long as it doesn't > prohibit the ETSI approach at the same time. > > However on this particular point: > > Not having looked at Ofcom's data set yet, I think it's a little > premature to say that they will be silent or explicitly omit data for > channel 38. > > > I must disagree. As mentioned last week, OFCOM have specifically said in > their most recent consultation document in ยง5.93: > > "Consequently, given the risk of harmful interference and the very > stringent emission limits, we believe it would be prudent not to allow WSD > operation in channel 38". > > which we read as a very strong steer that they expect the WSD to specify > (by omission, since that's the ETSI model) 0W (-Inf dBm) EIRP on channel 38. > > kind regards, > > Ray > > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
