It works like this Doug.
A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be
sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card
in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's
own built in antenna or the antenna build
Just to be absolutely clear since this topic has generated a lot of
'assumptions'. I have NOT confirmed with the FCC that a
routerboard/wrap/gateworks SBC is considered a unintentional radiator I
have just made the statement that *I* don't see how it could be
considered an intentional radiator
Joe wrote:
Not sure about now but when smartbridges came out with Nexus line it had a a
few extra channells. And it was certified.
Did you know it was Pac Wireless who paid for the certifications on the
original Smart Bridges, not Smart Bridges?
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wi
Not sure about now but when smartbridges came out with Nexus line it had a a
few extra channells. And it was certified.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:57 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE:
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
All,
I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final
say in what can and cannot be certified.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietr
Ryan Langseth wrote:
I made one comment in this entire thread, which I am already regretting.
I hardly consider that vocal.
My bad, Ryan, My bad. I did not mean to lump you in with a few vocal
people..
My comment was not meant to be sarcastic, I would like to see a ruling
on it one way or a
Or fear that their competition is watching... it's bad enough I have my
competitors actually climbing my towers to see what equipment I am
using... it's hard to give any more info here... :(
Travis
Microserv
George Rogato wrote:
I wonder how many wisps who would usually discuss their infrastru
I wonder how many wisps who would usually discuss their infrastructure
and talk about their issues and performance of the equipment they are
using, etc, no longer say a word on this list because of the fear
mongers who have them running scared?
We used to have lots of wisps discussing this stu
Aperto has had 3650 equipment available for testing since 05, nothing new
here
Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 20
Sam,
Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear. If a "system board" is
certified then the "operating system" is certified for "FCC" and of
course your mini-pci was certified by the manufacturer.
Now anybody can attach an antenna and have it certified. Total
certification.
You have a Good Day n
Jeromie,
That's good info. We had a report today on the WISPA Certification list
of six Netgear WGR614v6s. The first five or so had the Region
configuration field "greyed out" so that other regulatory domains could
not be selected. These units had "NA" after the firmware version -
possibly st
Read the manual for the WGX102, it plainly says you have have to
select the correct regulatory domain and that not doing so could is a
violation. I was not able to find my paper manual for the WPN824 but I
think it was the same (It might be the WGR614's that are)
On 6/11/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PR
OK. Which non-legal channel did you confirm that it transmitted on?
Jeromie Reeves wrote:
Already looked into that and it does use non legal channels if you
tell it to. I only "shoot from the hip" when I have a target, and I
plainly do in this case. "Seek first to understand, and then to be
unde
Already looked into that and it does use non legal channels if you
tell it to. I only "shoot from the hip" when I have a target, and I
plainly do in this case. "Seek first to understand, and then to be
understood" is >exactly< why I asked for your contact instead of
running to the one I have used
For the record, I don't feel that you "have no credibility because you
no longer run a WISP", I just don't agree with you and if 15.201-221 is
your basis for the belief that a RB can't be considered under component
rules I have to believe that you don't understand what a RB is.
It is NOT an in
But the base product, the "computer" does not start life as an intentional
radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an
intentional radiator as a whole?
When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load
of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified N
Butch Evans wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dawn DiPietro wrote:
How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing
on this discussion?
The question was, however, why it matters to you what gear WISPs are
using. Sounds like George agrees with me in his opinion of your harpin
Sam,
Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a
WISP I will let you decide from this information provided.
Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the
wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers.
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rul
Does anyone have the Orthogon MIB? I'm looking to set it up in The Dude, but I
wanted to make sure that I had exactly what Orthogon set it up for.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://
Jeromie,
Before we go accusing the FCC of anything, I'd suggest we test one of
your routers and to see if it really transmits outside of the US
frequency band.
Also, out of respect for eveyone else on this list, please read my
previous posts today regarding what "non-US" appears to mean so I
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dawn DiPietro wrote:
How would the number of customers I had on my network have any
bearing on this discussion?
The question was, however, why it matters to you what gear WISPs are
using. Sounds like George agrees with me in his opinion of your
harping on this issue.
I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be
certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is
allowed with a PC/laptop.
And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is
that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rul
The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it asks
is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it and not
MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to pose this
question directly to
You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band. The article that was posted
implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that
stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use. I seem to remember
they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.
Sam Tetherow
Sa
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers
(including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't
kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of
the other folks
"How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on
this discussion?"
Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a resident is
more qualified to answer. Certainly the intern is not to be considered a
dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real
Brad,
IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz sub-band
outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this sub-band.
The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that frequency
sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low power level.
The law
Stephen,
Yes; very interesting indeed. Clearly Cisco is trying to keep users of
their equipment from using it illegally, either intentionally or by
accident. I think the FCC is also trying to achieve the same thing -
legal operation. Nobody welcomes being regulated. WISPs would probably
choos
Right, I know that.
Apparently I wasn't all that clear in that post.
Mikrotik is catching slack because you are technically able to do something
like that, yet no one has a beef with the other systems that have the same
functionality.
This also applies to frequency usage.
-
Mike Hammet
I think we can all agree that gear certification is the law. Could we
maybe kill this thread off before we start losing list members from the
inflation of the number of posts about this seemingly elementary topic?
Scriv
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
George,
As I said in my post wireless providers do
Thanks, Sam !!
Sam Tetherow wrote:
I check my highgainantenna and ez bridge equipment tonight and get
back to you on those two. I know the options are there in the
software, but I haven't confirmed with an SA that it actually
broadcasts outside of the US bands.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills
Well, there are several reports from people who have said that their
radio (or some radio they've heard about) can be configured to work on
non-US frequencies but no actual reports of transmissions on non-FCC
frequencies so clearly if we are to understand this issue and move
forward, we need to
The city and university are putting out an RFP, so I'm assuming that I'd
have access to their poles. I would like to have rooftop access (and I know
I can get it in a couple locations). What I need for this to work really
all depends on what I hear back on the usefulness of sectors in this sor
Mike,
I'll do my best to answer your specific questions; I'll not attempt to
answer your more vaguely-worded general statements because there are too
many assumptions implied that I'm sure you understand but that are not
clear to me.
Certification has EVERYTHING to do with power. The FCC lim
George,
As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to
be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they
need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among
some on this list.
How would the number of customers I had on my ne
I think that is an extra burden Mikrotik should not have to face. There
are many other manufacturers who somehow get certification with software
country codes which set the limits and are selected by the end user. If
the FCC is allowing some but not all of them to do this then that is not
fair.
Wow. Do you have access to rooftops and/or light poles?
Mikrotik w/ mesh allows lots of flexibility in a power-only situation. I
use it all the time. You may need a big backhaul mesh arrangement.
Other options include Meraki Mesh, a good value @ only $99/outdoor,
$49/indoor, and a wall-adapter
oh, I should mention that this is a 300 x 1400 yard area... 22 city blocks.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: [
I have successfully used a pair of SR2s, 9db 120 degree sectors on either
side of a "middle" hallway hotel (where it's narrow and long, with a hallway
in the middle), up to 8 stories tall from the parking lot and the pool deck.
For a longer hotel, say a 240 room, 7 story hotel (lower 2 floors, no
When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the whole
area. Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities. Does a
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards with
output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of m
Still, Mikrotik could offer a FCC-only license code - or make all license
codes FCC only, and for no charge offer an additional world license
(included free with all non-US orders).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Monday,
Patrick,
I will say, that your words spoken, are wise words.
However, whether what the FCC gave us, is the best thing or not, has many
persectives, and a debate could only be won after watching this case in the
future over time.
I look at this as a big victory for WISPs.
3650 is a "experiment
Or maybe it was Adaptive Broadband gear that allowed the end user to break
the rules? Anyone remember?
Best,
Brad
-Original Message-
From: Brad Belton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:56 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT B
Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have? The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.
So, if this is the ca
This "FCC country-code-lock-down" question is interesting.
Doing a quick "google" I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan)
Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
Is that really a necessary question,
It sure is to find out where she's coming from.
As a wisp, a long term wisp, as the person that bootstrapped this tiny
bbs-isp from the dial up days in 99 to where we are today, who has put
his money where his mouth is, and taken all
I need to ask a favor for those of you who may be looking at membership
in WISPA. If you want to take part in this election then you will need
to get me your application and payment by no later than close of
business on Wednesday. Any new members paying after 5 pm Central on
Wednesday will not
Matt Liotta wrote:
George Rogato wrote:
Dawn,
Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?
Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?
I don't think that is fai
Is that really a necessary question, in determining whether this falls under
a DoC computer assembly or a dedicated wireless access point?
That's the question. It's a concept, in that having a declaration of
conformity certified computer with a certified wireless PCI/miniPCI card and
a non-stan
I have asked Dave Smith in my office to have an email list setup for all
paid members of WISPA to openly discuss this and other WISPA internal
related business. This includes all Associate, Vendor and Principal
Members of WISPA. It will be called [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list will be
populated wi
George Rogato wrote:
Dawn,
Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?
Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?
I don't think that is fair. It isn't Dawn tel
I check my highgainantenna and ez bridge equipment tonight and get back
to you on those two. I know the options are there in the software, but
I haven't confirmed with an SA that it actually broadcasts outside of
the US bands.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Jack Unger wrote:
One or tw
Dawn,
Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?
Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
All,
I have come to the conclusion that t
I am still very surprised that we have not seen more certified products
from the non certified sector.
I would like to get a system certified that I can build on for some
time, but waiting for the dust to settle on certification actions taken
by the vendors is like watching paint dry.
George
Yeah, these new ones are working really well. They had some ethernet issues
in one production run, but I've not had trouble with them for quite a while
now.
The other nice thing about them is that they seem to work just fine in G
mode (not something I've had much luck with with Inscape Data o
Marlon,
Disagreement is good because it helps to clarify technical details which
may otherwise be misunderstood (or misungerstood) :)
What point that I made are you "disagreeing" with?
Are you "disagreeing" with me or with the FCC's reply to my question?
Which certified product do you have t
I have no means of testing that. However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?
I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said. That's not to
The amount of power it can do certainly has nothing to do with
certification. The Orthogon link I have prompts me for the antenna gain,
just like MT. I could theoretically plug a 48 dbi antenna into either one
and type in 3. While probably not legal, the MT would have no disadvantage
to the
Scriv,
Where are you suggesting the candidates answer these questions? In what
forum?
Tnx,
jack
John Scrivner wrote:
Here are some questions that our board candidates can answer to help
give some insight to those of you who will be voting for our board
this Friday:
What do you hope
Here are some questions that our board candidates can answer to help
give some insight to those of you who will be voting for our board this
Friday:
What do you hope to achieve as a board member in WISPA over the next 12
months?
What is WISPA doing right and what do you think needs to be cha
I disagree with you on this one Jack.
I've got plenty of certified products here that give me the ability to set
them for non fcc areas. All the need is a MODE that puts the device into an
FCC compatible format.
laters,
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECT
I have suggested a FDD-style system like this on the MT forums before. My
thoughts were to have a full-protocol scheme like NStreme dual but tailored
for PTMP. HOWEVER, utilizing some bridge / mangle / filter tricks I have
done FDD schemes without NStreme-dual, making re-use and hidden node a ve
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test
and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band.
So far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band
transmissions were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you
believe will transmi
There certainly would be more than 200 units as then those of us using MT
would have no reason to not migrate to the new, FCC-friendly platform.
I imagine that vendors that are providing the FCC-friendly MT platforms
could accept trade-ins of non-certified gear and turn around acceptable
compo
On a volume of 1, I can get a 5 GHz CPE for $185. IIRC, 100 unit quantities
were $140. I can configure 2 CPE for a PtP. I can have an AP that has 4
radios for about $800, plus cables and antenna.
I can configure 5, 10, 20, or 40 MHz per radio, two radios are required for
full duplex operati
Why $200 more?
At $200 if the vendor sell 10 systems, that is $2000, almost 66% of the
certification cost returned. Sell 100 and that is $20,000, a lot more than
the cost of certification.
Certification should not raise the price of a unit more than a few dollars,
but then we have greed set
Bravo. The best way to get gear certified from vendors is to NOT buy it
until it is. The problem then fixes itself. There are plenty of
certified gear options out there already.
Scriv
Matt Liotta wrote:
I don't really understand this MT thread at all. Why use MT over all
the other certified
I thought once you had a dish, panel, yagi, etc. certified at x dbi, all
antenna in that category under that dbi were allowed. However, the guy I
know said that isn't so... ALL antenna under the tested dbi are safe. All
of the FCC statements I have read only mention a gain, not a gain\type.
Mike Hammett wrote:
Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.
If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the
other guys can... Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring
using different bands for each link for less than the other guys.
Even the greatest
If indeed, an XR5 is certified with that particular 32dbi antenna, cable and
pigtail. No reason they wouldnt certify popular antenna combos, not to mention
the changes to the law regarding like-gain antennas that was made a few years
back.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett <[EMAI
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc? Picking a
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.
Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC
permission?
---
Which RB532? They're on the 4th revision now?
I'm not even interested in the 532... currently the 133(c) and I believe the
333.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson
To: WISPA General List
Sent:
The question is, is a certified motherboard used with a certified add-on
wireless card running Linux different than one running Windows? Does a home PC
lose certification once the OS changes? Part 15 offers no mention of
certifying software, only hardware. Microsoft Windows is no more certifi
http://lifehacker.com/software/google-maps/how-to-find-latitude-and-longitude-267361.php
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
I never thought of it that way. Doug makes a lot of valid points.
I can put an XR5 with a 32 dbi antenna into a PC and install Windows and be
legal. Why can't I install Mikrotik (a specialized Linux distribution) on
it instead?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.
Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.
If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the other
guys can... Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using different
bands for each link for less than the other guys. Even the greatest gear
will lose out to
WHOA MULE - I SAY WHOA :-)
If I understood all that I have heard and been told in the last couple
months - - MT will have several combinations of gear certified. It takes a
while to get everything through the test lab as you have to wait your turn.
I have also heard through the grapev
I would. I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for
whatever he makes that I could use. $200 more isn't really that much of a
difference on the AP.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Travis Johnson"
Does your existing 3.65 equipment take advantage of the higher power limits
now allowed in this band?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Sunday, June 10
The person I speak with about MT certified systems has asked me to keep it
hush hush, so perhaps that lack of detail has been the source of confusion.
For all I know, I may have already exceeded the bounds of what I'm allowed
to say by even saying I know someone that's working on it.
-
Mi
All,
I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say
in what can and cannot be certified.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
--
WISPA Wireless Li
All,
Below is another educated opinion on what 3650 could mean to the
wireless industry. Click the link at the bottom to read the full story.
Back in 2004-05, a bunch of us fought to open up the 3650-3700 MHz
band for unlicensed use (Sometimes refered to as 3.65 GHz rather than
3650 MHz). Wh
Michael,
Just for info -
The question of being required to use a software version that denied
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs
now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be
addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrot
83 matches
Mail list logo
