Since we have been on the subject- do these all qualify as 'certified" FCC systems? I have often wondered how it's possible to build this all yourself and stay legal...
Marty __________________________________________ Marty Dougherty CEO Roadstar Internet Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 703-623-4542 (Cell) 703-554-6620 (office) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Our driver sets the output power using an electronics "volume control" that is in the Atheros power out section. All drivers set the power using that control. The precise setting is in tables provided by Atheros for the various air rates and as you note it goes down as the rate goes up. This is to keep the amplifier from being over driven by the extra carriers that happen as a result of higher rates. The high power cards that we have tested all have a power amplifier after the Atheros power measurement sections, so the power setting that the driver applies is further added to by the extra amplifier. We have no knowledge about the specs of that extra amplifer except that it supplies from 6 to 8 dB more power. Lonnie On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can someone tell me how STAROS works in regards to setting power levels to > cards that adapative modulate. > Specifically related to Cards with on board AMPs. To be more clear.... > > A SR2 may be speced at 26db at 1-24 mbps, but 24db at 36mbps, and 22db at > 48-56mb. > My unconfirmed understanding is, that the SR2 adds about 8db via an onboard > external amp beyond what the card is actually set to. > So if the card is set to 16db, it will have an output power of 24db in > theory. However, its not that simple because the output power will change > based on modulation. > Does STAROS drivers set the power as the constant power regardless of what > modulation? Or does it set the TOP power? Does the power on the card only > change if modulation drops and the power is set higher than power it suppoed > to drop to? The radio card has no knowledge of what DB antenna is connected > to it. And are the onboard AMPs a set output or variable output AMP? The > point that I'm making is, how can we set the card to near MAX levels, but > guarantee that they will never transmit above the allowed EIRP? If I have > the conclusive answer to that question, then I can reduce the power to the > lowest level needed for a good link, with headroom capabilty if emergencies > occur, but more importantly, I can document what the top allowable setting > should be for that specific configuration of a radio, so when an emergencies > occurs, my novice staff does not break the rules inadvertently. > > It gets more confusing with multiple manufacturer AMPs. Because we need to > have knowledge of what type of AMP is added to the card. (variable or not). > And also what input power level its expecting to minimize internal > distortion. I can give an example of a test I ran yesterday using a SR2 > (400mw) and a Teletronic 22db (approx 150mw) High Power card. I thought the > chipsets were near the same. I got really weird results. The AP had an SR2. > THe radios were hard set at 24mbps for testing. At the SU we tried using > both a SR2 and Teletronics. The SR2 had 10db lower signal at the AP than > SU, unexplained. The Teletronics had 5 db lower signal at the SU than AP. > The SR2 had 15 db higher SU gain than the Teletronics SU, at MAX power > setting. Now I'm assuming that the SR2 was heavilly being overpowered during > the short brief test, and we set it down to 16db power in STAROS. Why did > this occured differently for the Teleronics Atheros? Is there onboard AMP a > different type than the SR2? Or less filtering? Or worse sensitivity? The > power levels also varied significantly based on what level cloaking used, so > we were concerned on whether both cards, equaly cloaked. There was some talk > in the past where some Atheros revs, only did 5Mhz transmits but still > listened to 20Mhz during receives. > > (We possibly needed significant power because we were blasting through some > trees and it was high noise environment, and we were using 30deg antennas. > Before we get slammed for overpowering but within legal limits, Take note, > that this is an experimental environment, to learn the product and the > performance of high power cards. Its likely we could have done the link > without high powered cards, but then we would not have been able to learn > anything. We are also proving the viabilty of whether it hurts to have a > HighPower card by default, and if the card still performs optimally if the > power is turned down. Or if the AMP in line causes significant in-line > distortion that is disadvantageous for low power operation.). > > I know there are two easy solutions... > 1) Use a CM9 without an AMP, and avoid the problem. > 2) Use a High quality OFDM Radio Like an Alvarion (Which we do often) > > But for the sake of this thread, please ignore those two Options, as the > purpose of the thread is to understand the specifications of STAROS and > HighPowered Cards. > > I think these kinds of questions are impairative for us to conclusively have > the answers to, and not just have a "I think" thats how it works. The > question that I'm also posing is, can this gear be certifiable with the > current StarOS feature set? Meaning, if there is no place to add the DBi of > attached antenna, or the radio itself would not be able to auto-set these > levels and left up to the engineer. > > I'm going to Email Teletronics and Ubiquiti on the design specs of their > cards, but I'm sure a lot of this depends on drivers as well. > > Also as a disclaimer, we wanted to rule our power supplies and Mainboard > hardware as causes. At the CPE, we used both a WAR2 boards and a WRAP1E. > With the WAR board we tried using a 18V 1amp Power Supply, a 24v unregulated > power supply, and a regulated 24V 1amp power supply. With the WRAP we only > tried using the 18V, so not to blow it up (21volt Max spec). The only thing > left that we have to do, is ro replace the CPE SR2 with a different SR2 to > make sure it is function properly, to confirm that it is the RF environment > causing the 10 db drop in signal in one directions. However, I'm > guestimating that changing the card will have no effect. Based on the AP > receive levels that are with in a db or two from each other comparing to the > Teletronic. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:18 AM > Subject: [WISPA] Consultants making too much? > > > > Dennis, > > > > Is this this the study you are speaking of? Below are quotes from the > > article that address some of your issues. > > There are a few corrections I would like to point out. This is a County > > wide deployment not just downtown St. Louis > > also the consulting firm was paid $67,000 not $90,000 as you suggested. > > > > I have also provided a link to the consulting firm that was hired for this > > study. > > http://www.fusiva.com/aboutus.htm > > > > As quoted from the article; > > > > "The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the county's > > economic development council, is working with a communications engineering > > firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost - to > > offer Wi-Fi access across the county." > > > > Also quoted from the same article; > > > > "The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study, paying the > > firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after determining > > what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to Internet > > providers to see who could best do the job." > > > > Also quoted from the same article; > > > > "Leezer said it's too early to say how much any system would cost the > > county. But he did say that it would likely be a public-private > > partnership in which the vendor would incur most, if not all, costs. > > > > "We are not looking at having taxpayers fund this," he said." > > > > Full article here; > > http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/stor y/AB4ECCB73F716FFD86257272000E7875?OpenDocument > > > > Regards, > > Dawn DiPietro > > > > Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote: > > > >>Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts. > >> > >>I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was talking > >>about "consultants" etc. You are correct in that many people who are > >>consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have first > >>hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands, hardware, etc > >>is capable of. > >>A recent "study" was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a feasibility > >>study > >>that netted some "consultant" over $90,000 bucks from the way I read it. > >>What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a wireless > >>network covering downtown. Hmmmm. My first thought on this was.... > >> > >>"So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this?" Does > >>he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take me a > >>bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do the > >>research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements. > >>This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to > >>fight. > >>We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's dollars. > >>We > >>need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in favor > >>of > >>large, non-local companies doing the work. > >>A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC ready > >>to > >>listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios, someone > >>that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say, and then > >>we will do something with it. Don't happen very often. If someone calls > >>the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them? I have > >>heard > >>interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the lists). > >> > >>The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a prime > >>example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about. And also > >>some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several > >>questions and things are open to "interpretation", not closed down enough > >>to > >>be "solid" in court or anywhere. > >> > >> > >>Just a few thoughts. > >> > >>Dennis > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >>Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > >>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:05 AM > >>To: WISPA General List > >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV > >>whitespaces > >> > >>George, > >> > >>Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start to > >>demand > >> > >>name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently is > >>usually certified. > >>Thus larger providers using certified gear. With no disrespect meant, I > >>could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear, could be > >>more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that type > >>product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely will > >>certify gear or buy versions that are certified. > >> > >>Tom DeReggi > >>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > >>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM > >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV > >>whitespaces > >> > >> > >> > >>>Well this was an exiting day on the lists. > >>> > >>>I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse shape > >>>now than before concerning abuse. > >>> > >>>5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few between, > >>>there > >>> > >> > >> > >>>was a lot of "pringles" type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators. > >>> > >>>But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from many new > >>>players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of wisp > >>>gear > >>> > >> > >> > >>>is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or mt. > >>> > >>>I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even suggesting > >>>that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has matured in > >>>a > >>> > >> > >> > >>>very positive way over the past few years. > >>> > >>>George > >>> > >>>This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own. > >>> > >>>Patrick Leary wrote: > >>> > >>>>Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves: > >>>> > >>>>1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and industries as > >>>>a > >>>> > >> > >> > >>>>whole) follow the rules as a > >>>>matter of course and expected cost of business. > >>>>3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators financially > >>>>benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users should > >>>>thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum. > >>>>4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to complain > >>>>about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum, etc. > >>>> > >>>>As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've certainly > >>>>been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs are > >>>>now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount to its > >>>>approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but one > >>>>rule: "Don't exceed the power limitations." Everything else has become > >>>>fair game. > >>>> > >>>>Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if not > >>>>actual, that abuse is reaching new levels: > >>>> - many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to carry some > >>>>commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big deal, > >>>>right?...) > >>>>- use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being advocated > >>>>(this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA filings) > >>>>- illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S. > >>>>distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it only > >>>>hurts other vendors anyway...) > >>>>- "build your own base station" type Google ads are rampant > >>>> > >>>>Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and such > >>>>attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues (hey, > >>>>OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either). > >>>> > >>>>We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of > >>>>ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take firm > >>>>stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage compliance, > >>>>lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that allows for > >>>>relativism and "creative interpretation" of the rules. You should also > >>>>not cave to the hard luck excuses that "I'm a small guy and can't afford > >>>>to follow the rules." (Your response to such should be to point to > >>>>funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a minimum > >>>>cost to legally participate in this business and that following FCC > >>>>rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the public's > >>>>free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly illegal > >>>>operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you and the > >>>>industry at large. > >>>> > >>>>And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way alters > >>>>anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal vendor > >>>>with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of legal > >>>>operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this drum > >>>>for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments. > >>>> > >>>>Sincerely, > >>>> > >>>>Patrick Leary > >>>>AVP WISP Markets > >>>>Alvarion, Inc. > >>>>o: 650.314.2628 > >>>>c: 760.580.0080 > >>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >>>>Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro > >>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM > >>>>To: WISPA General List > >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces > >>>> > >>>>All, > >>>> > >>>>Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole industry look > >>>> > >>>>bad. > >>>>Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the rules. > >>>> > >>>>Regards, > >>>>Dawn DiPietro > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Patrick Leary wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings that > >>>>>the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread deterioration of > >>>>>WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along the > >>>>>lines of "Damn it, these things are not guidelines." > >>>>> > >>>>>>From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go beyond the > >>>>>usual, "if you just stay within the power no one cares" to now where > >>>>>people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get access > >>>>>to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist. > >>>>> > >>>>>Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is something that > >>>>>will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be affected. > >>>>>The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and > >>>>>discouraging the slippery slope. > >>>>> > >>>>>Patrick Leary > >>>>>AVP WISP Markets > >>>>>Alvarion, Inc. > >>>>>o: 650.314.2628 > >>>>>c: 760.580.0080 > >>>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >>>>>Behalf Of Jack Unger > >>>>>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM > >>>>>To: WISPA General List > >>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces > >>>>> > >>>>>Steve, > >>>>> > >>>>>I appreciate your insight into the possibility that license-exempt > >>>>> > >>>>white > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does. > >>>>> > >>>>>jack > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Steve Stroh wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Jack: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Consider... > >>>>>> > >>>>>>To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a "we'll > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity" manner > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has been > >>>>>>steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of Channels > >>>>>>70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of Channels > >>>>>>52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for powerful > >>>>>>terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power > >>>>>>license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they > >>>>>>are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast spectrum > >>>>>>sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another > >>>>>>decade or so). > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as > >>>>>>advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast > >>>>>>spectrum. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Likelihood of unlicensed??? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>My guess is that the established communications carriers and the > >>>>>>>broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this > >>>>>>>space. > >>>>>>> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>-- > >>>>>>>Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > >>>>>>>Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 > >>>>>>>Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" > >>>>>>>True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting > >>>>>>>Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html > >>>>>>>Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>--- > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Steve Stroh > >>>>>>425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>-- > >>>George Rogato > >>> > >>>Welcome to WISPA > >>> > >>>www.wispa.org > >>> > >>>http://signup.wispa.org/ > >>>-- > >>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
