On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:17:09 -0800, Steve Stroh wrote > Mark: > > You're overlooking one critical difference between PCs and Wireless > systems.
I merely used PC's because anyone who's been around the PC business for a few years will be aware of the change that occurred a while back that allowed much easier changes to pc design and MUCH lower prices by simply using "known" devices in mix-n-match. > > PCs are UNintentional radiators, with radiated power levels that are > very, very low. > > Wireless systems are intentional radiators, at significant power > levels, and through unintended mixing, have the potential to disrupt > other communications systems, including critical systems like > public safety. But this is NOT limited to UNintentional radiators. It is also used for many intentional radiators, too. I found references to cell phones, wireless telephone handsets, digital voice devices, all of which were using "known compliant" devices and thus were compliant merely with DoC procedures. > > This is a very real fear of the FCC, borne out over nearly 100 years > of experience now with the evolution of wireless technology. Actually, part 15 devices were never imagined to be built from componentized parts. There's at least 50 different 802.11 type mini-pci boards, more likely 200, all of which are common form factor, chipsets, and function. Since part 15 was designed for consumer items like baby monitors and mini tv cameras and doorbells and security monitors and car starters and other such standalone devices, it was never concieved of millions of the same exact function device being built from commodity parts. This is why Part 15 has no current provisions for DoC compliance like many other sections of the FCC code. There are licensed and some unlicensed stuff which does have DoC procedures. This was done because manyh things like Cell phones ARE built from commodity components. > > These things DO happen, and having a proliferation of unlicensed > systems out there with significant power levels (EIRP) can cause havoc. > > When a WISP slaps together a system, do they hook it up to a > spectrum analyzer to insure that substantially all the radiated > energy is contained within the desired band? No, they don't. > > Um, the FCC is getting innovation and advancement - look at > Clearwire. When there weren't Clearwire, NextWave, Sprint Nextel and > AT&T actively deploying Broadband Wireless Internet Access, the FCC > needed WISPs. Now they've got those big players starting to deploy > and they can point to them as a success story for Broadband Wireless > Internet Access. Well, there you have it folks. the only valid "innovation" is always big business overspending on overpriced stuff selling overpriced services at a loss, screwing the investors. Which is being defended in practice by people who claim to be my "friends". <sigh> -------------------------------------------- Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
