Scott,
The wireless card and antenna has to be present to be certified with the
SBC. Without the card and the antenna the SBC cannot be certified as a
system.
If we would get an SBC certified bare as a base unit then we could
use it with various cards in whatever enclosure we want to use.
As I understood it, your initial post was to certify the board and the
enclosure with no wireless device and antenna in hopes of using any
combination of cards and antenna. If I misunderstood what you were
trying to say I apologize.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Scott Reed wrote:
Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator. The added card is.
As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the
SBCs certified the same as laptops. Certified as non-intentional
radiators that accept intential radiators that are certified.
Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen?
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Scott,
The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now
would it. The SBC would be the host device.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Scott Reed wrote:
Right, for the transmitter. That is the mPCI card that goes in the
laptop. I am talking about the laptop itself. Laptop = SBC = WRAP
= RB = ???
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Scott,
In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular
transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts
what would you be certifying exactly?
As quoted from said document;
The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements
of Section 15.203
and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or
employ a “unique”
antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the
antenna, including the
cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the
module, either at
the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive
change. The
“professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be
applied to modules.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Scott Reed wrote:
And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card
vendor is certified with.
From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional
questions. If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP
usable antennae in its certification then:
1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC
certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still
certified if it is in a box?
Here is what I am thinking. If we would get an SBC certified
bare as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in
whatever enclosure we want to use. The FCC seems to be interested
in RF noise being emitted. I don't think there are very many
enclosures that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is
certified, putting it in a box shouldn't negate the
certification. That would be like saying I can't put my laptop in
a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.
If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of us use
in our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.
And if we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some
of the antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to
legally use a lot more equipment.
Jack Unger wrote:
Scott,
I believe that your comments are substantially correct.
The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is
that very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards
have certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade
antennas. I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that.
Also, remember that the software used must limit operation of the
complete system only to those frequencies and power levels that
are legal in the U.S.
jack
Scott Reed wrote:
I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the
referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not
about "split modular" to be the part the refers to a PC. And I
read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the
radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio
card and antenna can be used.
So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track. Jack
is right, not any "base," but I would read it that any
"certified base" is doable.
I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't
bothered to find it. This makes sense. Ubiquiti certifies the
CM9 card with a set of antennae. Dell certifies the laptop for
a radio card. Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as
it connects to an antenna, using the proper cable, that was
certified with the CM9.
Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a "base"
unit, we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the
proper antenna and be good. The "gotcha" here is those sections
of Part 15 I have not yet followed up on. I am not sure what
the "professional installer" stuff is about.
What am I missing or is this good news?
Jack Unger wrote:
Tim,
I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is
saying that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any
"base" unit.
I think what the FCC is doing is:
1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what
a legal modular assembly is.
2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding,
data inputs, and power supply regulation.
3. Clarifying the definition of what a "split" modular assembly
is.
4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a "split"
modular assembly must meet.
Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating
system, I don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any
motherboard meets the FCC's definition of a "split" modular
assembly. I think the FCC considers a "split" modular assembly
to be where circuitry that today would be contained on a single
modular assembly is (now or in the future) "split" between two
different physical assemblies. This splitting allows more
equipment design flexibility because one "transmitter control
element" (the new term that the FCC formerly called the module
"firmware") could theoretically be interfaced with and control
more than one "radio front end" (the amplifier and
antenna-connecting) section.
Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could
add more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd
Report and Order contains anything that will substantially
change the way we do business.
jack
Tim Kerns wrote:
Am I reading this correctly???? Does this mean that if a mfg
of a mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna,
that it then can be put into ANY base unit and be certified?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have
been asking for?
Tim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of
the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment
approval
All,
I just received this document and thought it might be of some
interest to the list.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
--
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/