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
choose NOT to have an FCC agent permanently stationed at their WISP to
be sure that they don't break the law. Instead, the FCC is trying to
write the equipment certification regulations in such a way as to assure
WISPs (and others) that they are operating legally if they purchase
FCC-certified equipment.
The Cisco domain chart (if current) that you linked to reveals another
interesting point. Apparently Israel has more restrictive regulations
than the U.S. so it appears that selecting an "Israel" configuration
would also allow the equipment to be legally used within the U.S. On the
other hand, selecting a "Japan" configuration would result in
illegal-frequency operation in the U.S. What I'm pointing out is that
just because some non-U.S. country may be selectable and may transmit
does not mean that selection will result in illegal operation in the
U.S. therefore U.S-legal equipment may also be legal in some other
countries and vice-versa.
Finally, I recently deployed some Cisco 1240 APs. They appeared to allow
non-U.S. countries to be selected although I didn't try transmitting
with any non_US country code. Later, I asked the lab (twice, because I
doubted their answer the first time) about the legality of this. They
said that the Cisco 1240 with the model number suffix that I had would
have shipped with US-specific firmware which should have denied it the
ability to operate on non-US frequencies.
Can you test the power output of your Netgear AP? Isn't the allowable
output power in the U.K. lowered than the allowed U.S output power?
Please try to configure your AP to US/FCC and see if the power output is
greater than allowed in the U.K.
Thanks,
jack
Stephen Patrick wrote:
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) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
"Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point."
Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their
frequencies.
And
"Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. "
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.
Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.
Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio."
So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a
"locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more
Regards
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it. :-p
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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
transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back.
Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more
accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more
technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC
frequencies".
jack
Mike Hammett wrote:
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?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 Mikrotik-based
certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use
Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this
issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:
_My Submission: _
"For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must
the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at
FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a
system for certification that includes the ability to software-select
the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the
selections?"
_FCC Response: _
"The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism
on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in
unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control
of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted."
Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the
FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer
to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally"
pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access
to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and
their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns,
and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw"
image and are seen as responsible business operators.
Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of
WISPs.
Respectfully,
jack
Michael Erskine wrote:
Ryan,
A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you
say "but if it were"...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this
question already?
The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/
It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never
will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till
someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call
them."
What a joke.
-m-
Ryan Langseth wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:
Rick;
I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and
experienced. I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did
not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good
idea.
That said, let me also say this. If I don't have to have my router
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still
don't have to have them certified because they are still what they
were.
If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer,
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are
incorrect.
1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2)
comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.
This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen
times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end
of
chapter. Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing.
Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and
experienced. I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in
this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get
a reading from them.
Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product.
Ryan
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
