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 don't
have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time
someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained
this on-list twice today).
Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for "Japan'
and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power
output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your
findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually
transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who
at the FCC said what.
Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so
darn easy to accuse and "shoot from the hip" these days but it's a lot
harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's
really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to
follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to "Seek first to
understand, and then to be understood".
I look forward to hearing your test results.
jack
Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> 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 the same individual.
>
> Jeromie
>
> On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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
>> Sandhills Wireless
>>
>> Jack Unger wrote:
>> > 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-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law
>> > or else broke it out of simple ignorance.
>> >
>> > jack
>> >
>> >
>> > Brad Belton wrote:
>> >> 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the
>> >> end user
>> >> was able to make these changes?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Brad
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> >> Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
>> >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
>> >> To: WISPA General List
>> >> Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
>> >>
>> >> 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/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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/
