Your responsibility is to expect what Ubnt offers and details to be true.

Ubnt will almost certainly do a great job of covering their ass.  No one
wants to test the tolerance of the FCC.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Oct 14, 2015 5:52 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> so how trustworthy is new hardware and the updated firmwares from UBNT and
> cambium to be compliant as long as I have the real antenna gain in? I don't
> ever foresee the fcc tooling around my network, but Ive worked hard to get
> compliant, and I'm treating everything as if it falls under the new rules.
> My chart may have been a vendors limits, its just what I was going by. I
> do know the 5.6.2 firmware from ubnt would alow me to go above what the
> chart said
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Ty Featherling <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes the rules are the same for all but with their current hardware
>> limitations the different products have to use different power levels to
>> still meet the OOBE requirements.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ty
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Limiting factor is OOBE more than EIRP.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> On Oct 14, 2015 2:13 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the EIRP limits from the FCC differ per manufacturer? I thought they
>>>> were the same across the board
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Mathew Howard <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any generic chart isn't going to be particularly accurate now, since
>>>>> every radio is a bit different under the new rules - especially at the 
>>>>> band
>>>>> edges.
>>>>>
>>>>> You pretty much just have to follow what the firmware lets you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I had a chart, I dont know where its at, it went away when I went to
>>>>>> windows 10. Just showed EIRP by channel/size accounting for band edges
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you’re talking equipment certified under the new FCC rules, there
>>>>>>> is no simple answer.  It depends on the radio and may be different at 
>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>> frequency even within the same band.  So you need to check the firmware 
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> a path calculator tool from the particular manufacturer, unless you are
>>>>>>> able to decipher the FCC equipment authorization filing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you’re talking equipment grandfathered under the old rules, I
>>>>>>> believe it’s still +36 dBm in 5725-5850 for APs, and +30 dBm in DFS 
>>>>>>> bands
>>>>>>> (less if channel is smaller than 20 MHz).  If you want to know 
>>>>>>> 5150-5250,
>>>>>>> that wasn’t even available under the old rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could be wrong, but that’s my understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2015 2:54 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* [email protected]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] current 5ghz chart
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is there a current printable chart online I can see for printing as
>>>>>>> reference for EIRP rules
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
>>>>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
>>>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>

Reply via email to