Curt, I am not sure if I understand your question, but maybe. The devices can passively scan, but to operate on channels 12 or 13 would most likely be a violation of FCC rules unless the power on those channels were 1 mW or less. The peak power at the band edge of 2483.5 MHz is 74 dBuV/m when measured at 3 meters or basically 20 dB below 1 mW (95.2 dBuV/m is equivalent to 1 mW when measured at 3 meters). That is what they are referring to about being in compliance with the rules because the upper bandedge of the 2.4 GHz band is a restricted band of operation. Am I answering your question correctly? You didn't state if your customer was a client device or an access point, but if you were a client device and an access point was operating illegally (most likely) in the US on channels 12 or 13 and then the client device started to operate on channels 12 and 13, the client device would also be in violation of the rules. At least I believe that is what the point of this draft document is from FCC. So basically they are saying in addition to passive scanning you also have to have a country list of acceptable channels to passively scan on (which most likely has to exclude channels 12 and 13 unless operating at a very low power level which is not typical for a wifi device). Larry Stillings Compliance Worldwide, Inc. (603) 887 3903
________________________________ From: Curtis Mc Namara [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [PSES] FCC draft comments on WiFi operation in channels 12 and 13 FCC Draft KDB 594280 Software Configuration Control DR04-41649: https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/GetPublishedDocument.html?id=352&tn=40 2501 This draft says that operation on channels 12 and 13 in the US cannot rely on passive scanning alone. However, at this point it is a draft, and the introductory paragraph says to follow previous guidance. Has a anyone here evaluated this? I have a customer with products in the field which use passive scanning, and they are curious whether there will be a transition time, and whether it is still permissible and practical to ship devices with passive scanning. Thanks! Curt - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
