[WISPA] New to List
- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
VERY bad. I believe this is the reason that the big boys aren't doing 5 gig / 2 gig, etc unlicensed today in addition to all their other crap. Let all those pesky wisps get the customers educated, we'll take 'em all with 700 mhz indoor installs. grrr. I wish I were close enough to Washington, but I'm not. I agree with you on the base station license thing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:52 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
FCC Digest comes out daily with about 30 to 50 items. Sign up at fcc.gov This announcement today about the first of 2 auctions for 700 MHz is going to describe how the auction will go. Will it be large geographic chunks or smaller broadcast areas. Starts at 10:30. John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
The meeting notice popped up last week. I didn't know about the 700 MHz until this morning. The 700 MHz has been on comments since 2003. Regards, Peter -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Peter - I don't guess that is going to be streamed eh? Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz FCC Digest comes out daily with about 30 to 50 items. Sign up at fcc.gov This announcement today about the first of 2 auctions for 700 MHz is going to describe how the auction will go. Will it be large geographic chunks or smaller broadcast areas. Starts at 10:30. John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Plus dealing with less than 10 who will fill out forms and abide by the rules without a fuss. The FCC has the CEO's of the cellco's on speed-dial. from Alex @ ISP-Planet: http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/2003/uncertainty_p2.html Here's a quote from a Powell speech: (competition is bad because) One of the things we are going to have to get really used to is once upon a time the world was really simple. We knew who all the companies were. We knew all the CEOs by name. I think what we are going to have to get used to is that there is never again going to be the ability to be very simplistic about a country this large and diverse and about whether the country is competitive, is this market segment this or is that market segment that. I think it's going to be much more dynamic and chaotic. It will be difficult to make broad generalizations about the entire space. Travis Johnson wrote: John, This is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the FCC is just going to give away 700MHz licenses, even on a per base station basis. And the WISP community is not going to spend even $5,000 per license if they could. The cell companies will be bidding, and once again it will be in the millions of dollars per region. Honestly, what would you do if you were the FCC? Deal with hundreds or thousands of little operators at $5,000 per license, or sell 3 or 4 licenses for the entire US for millions of dollars? Travis Microserv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Travis Johnson wrote: John, This is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the FCC is just going to give away 700MHz licenses, even on a per base station basis. I never said they should give it to us. I said they should have base station sized auctions. They can include an opening bid amount. They always do. And the WISP community is not going to spend even $5,000 per license if they could. I would spend $20K+ per base station license. I am not kidding. I would do it in a heartbeat because I could make it back in one year alone from not having to tell people NO when we could not get them signal. The cell companies will be bidding, and once again it will be in the millions of dollars per region. It is like farm ground. We are the farmers. None of us can farm if we have to buy a million square acres of ground to farm. It is not fair. It is exactly the same correlation and the FCC needs to hear it. (And understand it which is a big stretch for them) Honestly, what would you do if you were the FCC? Deal with hundreds or thousands of little operators at $5,000 per license, or sell 3 or 4 licenses for the entire US for millions of dollars? It is NOT about what is easier for them. It is a matter of what is best for the country. Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Scriv Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Billions* - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, This is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the FCC is just going to give away 700MHz licenses, even on a per base station basis. And the WISP community is not going to spend even $5,000 per license if they could. The cell companies will be bidding, and once again it will be in the millions of dollars per region. Honestly, what would you do if you were the FCC? Deal with hundreds or thousands of little operators at $5,000 per license, or sell 3 or 4 licenses for the entire US for millions of dollars? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
I could see $5k per license (depending on the terms of the license) to be a good deal for WISPs. The amount of frequency we get, power levels, etc. all play in to the cost effectiveness of the license. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, This is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the FCC is just going to give away 700MHz licenses, even on a per base station basis. And the WISP community is not going to spend even $5,000 per license if they could. The cell companies will be bidding, and once again it will be in the millions of dollars per region. Honestly, what would you do if you were the FCC? Deal with hundreds or thousands of little operators at $5,000 per license, or sell 3 or 4 licenses for the entire US for millions of dollars? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
The other issue is equipment... you are willing to spend $20k RIGHT NOW for the license, but it would be at least a year before any equipment was available, and then it would be $500 per CPE and $10k per base station. A lot of the WISPs on this list spend an hour building a CPE to save $5. You think they are going to buy $500 CPE? Of course the price would come down, but that would be years from now. You should consider that for $20k, you could easily put up 4 towers using equipment that is available today, and cover those customers that you are turning away, TODAY. I have always said we need to get the customers signed up and installed NOW. TODAY. If they can't get our service, they will go with something else, and then they are gone forever. I have put up a new tower in a single day (backhaul, AP, router, etc.) because we had an area that we had two NOGO's (as we call them) in that area. We went back the next day and installed those two customers. Spend the money TODAY and use equipment that is available TODAY. Get those customers installed TODAY. Just my $0.02 worth. Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: John, This is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the FCC is just going to give away 700MHz licenses, even on a per base station basis. I never said they should give it to us. I said they should have base station sized auctions. They can include an opening bid amount. They always do. And the WISP community is not going to spend even $5,000 per license if they could. I would spend $20K+ per base station license. I am not kidding. I would do it in a heartbeat because I could make it back in one year alone from not having to tell people NO when we could not get them signal. The cell companies will be bidding, and once again it will be in the millions of dollars per region. It is like farm ground. We are the farmers. None of us can farm if we have to buy a million square acres of ground to farm. It is not fair. It is exactly the same correlation and the FCC needs to hear it. (And understand it which is a big stretch for them) Honestly, what would you do if you were the FCC? Deal with hundreds or thousands of little operators at $5,000 per license, or sell 3 or 4 licenses for the entire US for millions of dollars? It is NOT about what is easier for them. It is a matter of what is best for the country. Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Scriv Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Maybe they haven't used it because there isn't any good, affordable equipment right now? Travis Microserv Mac Dearman wrote: Travis, IMHO the FCC is supposed to serve the people. I understand that spectrum is a huge money maker, but if just one of the FCC chair people lived in my rural part of the state - - we would have some of that spectrum. The ones who own the good spectrum now in my area have never used it and never will. If they (FCC) really understood how important that 700MHz is to so many out here in the boonies then they would give us the opportunity to acquire some of it and then they could gloat over what a great thing they did and I would lead that charge right to the press. Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, This is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the FCC is just going to give away 700MHz licenses, even on a per base station basis. And the WISP community is not going to spend even $5,000 per license if they could. The cell companies will be bidding, and once again it will be in the millions of dollars per region. Honestly, what would you do if you were the FCC? Deal with hundreds or thousands of little operators at $5,000 per license, or sell 3 or 4 licenses for the entire US for millions of dollars? Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
John, there is a daily release from the FCC that covers these things. It's long and 99.9% of it doesn't apply to us. I rarely take the time to scan it these days. I'll try to remember to post a signup link next time one comes in. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is going to be very bad for us all. Scriv -- 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/
[WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commiss ion’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment app roval
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/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz - FCC Subscribe
You can have the Digest emailed to you daily. To subscribe or un-subscribe to the free Daily Digest mailing list, send the appropriate message below to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *subscribe* digest Your-first-name Your-last-name /or/ *unsubscribe* digest Your-first-name Your-last-name and leave the subject line blank. These should be the only words in the body of the message. If you need additional help in subscribing, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
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/
RE: [WISPA] Radio station app
-Original Message- Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe **FYI - A reminder to people out there interested in starting a noncommercial radio station (for whatever reason), applications must be recieved between Oct 12 and Oct 19, 2007, and the application itself costs nothing... I have kicked around the idea of starting a radio station, but am unsure what you meant by non commercial station. Does this mean you can't get paid for advertising? Thanks, Mac -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Mike, Where did you get that idea? Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I thought that was put in to effect a year or two ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
I read that just about all the way through. It appears we can now certify a mini-pci radio with some specific gain antennas, and use it in any control board. There seems to be some requirement that we demonstrate the software can't or doesn't cause the module to operate outside of certified parameters. The equivalent antenna rules should be helpful here, too. Can someone who communicates with the appropriate people at the FCC get some clarification about certifying gain differences between the PTP antennas and PTMP base station? - 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/
RE: [WISPA] Radio station app
Mac, I was on the original board of our two NPR stations, one classical music 24 hours a day and the other NPR 24 hours a day. They were on adjacent FM frequencies. A non-commercial, low power church station (from somewhere in Kansas as I recall) got a frequency just between the two. It's only a couple miles from my house yes overpowers the others without careful tuning on an analog FM radio. This may be what you are referring to. They are non-profit yet spend a lot of time trying to get money which, apparently, more than pays for the station. I expect that the lobby to promote these things, which now liberally dot our spectrum, was from these sources. It's a nightmare for me since they are directly under the SAT glidepath and incoming large jets create temporary multipath and my AFC will jump to that in-between station when the multipath phase cancellation on one of the public radio stations hits. I'll just have to buy a digitally synthesized radio for the bedroom. I wrote the FCC on behalf of the stations but it didn't help. In the letter I predicted the consequences (before they were granted that frequency) and they have become realized. Sorry to rant...just had to unload. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mac Dearman Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:00 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Radio station app -Original Message- Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe **FYI - A reminder to people out there interested in starting a noncommercial radio station (for whatever reason), applications must be recieved between Oct 12 and Oct 19, 2007, and the application itself costs nothing... I have kicked around the idea of starting a radio station, but am unsure what you meant by non commercial station. Does this mean you can't get paid for advertising? Thanks, Mac -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
It had been discussed on the Part 15 lists for that time and I remember reading an FCC publication about it a while ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Mike, Where did you get that idea? Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I thought that was put in to effect a year or two ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for us. Us is not large corporations. Us is real-world, middle-class, grass-roots, local-entrepreneur, working people. By taking the large-corporation, big-money factor out of politics, government will once again write laws that bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The FCC will then promote policies that truly build, benefit and support local economies. jack John Scrivner wrote: Travis Johnson wrote: John, This is just my opinion, but I seriously doubt the FCC is just going to give away 700MHz licenses, even on a per base station basis. I never said they should give it to us. I said they should have base station sized auctions. They can include an opening bid amount. They always do. And the WISP community is not going to spend even $5,000 per license if they could. I would spend $20K+ per base station license. I am not kidding. I would do it in a heartbeat because I could make it back in one year alone from not having to tell people NO when we could not get them signal. The cell companies will be bidding, and once again it will be in the millions of dollars per region. It is like farm ground. We are the farmers. None of us can farm if we have to buy a million square acres of ground to farm. It is not fair. It is exactly the same correlation and the FCC needs to hear it. (And understand it which is a big stretch for them) Honestly, what would you do if you were the FCC? Deal with hundreds or thousands of little operators at $5,000 per license, or sell 3 or 4 licenses for the entire US for millions of dollars? It is NOT about what is easier for them. It is a matter of what is best for the country. Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Scriv Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. This really angers me that we are not there with some representation today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving rural broadband will not be able to compete.
Re: [WISPA] Radio station app
Correct. You can say something like this show is sponsored by Joe's Car Lot. And that is about it. Mac Dearman wrote: -Original Message- Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe **FYI - A reminder to people out there interested in starting a noncommercial radio station (for whatever reason), applications must be recieved between Oct 12 and Oct 19, 2007, and the application itself costs nothing... I have kicked around the idea of starting a radio station, but am unsure what you meant by non commercial station. Does this mean you can't get paid for advertising? Thanks, Mac -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC Summit on Spectrum Policy and Management
Federal Communications Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) today announced that it will host a Summit on Spectrum Policy and Management: Building Interoperable Public Safety Communications on Friday, June 1, 2007, 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., in the Commission Meeting Room (TW-C305). Those individuals who are interested in attending the summit may pre-register on-line at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/summits/spectrum/. Those who pre-registered will be asked to provide their name, title, organization affiliation, and contact information. Individuals who do not have internet access may also pre-register by contacting Sue Gilgenbach at 202-418-0639. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] FCC Meeting
rant The best part of these live meetings is to see nothing happening because they are still in back arguing about a compromise. It is 2 hours after the delayed scheduled start of the 9:30 meeting. Many items have been deleted from the agenda thus far, but not the 700 auction. What makes me argue for the dismantling of the FCC is that most of these issues have been in the docket phase for YEARS! The 700 issue has been looked at in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 - and 4 years later they are still trying to figure it out. --- 11/3/2003 SECOND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE THIRD REPORT AND ORDER (FCC 03-236) Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules They take too long because of compromise. Copps and Adelstein don't want to sell out to Corporate America and the Chairman is doing his best to pressure them. I never thought that it could get worse that when Mike Powell was Chairman but I was wrong. Proves the addages: Better the devil you know and Be careful what you wish for /rant Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Mike, Any chance you could provide a link to the document you are talking about? Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: It had been discussed on the Part 15 lists for that time and I remember reading an FCC publication about it a while ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Mike, Where did you get that idea? Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I thought that was put in to effect a year or two ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
Nope. Not what it says. It's very specific about the antenna AND cabling used. What it means is that if you build a laptop (or some such device) and wish to slap in an atheros vs. prism rf section you can do that without having to recertify the whole shebang. They SPECIFICALLY excluded the professional installer gear on this. That means anything with an n connector is out. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
It's ALWAYS been this way. Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, rest assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware). Remember that telecommunications had little need for radio back then other than as microwave backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic area due to its directionality by nature. Radio licenses were handed out to commercial business's at modest filing fee because there wasn't perceived to be any large monetary demand. This changed only in the early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to grant licenses for cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that there had ever been such demand. Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later. But IMO there's been no recent change in government. We each discover the way it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it acted differently in times gone by. Just reflect back on regulations crafted for oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest corporations of the day were 100 years ago. The only change is that wireless was never the target of the largest corporations way, way back when. Even though it was one-way, remember how the corporate interests of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) influenced the FCC to move the FM broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago just as a roadblock to an emerging FM broadcast competition? Imagine getting the FCC to put all early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with a stroke of the pen! I think this was all the way back in the 1930s. Crippled the FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM Stereo in the early 1960s). Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money out of politics, politicians will be reminded
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Marlon, I think I know where the confusion comes in but I will need to do some more reading before I will comment on whether you are correct or not. You may be correct in your assumption but there might be some confusion about what this recent document actually refers to. Stay tuned...;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Nope. Not what it says. It's very specific about the antenna AND cabling used. What it means is that if you build a laptop (or some such device) and wish to slap in an atheros vs. prism rf section you can do that without having to recertify the whole shebang. They SPECIFICALLY excluded the professional installer gear on this. That means anything with an n connector is out. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. But Jack, this is problem is more than 200 years old in the US. In fact, people with money have been influencing government for... well, as long as there has been money and governments. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our economy has thrived IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT for as long as our nation has existed. It has and always be so. There are many things that could be done to limit the damage, but few of us ever support those things. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are supposed to be working for... they're supposed to be working for us. No, Jack, this only gaurantees that the famous, the incumbents... these will get elected and re-elected. All this does is limit the power of those NOT in power to speak to the people. Every time someone tries to limit this, it further calcifies the power in place and people already into power. Money is not the problem. The problem is that we have allowed goverment to do everything for us, and we don't insist it stop. Poll this list, and you'll find a lot of people want the government to take over EVEN MORE parts of our economy than they have already. Health care being one. Gee, we whine and moan that government is intrenched into everything and plays favorites with those who give it money, and then we start talking about giving it EVEN MORE control and power. If money is EVER the problem... It's that the government has too much already. It has so much it can and does use it to pry into and then thinks it can solve with it's money, every so-called problem, be it people unwilling to budget their money to pay the doctor, or whiny snobs who snivel about how slow the public adopts broadband. And the FCC's motivation to rake in the money is why spectrum is so terribly badly allocated. And as soon as government sets itself in charge of something... then EVERYONE is at ther door trying to find ways to get the government to direct favor in their way. The question is: Where does this leave us? My God, do I have to sound like a broken record? We need to have been telling the FCC that impediments to entry into the wireless broadband business are wrong. Be they CALEA mandates, spectrum auction stupidness, or regulations concerning the use of public land. We HAVE to be the broken record... the squeaky wheel... We haven't money or huge numbers... but we can be LOUD. And we should be consistent, with the message that THIS TIME, economies of scale are not the salvation for reaching the people, but DIVERSITY, that is, a dynamic industry filled with everything from mom-and-pop garage based sharing schemes to bit multi-state operators is THE
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
Probably not. :-p Not that I don't want to, but my searching abilities aren't so good. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Mike, Any chance you could provide a link to the document you are talking about? Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: It had been discussed on the Part 15 lists for that time and I remember reading an FCC publication about it a while ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Mike, Where did you get that idea? Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I thought that was put in to effect a year or two ago. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Jack, Campaign Contribution regulation is only one part of the solution to the problem. There are many ways to buy votes after the election is over and the politicians are in office. Regulating campaign contributions would just put more corporate money into the pot to fund trips, pet projects, hold lavish banquets, buy sporting event tickets and so forth. I do however agree that our elected officials do not control the country anymore. The large enabled Corporations guide policy as they see fit. This allows these corporations to get even bigger and there grasp on policy even stronger. The US is quickly becoming a monopolistic society in my eyes and twenty years from now our children are going to wonder just how ignorant their parents were for allowing this to happen. A quick analogy if I might. When I used to farm, it amazed me that people complained about farmer subsidies. Farmers are price takers and have little control over neither the price of the products they produce nor the cost of the supplies to produce these products. Agriculture subsidies were essential to even get the bottom line into the black in most cases. Large corporations control grain prices as well as input costs. If grain prices went up, input costs would go up as well, leaving the farmer with a relatively flat and thin margin. These subsidies however, were often spent locally supporting the local economies. When a farmer makes a good profit, he normally will buy more equipment (US made) and support the rural economy in which they reside. Taking away the profit potential of farmers does more to sour rural economies than anything else I can think of. I believe that is why I am so excited about the Ethanol and Biodiesel explosion. In this analogy, the large chemical/seed/equipment companies have been allowed to dictate agriculture policy to protect and improve their profit margins at the expense of the family farm. Farmers today either get big or they die. The telecommunications industry is heading much the same way. So much clout has been handed over to the ILECs (or is it one ILEC yet?) that there is little true competition. Tier One markets are primary targets for these corporations, the rural economy isn't worth their time to even consider. Rural America would be all but dead today (from a technological standpoint) if it wasn't for WISPs. It's time the FCC realizes this. Respectfully, Rick Harnish President OnlyInternet Broadband Wireless, Inc. 260-827-2482 Founding Member of WISPA -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the solution. The solution is to take the money out of politics. Allow all candidates to campaign with an small but equal amount of public money (our money). Remember, the job of politicians is to write the laws that govern our country. By taking the large-corporation money out of politics, politicians will be reminded each day who they are supposed to be working for...
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even Ok, now that I stopped snickering... Rich, we're not that far apart... but the difference between is, is that I'm willing to argue what we all know, but often just don't really want to address. That being the obvious outcomes vs the ideal we want. vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. That's the nature of government for you. The nature has certain observable qualities, and I address those here. That's why I state things like government being lethal. That's its nature, that's just how things are. You people keep confusing that with the notion of promoting anarchy, which I am not.As someone once said eternal vigilance is the price we must pay as a democratic type society to get and keep liberty - and that could be defined as having a reasonably just and responsible government. Eternal Vigilance can be defined, when it comes to WISP's, as standing up for or against everything that impacts our business, our services, or our ability to do either. It is the very nature of government and the governed to be adversarial. I know many of you think that's some kind of politics, but it's not partisan. It's just the nature of the beast, as they say. Anyone who thinks that we must give up something, does nothing but offer payment for empty air. Unless we are EVER defensive, eternally vigilant, we WILL get trod into oblivion. That doesn't take bad people, or ANY hostility on the part of the regulators toward us, that's just the consequences of the motions of the 1500 pound gorilla attempting to walk around the anthills. If we have good enough things to say, and ones that give the regulators the ability to say good things about what they do, then we needed play 'quid pro quo which is just a nice way of saying shady dealings which we all despise. Most of them would rather have something good to say and do something good... It's easier, but until or unless we give them that ammunition, INTACT, it's not going to happen. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our government prints billions of new dollars each month (millions of dollars each day) but these dollars are not being circulated in our real-world, local-businesses economy. These dollars are circulated on Wall Street. These dollars are circulated between our government and large corporations. These dollars are circulated between foreign central banks in countries outside the U.S. Now that I've framed the problem (political corruption), I have an obligation to do more than just complain. I have an obligation to outline the
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Rick Harnish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:15 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Jack, I do however agree that our elected officials do not control the country anymore. The large enabled Corporations guide policy as they see fit. This allows these corporations to get even bigger and there grasp on policy even stronger. The US is quickly becoming a monopolistic society in my eyes and twenty years from now our children are going to wonder just how ignorant their parents were for allowing this to happen. And someone here called ** me ** a conspiratorial kook... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Rich, You make a good point. As a child, it was easy for me to understand the ideals that I was taught but it was harder for me to see and to understand what was really going on behind the scenes - behind the political curtain so to speak. Now, as an adult, it's become painfully obvious to me how intertwined politics and business really are. They are so intertwined that they appear (to me at least) to be destroying both the financial well-being of our country and the moral leadership that we once believed our country provided in the world. I guess I could say that my eyes have been opened. I now try to watch the FCC and our government at every level (local, state and federal) to try to keep them true to the ideals that I was taught were true and that I still believe they should be upholding. jack Rich Comroe wrote: It's ALWAYS been this way. Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, rest assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware). Remember that telecommunications had little need for radio back then other than as microwave backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic area due to its directionality by nature. Radio licenses were handed out to commercial business's at modest filing fee because there wasn't perceived to be any large monetary demand. This changed only in the early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to grant licenses for cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that there had ever been such demand. Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later. But IMO there's been no recent change in government. We each discover the way it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it acted differently in times gone by. Just reflect back on regulations crafted for oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest corporations of the day were 100 years ago. The only change is that wireless was never the target of the largest corporations way, way back when. Even though it was one-way, remember how the corporate interests of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) influenced the FCC to move the FM broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago just as a roadblock to an emerging FM broadcast competition? Imagine getting the FCC to put all early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with a stroke of the pen! I think this was all the way back in the 1930s. Crippled the FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM Stereo in the early 1960s). Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large, politically-connected corporations, delivered to Congress, voted on and passed into law. Because laws written today fail to benefit the majority of the people, our real economy is going downhill. Our government prints billions of
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
I've found your posts articulate, intelligent, and often very insightful. I agree with many of things you write. But I can't help but disagree with literally everything you've said here in this post. I'd spent nearly a decade representing a large corporation in public coordination functions with the rest of the wireless industry at large, and government. True, you learn to not believe anything anyone ever says on its face, but if you're successful in what you do you dig for the true motive of everyone. You also learn that the public good is very often served by concensus, even if it's expressed through regulation. It's unfortunate that much of regulation is not an expression of anything but the voice of who has the most money influence. The responsible thing is to play to make it better (spoken as one who tried), but that hardly ever equates to burn it all down. Can you really find no redeeming qualities in anything expressed thru your government? Respectfully, Rich - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz - Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even Ok, now that I stopped snickering... Rich, we're not that far apart... but the difference between is, is that I'm willing to argue what we all know, but often just don't really want to address. That being the obvious outcomes vs the ideal we want. vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. That's the nature of government for you. The nature has certain observable qualities, and I address those here. That's why I state things like government being lethal. That's its nature, that's just how things are. You people keep confusing that with the notion of promoting anarchy, which I am not.As someone once said eternal vigilance is the price we must pay as a democratic type society to get and keep liberty - and that could be defined as having a reasonably just and responsible government. Eternal Vigilance can be defined, when it comes to WISP's, as standing up for or against everything that impacts our business, our services, or our ability to do either. It is the very nature of government and the governed to be adversarial. I know many of you think that's some kind of politics, but it's not partisan. It's just the nature of the beast, as they say. Anyone who thinks that we must give up something, does nothing but offer payment for empty air. Unless we are EVER defensive, eternally vigilant, we WILL get trod into oblivion. That doesn't take bad people, or ANY hostility on the part of the regulators toward us, that's just the consequences of the motions of the 1500 pound gorilla attempting to walk around the anthills. If we have good enough things to say, and ones that give the regulators the ability to say good things about what they do, then we needed play 'quid pro quo which is just a nice way of saying shady dealings which we all despise. Most of them would rather have something good to say and do something good... It's easier, but until or unless we give them that ammunition, INTACT, it's not going to happen. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
A very good respectable attitude. I agree with you whole heartedly that FCC (and justice dept policy) has badly damaged our own wireless and wired telecommunications industries in this country (which for so long led the entire planet). That doesn't make them evil ... it just means they've done a bad job at balancing the needs of the country with the politics influence that have dominated the last few decades. I've observed over many years that the positions advocated with money influence from major business's are often not in the interests of the country (or even themselves!). Like most things it's a fault of leadership, not of the institutions. We all need to keep our eyes on them as you so appropriately described. Like everything else in politics, if you don't vote you get the government you deserve. The same goes with the institutions that influence our industry ... the industry has to participate! Those that serve wispa deserve a lot of credit. It's tough to participate as a volunteer beyond the scope of the work necessary to run your own businesses. Hell, many of the years I worked for Moto it was my paid full-time job to participate in whatever industry forum or government committee they saw fit. It's really tough when it's your own time, expense, motivation. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Rich, You make a good point. As a child, it was easy for me to understand the ideals that I was taught but it was harder for me to see and to understand what was really going on behind the scenes - behind the political curtain so to speak. Now, as an adult, it's become painfully obvious to me how intertwined politics and business really are. They are so intertwined that they appear (to me at least) to be destroying both the financial well-being of our country and the moral leadership that we once believed our country provided in the world. I guess I could say that my eyes have been opened. I now try to watch the FCC and our government at every level (local, state and federal) to try to keep them true to the ideals that I was taught were true and that I still believe they should be upholding. jack Rich Comroe wrote: It's ALWAYS been this way. Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, rest assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware). Remember that telecommunications had little need for radio back then other than as microwave backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic area due to its directionality by nature. Radio licenses were handed out to commercial business's at modest filing fee because there wasn't perceived to be any large monetary demand. This changed only in the early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to grant licenses for cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that there had ever been such demand. Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later. But IMO there's been no recent change in government. We each discover the way it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it acted differently in times gone by. Just reflect back on regulations crafted for oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest corporations of the day were 100 years ago. The only change is that wireless was never the target of the largest corporations way, way back when. Even though it was one-way, remember how the corporate interests of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) influenced the FCC to move the FM broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago just as a roadblock to an emerging FM broadcast competition? Imagine getting the FCC to put all early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with a stroke of the pen! I think this was all the way back in the 1930s. Crippled the FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM Stereo in the early 1960s). Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
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/ -- 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 Assistance for Wireless 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/
RE: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
-Original Message- From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: 4/25/07 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Rich, You make a good point. As a child, it was easy for me to understand the ideals that I was taught but it was harder for me to see and to understand what was really going on behind the scenes - behind the political curtain so to speak. Now, as an adult, it's become painfully obvious to me how intertwined politics and business really are. They are so intertwined that they appear (to me at least) to be destroying both the financial well-being of our country and the moral leadership that we once believed our country provided in the world. I guess I could say that my eyes have been opened. I now try to watch the FCC and our government at every level (local, state and federal) to try to keep them true to the ideals that I was taught were true and that I still believe they should be upholding. jack Rich Comroe wrote: It's ALWAYS been this way. Back in the 50's when you were taught ideals, rest assured it was the same way (but as a child you weren't aware). Remember that telecommunications had little need for radio back then other than as microwave backhaul ... which never cut a large geographic area due to its directionality by nature. Radio licenses were handed out to commercial business's at modest filing fee because there wasn't perceived to be any large monetary demand. This changed only in the early 1980's as the FCC struggled to find ways to grant licenses for cellular spectrum, which was the first time in history that there had ever been such demand. Yet it still hadn't been discovered how much business's were willing to PAY for licenses until the first round of PCS auctions netted the government $2.3B almost a decade later. But IMO there's been no recent change in government. We each discover the way it works at a particular age, but I've no reason to believe it acted differently in times gone by. Just reflect back on regulations crafted for oil, railroad, steel, coal, or whatever the largest corporations of the day were 100 years ago. The only change is that wireless was never the target of the largest corporations way, way back when. Even though it was one-way, remember how the corporate interests of the TV broadcasters (Sarnoff) influenced the FCC to move the FM broadcast band almost-3/4-of-a-century-ago just as a roadblock to an emerging FM broadcast competition? Imagine getting the FCC to put all early FM broadcasters and manufacturers out of business with a stroke of the pen! I think this was all the way back in the 1930s. Crippled the FM broadcast industry for at least 30 years (until the invention of FM Stereo in the early 1960s). Before I start sounding like Mark, I need to state that I believe government plays an important helpful (even vital) role to promote US industries and provide the best services for the US people. I just think they're doing a bad job in this regard. I fervently believe that regulatory anarchy is the worst thing for us all collectively when it comes to signals that can travel long distances. There's no excuse for lack of regulation which can destroy the utility of our spectrum which can all go the way of CB. There's a terrible need for active FCC watch-dogs to weigh-in to counteract the impact of paid lobbyists. Of course, the major industries have a voice that's orders of magnitude louder. But that's the way it's always been. Rich - Original Message - From: Jack Unger To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz John, Regarding your comment: Enabling thousands of new bustling and growing entrepreneurs to build local wireless communication broadband companies is the smartest thing they could do which is why they will not do it. Yes, creating and supporting new entrepreneurs is what government should do but our government has become corrupted (there, I did it... I uttered the C word) by the big money from large, entrenched, politically-connected corporations. By providing large political campaign contributions and gifts (like trips on corporate jets) large corporations now control how new laws are written and how existing laws are enforced. It should be no surprise that new laws are written to benefit large corporations. Back when I was a child (in the 50's) I was taught and I believed that the job of government was to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Today, that's changed. Now, it's my impression that our government writes laws to benefit those who contribute the most money to political parties. In the last few years, there are examples of bills that were actually written directly by large,
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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. did you read? Come on Jack... Here's paragraph three of the background section: 3. In recent years, manufacturers have developed Part 15 transmitter modules (or “single” modules) that can be incorporated into many different devices. These modules generally consist of a completely self-contained radio-frequency transmitter (transmission system) missing only an input signal source and a power source to make it functional. Once the modules are authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure, they may be incorporated into a number of host devices such as personal computers (PCs) or personal digital assistants (PDAs), which have been separately authorized.2 The completed product generally is not subject to requirements for further certification by the Commission. Therefore, modular transmitters save manufacturers the time and any related expenses that would be incurred if a new equipment authorization were needed for the same transmitter when it is installed in a new device. _ I dunno about you, but if that does not address mini-pci modules on a single board computer, I dunno what would. That's about as clear and specific as they could get! They CLEARLY are talking about rf network devices. It takes no imagination whatsoever to very effectively create mini-pci cards and certify them under these rules. They even state that the 'enclosure' no longer matters, nor does the device the module is connected to, unless it can make the device operate out of bounds.The software, if it uses the drivers from the manufacturer, or elements of the manufacturer's software, that are approved as far as SDR's go, for TPC and DFS, then yes, it obviously complies with this, because those are certified by the chipset manufacturers. And further, they went on to state that this can be applied to a wide array of rf devices... and they address various types of modulation, frequencies, blah blah. We're talking part-15 based networking devices, they're talking walkie talkies, they're talking about a huge array of devices. I see it as sea change, and take that from the language they use. The requirements are: self contained shielding so it's not dependent on enclosure for unintentional radiation control, has its own power control, can be certified separately from the rest of the device. The worst that can happen, is that we submit a mini-pci and antenna combination for certification and it gets rejected, but it appears to me we CAN certify it. As far as the unique connector rule, I don't know how this is interpreted, but every laptop and mini-pci put in it now has the same connector. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
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/ -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration www.nwwnet.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
I find reading all these notices very difficult... I think they hire writers just to confuse us Ok, here is my thoughts.. Manufacture A designs and builds a radio card (minipci), and develops the firmware to operate it.They then get FCC certification for this radio, firmware, and (hopefully) several antenna and like. PC manufacture B then purchases this radio and firmware to incorporate into this device. Before, this PC should have been sent for FCC certification with this specific radio, firmware, and like antenna. Now if the PC manufacture wanted to use one from Mfg A or one from Mfg B then they would need to FCC certify each case. Sound familiar? As I read this, the PC manufacture would now only need to put a label stating that this PC has radio with FCC cert # . installed. If this is the case, how do we differ? We use the same firmware and radio combo, the only problem I see is radio manufactures only certify with small db antenna. If they would certify with 14, 19 and 24 db, then I don't see why we would be any different. This rule still needs the unique connector. I also don't see any distinction between being a client or an AP in this rule. I see this rule only as radiation concerns. Tim - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- 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 Assistance for Wireless 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/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Mark, Please see my responses to your points inline. T h a n k s (you see, I individually added the Thanks; it is not automatically inserted into each of my emails :)) jack Mark Koskenmaki wrote: - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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. did you read? Uh, why yes, I did. I read, re-read, highlighted and attempted to understand the FCC document rather carefully before making my original post. Come on Jack... Here's paragraph three of the background section: 3. In recent years, manufacturers have developed Part 15 transmitter modules (or “single” modules) that can be incorporated into many different devices. These modules generally consist of a completely self-contained radio-frequency transmitter (transmission system) missing only an input signal source and a power source to make it functional. Once the modules are authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure, they may be incorporated into a number of host devices such as personal computers (PCs) or personal digital assistants (PDAs), which have been separately authorized.2 The completed product generally is not subject to requirements for further certification by the Commission. Therefore, modular transmitters save manufacturers the time and any related expenses that would be incurred if a new equipment authorization were needed for the same transmitter when it is installed in a new device. _ I dunno about you, but if that does not address mini-pci modules on a single board computer, I dunno what would. That's about as clear and specific as they could get! They CLEARLY are talking about rf network devices. Mark - Sure they are talking about RF devices. This paragraph is a background section; it simply outlines what is already true; there's no regulatory change reflected in this paragraph. The FCC appears to be referring to RF modules that have already gone through wireless testing (Subpart C testing) and received modular approval. These modular-approved cards can be legally used in equipment (for example: plugged into a PC card slot) without any further approval being needed AS LONG AS the antenna used is the same type and gain as the antenna used when the module was originally tested and approved (perhaps an on-board antenna or a low-gain (1 -3 dB) external antenna. It takes no imagination whatsoever to very effectively create mini-pci cards and certify them under these rules. They even state that the 'enclosure' no longer matters, nor does the device the module is connected to, unless it can make the device operate out of bounds.The software, if it uses the drivers from the manufacturer, or elements of the manufacturer's software, that are approved as far as SDR's go, for TPC and DFS, then yes, it obviously complies with this, because those are certified by the chipset manufacturers. Sorry - there are so many ideas merged into the above paragraph that I'm unable to effectively address any of them. You'll need to clarify your points before you can expect a cogent response. And further, they went on to state that this can be applied to a wide array of rf devices... and they address various types of modulation, frequencies, blah blah. We're talking part-15 based networking devices, they're talking walkie talkies, they're talking about a huge array of devices. Again, as in the prior paragraph, I welcome the opportunity to respond to clearly-stated points or questions but I can't discern any in the above paragraph. I see it as sea change, and take that from the language they use. FCC language always sounds well-reasoned. That does not mean that they are necessarily communicating rules that mean what you want them to mean. I repeat, I don't think this 2nd Report and Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we do business. The requirements are: self contained shielding so it's not dependent on enclosure for unintentional radiation control, has its own power control, can be certified separately from the rest of the device. The worst that can happen, is that we submit a mini-pci and antenna combination for certification and it gets rejected, but it appears to me we CAN certify it. As far as the unique connector rule, I don't know how this is interpreted, but every laptop and mini-pci put in it now has the same connector. Yes, we still need to submit a wireless card, case, power supply, software, and range of antennas to be certified as a system . jack -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL
RE: [WISPA] Radio station app
Peter, I've noticed that both NPR and PBS have pushed the limits substantially on what is said during a donation acknowledgement. On NPR, the announcer doing the current pieces tends to flow into the acknowledgement but it has more and more incorporated promotional content clearly authored by the sponsor even including product names and benefits. PBS is getting kissin' close to commercials since they can include video from the sponsor. However, I don't know what the exact protocol is for the new generation of non-profit stations. Local universities and community colleges have their stations, mostly alternative-experimental and classical music, but steer farther away than NPR does in acknowledgements of donations and don't associate programmatic material with donors. Large universities often had stations that were the leading venues for what became NPR in the '70s and so are somewhat like them. The religious stations tend to be a combination; donor/receiver/sponsor/programmer so it's hard to tell from that what a generalized non-profit station format would be like...I don't recall ever seeing one. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter R. Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Radio station app Correct. You can say something like this show is sponsored by Joe's Car Lot. And that is about it. Mac Dearman wrote: -Original Message- Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe **FYI - A reminder to people out there interested in starting a noncommercial radio station (for whatever reason), applications must be recieved between Oct 12 and Oct 19, 2007, and the application itself costs nothing... I have kicked around the idea of starting a radio station, but am unsure what you meant by non commercial station. Does this mean you can't get paid for advertising? Thanks, Mac -- 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/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
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/ -- 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 Assistance for Wireless 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/
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Now exactly why some people have to say I'm promoting anarchy, or that I'm against all government, or calling government universally evil, I dunno. Maybe you could explain it to me. Here's where I get the impression, from things you've written such as these few excerpts below. Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good. Not really. Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your having no restriction whatsoever on what you choose to do? I respect your yes. Absolutely. opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know from your own career experiences that this has never really been true under all circumstances. I don't think I'm reading much between lines, but I guess I could be as guilty as anyone. If I have, you've my humblest, sincerest appologies. I knew better even as I was writing the crack which mentioned Ore/Wash. It was a humble attempt at humor for all the anti-gov militia's that always seem to be from there. I know better than to write such crap, but it sometimes leaks out into my writing. Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just wireless) and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad government guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone. We've Could you provide a few examples? I can't think of any. This is exactly the disconnect. You've often written that you want total freedom from regulation to do whatever you want, and that this is somehow a historically proven axiom that always works out for the best. Life doesn't work that way. In connection with other threads I've written at length on how the justice dept forcibly knocked down the most advanced telecommunications system in the world to its current position way down in the pack ... because of a complete fantasy that smaller competing phone companies that needed to scratch just to stay in business could somehow maintain a leadership position for the American people and American industry. Total hogwash in a world where virtually every other country has a consolidated PTT (which immediately began gaining ground and passed the United States in leadership, technology, features, etc., etc.). This badly hurt you, me, and every other American. I've written at length in other threads how the FCC (with several large US manufacturers) took us down from our #1 leadership position in the world in cellular technology and service by totally reversing its own previous position on the standards that had at one time made AMPS the world leader. This has badly hurt every American that uses a cellphone, and totally eliminated all US manufacturers out of world leadership (and yet it was originally advocated by US manufacturers ... where my opinion comes from that business's don't necessarily know what's in their own best interest). There's many examples of business's that gambled away their own market position and future success by choosing to not go with a voluntary market standard for some short-sighted business decision ... I got'ta believe in your years of background you know many of these. Where wireless is involved it's doubly important for the FCC to impose standards of operation, just like it did for amps (the exact opposite of the way it behaved for 2nd generation digital cellular and beyond). When the CB band was expanded (about 30 yrs ago) the FCC was encouraged by business's that didn't know their own best interest to abandon tighter performance standards that had been formulated (where an entire band can become unusable). There's no shortage of examples. The more you look the more you'll see. You can't best serve the American people best unless you can serve the most people. Solutions that interfere with one another cannot ever be considered as serving the best interests of the market. Success requires some discipline, regulation, standards, or whatever you want to call it. It's best if they are selected by voluntary participation which leads to concensus of the industry itself. But they've got'ta be mandatory, meaning they've got'ta be enforced by the government. We don't need to argue this, and this isn't the place for it. But the argument displaces good conversation, I guess I'll admit you're right. The thread got kind of hijacked off topic and I appologize for playing a part in that. However I find it good conversation and I enjoy discussion with people like yourself who are skilled in the industry and can express themselves well (you certainly do). I guess I just enjoy your discussion!:-) I'd happily discuss anything on the topic off-list as I feel as strongly about it as you seem to. best regards, Rich - Original Message - From: Mark Koskenmaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
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
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
Ok, I can see several things in this ruling. It's of course referring to consumer installed PCI/USB/miniPCI(we sell retail boxed laptop wireless cards for consumer install). Well, these cards are certified SEPARATE from the computer itself, so Netgear, Dlink, Linksys can have a wide range of antenna options. So why don't all of the vendors get together to get the SR2/SR5/SR9/CM9/Senao cards certified with say the most popular antenna options (Rootennas, grid dishes, etc) as if they were consumer installed cards for laptops, NOT for WISPs. But that would give our usage of it because nothing stops us from sticking a Linksys ad-hoc wireless card on the rooftop of a building and broadcasting wireless from a PC. EVEN a Linux box - look at MadWIFI - binary drivers to keep FCC certification. And MadWIFI lets your Linux box be a FCC certified AP. Now that leaves the software itself, Mikrotik/StarOS to modular certify their software with those cards. Or switch back to a standardized FCC certified firmware binary. I can see this ruling being out there because Dell / HP / Compaq might be nervous about losing their overall FCC cert on pre-installed wireless cards. As computer system builders we've all been using modular certifications for years: FCC certified case, motherboard, video card, modem, etc. Add FCC certified wireless cards to that mix and guess what - now you've got a computer capable of being an access point, and being FCC certified by default. Use RP-SMA instead of N-Male for the connector rules. Get some certified antennas (and I think there's probably already a list of certified antennas for use with Ubiquiti's cards), and now you've got FCC certified WISP equipment. - Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
The software can allow non FCC modes as long as there is an option to select FCC modes and not exceed either the power or frequency spectrum limits while properly selected. It would be a mistake to require the OS code to limit for FCC and US operation. The code can be changed and any number of things can be done to make the unit operate outside of FCC requirements, plus this is a world market and not everybody falls under FCC requirements. In fact the majority of people are in the category that is not FCC scrutinized. The point should be that the unit is certified to meet FCC requirements if the user selects the US country code. Just the same as it would meet FCC requirements if they used a certified radio and a certified antenna. It really is up to the user to have a proper radio, antenna and select the proper country code. Government bodies can dictate all they want, but in the end it is up to the individual to remain in compliance, and if they decide to ignore certain things, then what does it really matter what the regs demand that everybody else do? This whole situation should come down to what is best for the majority of the users who will operate responsibly and not make it more difficult for the good guys while trying to force the bad guys to comply. It should be pretty obvious by now that some people will ignore whatever rule you make, so why punish everybody? The FCC seemed pretty pleased with the innovation that is happening and the adoption of wireless for getting to the hard to reach users. They seem to be wanting this trend to continue, and the loosening up on certification requirements is a very good step that will encourage even more of what everybody wants. I do not think the FCC are trying to add roadblocks but rather are attempting to encourage people to do it right and they seem to be making it easier for that to happen. It is a very positive thing they have done. Lonnie On 4/25/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
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
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
I'm curious how a Linux with madwifi is binary certified yet MT or StarOS are not? They all use Linux and have drivers traceable to Atheros, just as the madwifi group code is. Lonnie On 4/25/07, Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, I can see several things in this ruling. It's of course referring to consumer installed PCI/USB/miniPCI(we sell retail boxed laptop wireless cards for consumer install). Well, these cards are certified SEPARATE from the computer itself, so Netgear, Dlink, Linksys can have a wide range of antenna options. So why don't all of the vendors get together to get the SR2/SR5/SR9/CM9/Senao cards certified with say the most popular antenna options (Rootennas, grid dishes, etc) as if they were consumer installed cards for laptops, NOT for WISPs. But that would give our usage of it because nothing stops us from sticking a Linksys ad-hoc wireless card on the rooftop of a building and broadcasting wireless from a PC. EVEN a Linux box - look at MadWIFI - binary drivers to keep FCC certification. And MadWIFI lets your Linux box be a FCC certified AP. Now that leaves the software itself, Mikrotik/StarOS to modular certify their software with those cards. Or switch back to a standardized FCC certified firmware binary. I can see this ruling being out there because Dell / HP / Compaq might be nervous about losing their overall FCC cert on pre-installed wireless cards. As computer system builders we've all been using modular certifications for years: FCC certified case, motherboard, video card, modem, etc. Add FCC certified wireless cards to that mix and guess what - now you've got a computer capable of being an access point, and being FCC certified by default. Use RP-SMA instead of N-Male for the connector rules. Get some certified antennas (and I think there's probably already a list of certified antennas for use with Ubiquiti's cards), and now you've got FCC certified WISP equipment. - Original Message - From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
I guess you have to define what unique means. You can buy U.FL or RP-SMA connectors from just as many outlets as you can a N connector, maybe even more, since N connectors are more Industrial and the U.FL and RP-SMA have become consumer items. Lonnie On 4/25/07, Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
[WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing
I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and graphing. I have used MRTG for graphing before. I have looked at WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before. I want to be able to graph traffic on network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment. I also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus. I am curious what others use for this type of application, what they like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else. Thank you, Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
THAT's the one I've been waiting for. This pretty much rules out any intent what so ever that WE can use this to mix and match transmitters. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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
Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing
WhatsUp and JFFNMS both. What'sUp is very quick to notify via SMS (I get the messages within 10 seconds of a host being down). JFF for keeping historical data, etc. Travis Microserv Jory Privett wrote: I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and graphing. I have used MRTG for graphing before. I have looked at WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before. I want to be able to graph traffic on network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment. I also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus. I am curious what others use for this type of application, what they like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else. Thank you, Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
Why were you waiting for that one? It sounds like you do NOT want to mix and match to suit the job. You can mix and match, you just have to make sure that the transmitters you mix are certified with the antennas you use. Certified is certified. It does not matter that you have other types in use. Imagine if you could not mix and match, since that would mean you could not use Alvarion and Tranzeo on the same tower, which is certainly not the intent. Since you can clearly mix different systems on a tower then it also holds that you can mix different transmitters with a system. Just keep each one meeting the proper requirements and you should be OK. The new regs are not regulating your entire network as a whole, but rather are wanting individual parts to be proper. Lonnie On 4/25/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: THAT's the one I've been waiting for. This pretty much rules out any intent what so ever that WE can use this to mix and match transmitters. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Tim Kerns wrote: I find reading all these notices very difficult... I think they hire writers just to confuse us I thought it was lawyers... -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Part s 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
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
Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
It just seems that if the information is important, the FCC should be willing to put their money where their mouth is. I don't know who would actually put up the money. John Peter R. wrote: I think many (half?) don't even know that they have to file. Many don't understand CALEA or know that they need to comply. So $500... it would probably get you about 400 more, but who will pony up the $200k? Peter John Thomas wrote: Pete, you hit on an interesting idea. What if the FCC were to pay the ISP say $500 each year to fill out the 477? Would more ISP's participate? John -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing
I've been using zabbix effectively for those purposes. Does a good job, has nice template control, soon is supposed to support auto discovery. Steve -- Jory Privett wrote: I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and graphing. I have used MRTG for graphing before. I have looked at WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before. I want to be able to graph traffic on network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment. I also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus. I am curious what others use for this type of application, what they like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else. Thank you, Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing
I use nagios and cacti for notification and graphing respectively. Both were simple to set up on a debian box via apt-get. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Jory Privett wrote: I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and graphing. I have used MRTG for graphing before. I have looked at WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before. I want to be able to graph traffic on network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment. I also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus. I am curious what others use for this type of application, what they like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else. Thank you, Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] LEMMINGS?
Another two cents that may or may not be worth ANYTHING at all. RANT I have sat back and observed for some time now (with much disdain) as the 'herd' runs as fast as we can toward the cliff. I am still waiting to see if the herd (WE) turn out to be lemmings or not, but the cliff is quickly and abruptly approaching. 1. CALEA compliance for WISPs... 1. WHY? 1. Members really perceive it will foster increased national security. * Not really, there are numerous open sourced encryption / traffic scramble techniques which render useless a raw packet stream capture. (These efforts are born of a noble cause, that of subverting tyrannical government communications interceptions, primarily focused upon subverting the effort of governments known for human rights violations like North Korea, China, etc.) But one must presume that these same tools can and will be employed by criminals with malice, as well as employed for good PATRIOTS in these other unfortunate circumstances / countries. o mac spoofing, onion routing, anonymous relay, hybrid layer X techniques o non standards based file / data encryption techniques o Steganography , Mnemonics, NUMEROUS Crypts / Cyphers o Combinations of the above plus more! 2. Because Carnivore's commercial replacement is not doing the job already? * The FED has replaced the Carnivore program with an amendment to CALEA, and it is a move which transferred the costs of the program from the government to you! The feds already have the technology to do this, they just decided they wanted you to pay for it. * Why don't we observe (in time frame context) some EOIs (Events of interest) o In late 2004 it is becoming more apparent that the RBOC battles over muni-wireless are losing ground, despite lobby dollars and presumably, promises of legislation supporting the RBOCs effort. o Additionally, in late 2004 the CLECs really started eyeballing these WISP guys and it occurred to the CLECs that what the WISPs had going was GOOD. Rather than re-invent the wheel with traditional wired facilities, (UNE was dead or dying at this time), so we began initiatives to re-organize accordingly. o But alas, they did not go so far as to form tight alliances to the WISP community. Regardless, the die was cast. WISPs had made ripples to the very tops of the incumbent carrier realm via the interest put forth by the CLECs. o http://www.public-i.org/telecom/report.aspx?aid=744 Take some time to REALLY observe the changes taking place in ILEC, RBOC, and CABLECO lobby spending during 2003-2006. Notice how they increased HUGELY and now encompassed not only Federal, but now also STATE / LOCAL levels of government? Notice how your business value as a WISP has eroded during this same time frame? 3. It is the Law o hmm MLK, was a law breaker. Well, I suppose that if a law were entered into record requiring that your children be implanted with RFID or some other tracking system, you would call a meeting to see how you can most efficiently comply? o Can't happen you say? Ok, suppose a law gets voted in that requires child inoculation. Next suppose that same law gets amended w/o voter over site to also include RFID implant. Well that is essentially what has transpired with CALEA. o When CALEA was written (circa 1994) its reason of creation was to address the digitally switched networking equipment en vogue at RBOC / ILEC facilities. To be able to lawfully intercept the CDR (call detail records) of a SUSPECT. o Ok, it is the law, is it being applied to: + Public libraries whom provide Internet access? NO + Starbucks, McDonalds, Lowes, and other major corps whom provide public access wifi hotspots? NO
RE: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Com mission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment appro val
Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device SBC=not WRAP=not RB=not -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Yes, we still need to submit a wireless card, case, power supply, software, and range of antennas to be certified as a system . No, this change means that the CASE, POWER SUPPLY, and associated other hardware that generates the input signal does not need to be certified to build a certified product. This the exact change we need to be able build our own equipment. The motherboard and case are no longer required to build and keep the system compliant and certified. Just the module itself, with chosen antennae. jack -- 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 Assistance for Wireless 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/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
But Jack, they don't have to. Anyone can. - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval 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/ -- 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 Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz
- Original Message - From: Rich Comroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz Now exactly why some people have to say I'm promoting anarchy, or that I'm against all government, or calling government universally evil, I dunno. Maybe you could explain it to me. Here's where I get the impression, from things you've written such as these few excerpts below. Government policy MUST regulate wireless industries for the public good. Not really. Uh, Rich... I specifically stated that the industry doesn't need to be controlled. The RF aspects are subject to regulation, as I think perhaps we pretty much all agree they should be. Do you really truly believe that everyone always benefits from your having no restriction whatsoever on what you choose to do? I respect your yes. Absolutely. Why must ** I ** be regulated? What possible public harm do you think me being in the internet business without federal oversight could happen? Too many people with broadband? Too cheap of prices? Too much profit? Too much profit lost by others? If I am free to conduct my business unhindered, it seems the only person who could be hurt in any way is my competition, and customers will benefit. opinions immensely but I just can't help believe that deep down you know from your own career experiences that this has never really been true under all circumstances. I don't think I'm reading much between lines, but I guess I could be as guilty as anyone. If I have, you've my humblest, sincerest appologies. I knew better even as I was writing the crack which mentioned Ore/Wash. It was a humble attempt at humor for all the anti-gov militia's that always seem to be from there. I know better than to write such crap, but it sometimes leaks out into my writing. Naw, they come from Idaho and Montana. Well, heck, I'd live in either if I could find a way to earn a living. Probably for the same reason... You get left alone in both states. Well, Montana's getting ruined by all the insane Californians, environmental wackos, and movie stars moving and destroying the state, but it's still pretty decent. Study some history of various industries (not restricted to just wireless) and you will find that lack of government guidance / or bad government guidance (read: lack of vitally needed regulation) hurts everyone. We've Could you provide a few examples? I can't think of any. This is exactly the disconnect. You've often written that you want total freedom from regulation to do whatever you want, and that this is somehow a historically proven axiom that always works out for the best. Life doesn't work that way. In connection with other threads I've written at length on how the justice dept forcibly knocked down the most advanced telecommunications system in the world to its current position way down in the pack ... because of a complete fantasy that smaller competing phone companies that needed to scratch just to stay in business could somehow maintain a leadership position for the American people and American industry. Total hogwash in a world where virtually every other country has The way I see it, the US innovated not a single thing, and we had completely unchanging and calcified technologically, in the POTS system. I can't imagine this being good. What you saw was that there was almost NO consumer market for phone products. a consolidated PTT (which immediately began gaining ground and passed the United States in leadership, technology, features, etc., etc.). This badly hurt you, me, and every other American. I've written at length in other I can't imagine how. I have far better service, it costs a small fraction of what it used to, and now I have options galore, for phone service. How you can call this bad, I can't imagine. I think it's the best thing to happen to Ma Bell. threads how the FCC (with several large US manufacturers) took us down from our #1 leadership position in the world in cellular technology and service by totally reversing its own previous position on the standards that had at one time made AMPS the world leader. This has badly hurt every American that uses a cellphone, and totally eliminated all US manufacturers out of world leadership (and yet it was originally advocated by US manufacturers ... where my opinion comes from that business's don't necessarily know what's in their own best interest). There's many examples of business's I think you're all wrong. The commoditization of cellular phones is what turned the industry from small potatoes, overly expensive products, to commodity cell phones produced by low-value commodity production systems. Just like we no longer have to pay a month's wages to buy a rather primitive TV. Now you can buy a great one for peanuts,. and Americans aren't
Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing
Nagios for notifications and cacti for graphing. I am also looking at a pretty nice oss project called zenoss. It has auto discovery, graphing and notifications. It also does some asset tracking and other features. I have not spent alot of time with it yet, but I did run the auto discovery and catagorize some hard to get the graphs working. Pretty simple web interface. www.zenoss.com They also have a VMWare image, so if you have vmware player or vmware server (both free) setup some where you can have it up and running in 10 minutes to try it out. Also I gather netflow data from my core router, I have not started graphing yet, but I do create some usage reports from the data. Ryan On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 17:10 -0500, Jory Privett wrote: I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and graphing. I have used MRTG for graphing before. I have looked at WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before. I want to be able to graph traffic on network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment. I also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus. I am curious what others use for this type of application, what they like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else. Thank you, Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing
We use nagios for alerting and caci for graphing and trending. Let me know if you need help with setup or integration. Mark Jory Privett wrote: I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and graphing. I have used MRTG for graphing before. I have looked at WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before. I want to be able to graph traffic on network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment. I also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus. I am curious what others use for this type of application, what they like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else. Thank you, Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Ralph, you hit the mark. The sbc guys need to get their stuff tested and certified. End of story. If some can't do it and others do, they will soon be without sales. That ought to drive them to conform. I can see the domino effect starting. ADI has done a very good thing for us. The pressure is on the other guys now. George ralph wrote: I'm just trying to say that most of these boards have never been certified to even use as a computing device in the US. They could be putting out spurs and harmonics all over the aircraft band or anywhere else. I had an SBC once whose crystal oscillator was putting out a strong signal right on 146.055 MHZ, the input of a local Ham repeater. It shut them completely down until I could get there and shut the computer off. Manufacturer had me pad the crystal with a capacitor. Moved the spur off to who knows where else. Hopefully not to the aircraft distress frequency or something like that. This board was not FCC certified either. I have a Routerboard 153 sitting here on my desk. Nowhere on it is an FCC compliance note about its compliance as an unintentional radiator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval - Original Message - From: ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device SBC=not WRAP=not RB=not I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... I know that lots of SBC's have been certified within systems, and gettting them certified outside of systems, as unintentional radiators should be... well.. almost trivial. I don't think a WRAP board has been, but then, the WRAP is now obsolete. The various RB / Compex / Gateworks, etc SBC's are nothing but PARTS of already certified systems. The CPU's and other parts are common parts. They'd probably qualify under plain old declaration of compliance rules. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring and Graphing
What are you using with your netflow data? I've been using nfcapd to store the streams to files and then parsing the data with nfdump and custom scripts. I would like to some other admin's netflow usage. Right now I use it to track bandwidth usage per IP so I can see who is responsible for network spikes and also to get a feel for the heavy bandwidth users. Storing the flow data has come in handy upon occasion when a user calls up and says the network was slow last night and I can pull up their traffic for the time period and let them know that they had P2P running at that time using a chunk of their bandwidth. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Ryan Langseth wrote: Nagios for notifications and cacti for graphing. I am also looking at a pretty nice oss project called zenoss. It has auto discovery, graphing and notifications. It also does some asset tracking and other features. I have not spent alot of time with it yet, but I did run the auto discovery and catagorize some hard to get the graphs working. Pretty simple web interface. www.zenoss.com They also have a VMWare image, so if you have vmware player or vmware server (both free) setup some where you can have it up and running in 10 minutes to try it out. Also I gather netflow data from my core router, I have not started graphing yet, but I do create some usage reports from the data. Ryan On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 17:10 -0500, Jory Privett wrote: I am looking some a software package that does network monitoring and graphing. I have used MRTG for graphing before. I have looked at WhatsUp, JFFNMS and Niagos before. I want to be able to graph traffic on network ports of my routers (Cisco and Mikrotik) and wireless equipment. I also would like it to notify me if a device is down either by email or preferably SMS. Monitoring mail and web servers would be an added plus. I am curious what others use for this type of application, what they like.dislike about it and if they would recommend it to someone else. Thank you, Jory Privett WCCS -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval
- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Mark, I agree with you on many of the points that you've been making recently regarding who should pay (or not pay) for CALEA compliance but with regard to the meaning of these FCC rules modifications, I disagree with virtually all of your opinions. There's nothing wrong with that; we are each entitled to our own opinions. Further, I'm not going to keep debating these points with you. I've stated by beliefs and you've stated yours. Feel free to build and certify your equipment any way that you see fit and believe is legal. The discussion that really counts is the one that you have with the FCC. Please see my comments inline and good luck. jack Well, Jack, I guess we'll ultimately find out what they really mean when when they have to answer questions in plain english. While Im sure you have more experience reading between the lines than I have... or at least desciphering the legalese they put out, I get what I say from reading the document. Then again, don't forget... there's the law of unintended consequences... that they say stuff without realizing how it can be interpreted. Ultimately, who's going to be the one asking them for clarity here? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
