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 =?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
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
