Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Michael Erskine

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you say 
but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will 
they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then

after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call them.

What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:
  

Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced.  
I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did not get into an 
argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't 
have to have them certified because they are still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect.



1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 
2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of
chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing. 

  
Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in 
this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a 
reading from them.





Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product.  


Ryan


  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Ryan Langseth
Michael,

This is the first time I have gotten into this subject, and the last.
As I said, I have seen this same thing come up at least a dozen time on
this list.  While I did say how long I have been on this list, my time
in the industry is only about a month longer.  Its always the same
thing, it goes round and round with people getting angry.  

I don't run MT,  I was merely trying to point out the major differences,
imho, between a PC (win32) with a wireless adapter, and MT with a
wireless adapter. 

Do you think those pci card manufacturers have certified the card with a
bigger antenna than it shipped with? I highly doubt it. Once that is
changed, the card would no longer be a certified module.

I made one comment in this entire thread, which I am already regretting.
I hardly consider that vocal.

My comment was not meant to be sarcastic, I would like to see a ruling
on it one way or another, but I am not going to run around trying to get
it. Its not worth my time, I don't need to start working 70-hour weeks.

this thread  /dev/null,
Ryan

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 02:20 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:
 Ryan,
 
 A few of you are making a lot of noise.
 You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you say 
 but if it were...
 Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
 question already?
 The FCC is but a telephone call away.
 http://www.fcc.gov/
 
 It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
 will debate ad nasuiem
 about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will 
 they find the courage
 to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
 someone suggests it and then
 after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call them.
 
 What a joke.
 -m-
 
 Ryan Langseth wrote:
  On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:

  Rick;
 
  I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced.  
  I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did not get into an 
  argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.
 
  That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
  boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
  radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't 
  have to have them certified because they are still what they were.
 
  If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
  certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
  which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
  those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect.
  
 
  1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 
  2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.
 
  This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times
  since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of
  chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing. 
 

  Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
  experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in 
  this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a 
  reading from them.
 
  
 
  Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
  certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product.  
 
  Ryan
 
 

 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs 
now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based 
certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use 
Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this 
issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must 
the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at 
FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a 
system for certification that includes the ability to software-select 
the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the 
selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism 
on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in 
unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control 
of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the 
FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer 
to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself vocally 
pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access 
to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and 
their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, 
and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this outlaw 
image and are seen as responsible business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you 
say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never 
will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then

after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call them.

What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:
 

Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did 
not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still 
don't have to have them certified because they are still what they 
were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are 
incorrect.



1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) 
comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of
chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing.
 
Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word 
in this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to 
get a reading from them.





Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product. 
Ryan



  




--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] We Win Again On 3605-3700 MHz. So What Does It Mean?

2007-06-11 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

Below is another educated opinion on what 3650 could mean to the 
wireless industry. Click the link at the bottom to read the full story.


Back in 2004-05, a bunch of us fought to open up the 3650-3700 MHz 
band for unlicensed use (Sometimes refered to as 3.65 GHz rather than 
3650 MHz). While we did not get “pure” unlicensed, the FCC's “hybrid 
unlicensed” regime gave us pretty much everything we wanted.


In August 2005, a group of tech firms led by Intel filed a Petition 
for Reconsideration. This group, which I dubbed the “WiMax Posse,” 
wanted the Commission to reverse itself and optimize the band for 
WiMax operations. Notably, this meant adopting a licensing regime 
instead of the open spectrum rules we won in March 2005.


By this time, Powell had left and been replaced with Kevin Martin. 
Martin had earned the eternal scorn of Netheads by deregulating DSL 
(actually a process begun by Powell). And, unlike Powell, Martin had 
no record of support for open spectrum. So even though the WiMax Posse 
and the various licensed wireless providers who came in to support 
them raised no new arguments, no one knew whether Martin would 
reaffirm the 2005 rules or side with the licensed spectrum/WiMax posse.


So I let out a huge sigh of relief and felt a modest sense of 
accomplishment when the FCC issued an Order denying the WiMax Posse 
Recon Petition and basically reaffirming our March 2005 win. 
Commissioner Adelstein had a very nice concurring statement 
highlighting the important roll played by WISPs and Community Wireless 
Networks (CWNs) in getting wireless connectivity to rural and 
underserved urban communities.


So what does this mean for wireless deployment for WISPs, CWNs, and 
muni systems? How do I read the FCC tea leaves in light of last 
month's FCC decision terminating two important open spectrum 
proceedings? See below . . . .


Link for full story;
http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/818

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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Dawn DiPietro

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say 
in what can and cannot be certified.


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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
The person I speak with about MT certified systems has asked me to keep it 
hush hush, so perhaps that lack of detail has been the source of confusion. 
For all I know, I may have already exceeded the bounds of what I'm allowed 
to say by even saying I know someone that's working on it.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Mike,

I see no evidence of anyone twisting your words.

As I see it, problems of mis-interpretation of your words have come up 
because your statement that there will be certified option is so general 
that it omits specific details thereby almost guaranteeing that the 
unmentioned specific details will be misunderstood and/or mis-interpreted.


I respectfully suggest that you consider one of the following three 
options.


1. Provide specific details about FCC certified Mikrotik-based systems 
that you know for a fact will soon be offered by one of more vendors.


2. If you are a WISPA member, let's take this discussion over WISPA's 
Certification email list which is a members-only list.


3. Contact me via phone or email (off-list) and we can discuss more 
specific details about the process of obtaining FCC 3650 MHz 
certification.


Best Regards,
jack

Mike Hammett wrote:
I...I give up talking to you.  You take what I say and twist it 
horribly as if I am some renegade pioneer of MT.



-
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: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Mike,

This does not make everyone using a Mikrotik system legal though. It is 
not just as easy as saying I use the same components in my system as the 
one certified so I am legal. In case you are unaware, this would also 
include the enclosure and the power supply even then you still need the 
documentation from the entity that certified the system. The system must 
be exactly the same soup to nuts.


Again for you to say that an FCC Certified Mikrotik System would make 
any Mikrotik legality a non issue is an unreasonable statement.


Below is a link that might be helpful;
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Mike Hammett wrote:

Well, it will be a non issue because there will be certified option.


-
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: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Mike,

That is a big IF there. As I said before I don't see that every single 
hardware configuration deployed using Mikrotik will be covered. So to 
say that Mikrotik FCC System Certification will be a non issue is not 
a reasonable statement to make.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Mike Hammett wrote:
IIRC, if everything is the same, you can label it as containing X, Y, 
Z and be compliant.



-
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: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..



Ralph,

I have to agree that even if there is a certified system in the 
works this will not make ALL Mikrotik installations certified. There 
will most likely be some uncertified gear left in the field as I 
don't believe that some wireless providers will rip out there 
existing hardware to comply with system certification. I also don't 
think it will be a non issue anytime soon.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Ralph wrote:
I am aware that there was talk of that and maybe even a business in 
the
works around it, but it is too early to say that in any certain 
time frame
it will be a non-issue... Unless you are making an announcement (or 
someone
is).  And I highly doubt certification will be retroactive to 
whatever
roo-tenna or tupperware box or whatever that people have been 
making

systems out of prior to then.

Don't get me wrong- I will be GLAD to see someone get MT certified.

Ralph


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:13 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..


Ralph,

I think there is a committee gathering information on the most 
common hardware configurations to get something certified for 
Mikrotik.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Ralph wrote:


Why do you say this?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL 

Re: [WISPA] 3.65 radio wish list

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
Does your existing 3.65 equipment take advantage of the higher power limits 
now allowed in this band?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 radio wish list


I thought it might be interesting for all involved to discuss what we as 
WISPs are looking for in 3.65 radios. As I see it, we can expect to either 
get radios that are much the same as we currently have, but operate in a 
different spectrum or something different that makes best use of this 
unique spectrum.


In our case, we have had an experimental 3.65 license for some time and 
had a chance to understand the propagation properties of the spectrum and 
how it relates to the existing spectrum we have access to. In our markets, 
trees are a huge factor limiting our LOS coverage. Unfortunately, we found 
that 3.65 doesn't get us much help when it comes to NLOS through foliage. 
We did however find that NLOS through buildings worked significantly 
better than with 5.8. This can be a combination of factors that I might 
not fully understand, but nevertheless these findings make us very 
interested in an urban NLOS 3.65 radio.


What I would like to see is for a radio vendor to provide a PtMP system 
that operates in 3.65 and has CPE radios designed for indoor NLOS 
deployment. I already have a solution for outdoor urban use. And, through 
the use of equipment like what is offered by Orthogon we have the ability 
to deploy indoor NLOS using 5.8, but it is expense and less than ideal.


If any vendors are looking along these lines let me know. As I stated 
previously, we have a 3.65 experimental license that we could beta test 
the equipment with. Additionally, we are planning a large 3.65 deployment 
throughout our markets as soon as equipment becomes available, so we can 
commit to large qualities of radios.


-Matt
--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
I would.  I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for 
whatever he makes that I could use.  $200 more isn't really that much of a 
difference on the AP.



-
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: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS are 
used because of price. Period.


If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 for 
a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are going to 
start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 extra, are 
people really going to pay that much extra when so far they haven't 
worried about it?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

George Rogato wrote:

Matt
The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it.


I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't 
really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I 
mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are willing 
to use it in favor of something else that is certified.


I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear 
should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and 
disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether 
someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the 
choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified 
every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other 
gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one 
would choose it. What is MT's advantage?


-Matt


--
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] How much does FCC certification cost?

2007-06-11 Thread Mac Dearman
WHOA MULE - I SAY WHOA :-)

 

 

 

If I understood all that I have heard and been told in the last couple
months - - MT will have several combinations of gear certified. It takes a
while to get everything through the test lab as you have to wait your turn.

 

I have also heard through the grapevine that there will be a couple
different individuals (companies) who also have MT combinations being
certified and they will be reselling these solutions.

 

My hat is off to Tully and Arnis (and whole MT crew) as they stepped up in
our time of need  with all this CALEA stuff in the last couple months. This
was not something that they had to do, but it sure has empowered all of us
to adhere to the CALEA law at a very VERY reasonable price. 

 

I also want to say that ImageStream stepped up and even worked with the
WISPA CALEA committee to get us a solution - - THANKS JC, Jeff and Doug!!

Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
Rayville, La.
www.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief)
www.mac-tel.us (VoIP sales)
318.728.8600
318.728.9600
318.303.4182

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of joelaura
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:35 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How much does FCC certification cost?

 


So are we saying that it would be under 5K to get MT certified with
different antennas? If thats the case why wouldnt they have done it? Seems
like they would have a much bigger market if the stuff was certified. Joe
-Original Message-
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent 6/10/2007 7:17:42 PM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] How much does FCC certification cost?

Depends on the amount of lab-time testing needed.

You can minimize test time (and cost) when you use a wireless card that 
has already received a modular approval from the card manufacturer along 
with a clean single-board computer (SBC) motherboard, a clean power 
supply plus software that dis-allows operation (or excess radiation) 
outside of the U.S. band. That combination costs about $3219 to certify.

I recommend certifying with a range of antennas (the entire range of 
antenna types that you're likely to use).

Hit me off-line for more detailed info.

jack


D. Ryan Spott wrote:
 ?

 

 ryan

 

-- 
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett

Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.

If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the other 
guys can...  Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using different 
bands for each link for less than the other guys.  Even the greatest gear 
will lose out to basic redundancy.


Speed.  I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70 megabits 
with a single set of gear.  I can increase that in 70 megabit increments as 
tower space (for additional antenna) and available spectrum allow, all 
having a single Ethernet cable handoff.


With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can provide 10 
megs plus to each user.  When your system can do 70 megs plus, you can fit a 
lot more customers with higher speeds.  He who can scale wins.  The more 
bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your bandwidth becomes.  When your 
bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you pass this along to your customer, but 
you can also profit more.  I can have multiple customers on a sector that 
each can consume more bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only dream of 
supplying.


In an AP application all electronics are in one system.  I don't need to 
have a bunch of patch cords and a switch and a router and a {etc} sitting on 
a tower.  All coax runs into one box that hosts the AP.  All sector to 
sector to backhaul to backhaul communications are internal, allowing for 
greater flexibility in traffic control and uptime (reduced failures).


When I implement a QoS feature or a firewall or a {etc} I can do so directly 
on the inbound interface, before it has gone completely through the AP, 
through a switch, and into a router.  The AP is the router.


When I need to add another wireless interface to a system (AP, backhaul, 
CPE, etc.), I can just add a mPCI, antenna, and cables.  This is an even 
cheaper route than a new MT system, which is cheaper than just about 
anything else you could do.  Again, all of the above advantages also apply 
here.


I'd imagine Alvarion is pretty close in this respect, but they'd be the only 
ones...The same interface (whether its GUI, SSH, SNMP, etc.) across 
every piece of equipment.


I can run torch (a tool that tells you exactly what's running through any 
interface at that exact time, with filtering capabilities).


I can stream traffic (matching a filter) to Wireshark for further analysis 
from any device on the network.


CALEA utilities integrated into every device on the network (not yet in the 
stable release, but present in the beta).


MT (and I believe Star-OS) can do everything.  It is far easier\cheaper to 
get an MT system certified (which would only require a firmware that was 
restricted to US band options) than it is to have Motorola or Trango or 
Alvarion completely overhaul their entire lines to have the same abilities.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I don't really understand this MT thread at all. Why use MT over all the 
other certified systems available? Further, why spend time and money trying 
to get MT certified? Why not just use certified gear that is available from 
vendors that are actually interested in participating in this market?


-Matt
--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett

I never thought of it that way.  Doug makes a lot of valid points.

I can put an XR5 with a 32 dbi antenna into a PC and install Windows and be 
legal.  Why can't I install Mikrotik (a specialized Linux distribution) on 
it instead?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble


Ok.  I've said this before.  On a home PC, I don't need to certify a Dell 
computer running Win2k and a Netgear wireless card to be FCC legal, so why 
is Mikrotik any different?


Almost everything computerized is ALL modular certified.  What makes 
homebrewed any different?  Is a Dell/HP/clone PC running Linux and a Netgear 
wireless card breaking the law?  Does that Netgear need a cert for every OS 
supported?  I remember this FCC modular computer battle in the early 90s.


Also, many brands of wireless cards actually ask what governing domain is to 
be installed, again not unlike Mikrotik.


I believe everything Mikrotik is running on as long as the components meet 
modular FCC cert , would be governed as PCs and not as dedicated 
electronics like Canopy or Trango.


In the case of a laptop running a miniPCI card, if the local Best Buy puts a 
different brand in on a Linux OS, did they break the law and should be fined 
for violating Part 15?


Is running Linux illegal by the FCC?

-Original Message-
From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 7:17 PM
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble



I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear
should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and
disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether
someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the
choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified
every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other
gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one
would choose it.



What is MT's advantage?

In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee
required to have the a Microtik based system certified.

I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a
PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik 
offers-- 
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] Google Maps: How to find latitude and longitude

2007-06-11 Thread Peter R.

http://lifehacker.com/software/google-maps/how-to-find-latitude-and-longitude-267361.php



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread dougr
The question is, is a certified motherboard used with a certified add-on 
wireless card running Linux different than one running Windows?  Does a home PC 
lose certification once the OS changes?  Part 15 offers no mention of 
certifying software, only hardware.  Microsoft Windows is no more certified 
than OS X or Linux.  Its not even considered. A motherboard tested has nothing 
attached but a typical electrical load to test emissions.  Its all described in 
the P15.

Truly, the FCC has final opinion but I think there would be a lot more than 
WISPs affected by this if software became an issue.

Also, I have seen many wireless drivers which ask what certification domain 
upon installation also.  Nowhere have I heard new drivers require 
recertification on a PC.  This all would stifle innovation on a large scale.

We're talking about Mikrotik but this affects all OS in general. Granted it is 
NOT legal to use RB hardware anywhere in the US, but we should concentrate on 
RB's being certified as Class B PC motherboards (they do run  other forms of 
Linux).  Then Ubiquiti simply needs to sell us certified add-on cards, pigtails 
and antennas to put into our PC motherboards. 

If you look at a MT system before you add the software, its a PC that can 
certified using DoC assembly and software becomes a non-issue under existing 
FCC law. 

The only intentional radiator, can be certified by itself, like any other brand 
of PCI or miniPCI add-on card, provided Ubiquiti is willing to call their cards 
peripherals like Linksys and D-link already do.

-Original Message-
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:57 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say 
in what can and cannot be certified.

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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
Which RB532?  They're on the 4th revision now?

I'm not even interested in the 532...  currently the 133(c) and I believe the 
333.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:43 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


  The problem is the current RB532 will NEVER pass FCC certifications. It emits 
too much noise in the 150mHz and 400mHz areas to ever pass any certification. 
Maybe their new boards are different?

  Travis
  Microserv

  D. Ryan Spott wrote: 
I will pay $500 over the price of an unlicensed Microtik if I can get one
with the cute little FCC sticker on it.

Did you hear that kids? $500 over the MSRP! I have 8 APs (only one is a
Microtik at this time) that I would like to replace.

I think I paid $185 for the RB500 with the software pre-installed, $8 for
the pigtail and $45 for the small electrical box it is sealed in. 

So around $250 for the whole thing including shipping and tax. 

I am offering to pay $750 (300% markup based on MSRP!) for this item with
the cute little FCC sticker on the box.

I will buy 8 from whomever can present this to me. And I am a SMALL
operator!

Who wants to sell this to me? My credit card is standing by.

ryan - The troll trying to kill this thread. :P



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:38 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Ryan,

Currently a typical MT AP with wireless card, outdoor case, pigtails, 
etc. with an RB532 board is going to be about $350ish without antenna. 
Can you give an example of what this PREMIUM price is that you are 
willing to pay for the same system certified?

Travis
Microserv

D. Ryan Spott wrote:
  I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear 
should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and 
disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether 
someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the 
choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified 
every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other 
gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one 
would choose it. 



What is MT's advantage?

In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee
required to have the a Microtik based system certified. 

I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay
a
  PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik
offers.
  ryan

  


--


  -- 
  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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs 
now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based certified 
products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based 
equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC 
via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must 
the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC 
permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system 
for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country 
of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on 
devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in 
unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of 
the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the 
FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer 
to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself vocally 
pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to 
low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their 
businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) 
The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this outlaw image and 
are seen as responsible business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. 
I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you say 
but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will 
they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then

after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call them.

What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced. 
I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did not get into an 
argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't 
have to have them certified because they are still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are 
incorrect.




1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) 
comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of
chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing.

Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in 
this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a 
reading from them.





Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product. 
Ryan








--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True 

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread dougr
If indeed, an XR5 is certified with that particular 32dbi antenna, cable and 
pigtail.  No reason they wouldnt certify popular antenna combos, not to mention 
the changes to the law regarding like-gain antennas that was made a few years 
back.  

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:40 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I never thought of it that way.  Doug makes a lot of valid points.

I can put an XR5 with a 32 dbi antenna into a PC and install Windows and be 
legal.  Why can't I install Mikrotik (a specialized Linux distribution) on 
it instead?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble


Ok.  I've said this before.  On a home PC, I don't need to certify a Dell 
computer running Win2k and a Netgear wireless card to be FCC legal, so why 
is Mikrotik any different?

Almost everything computerized is ALL modular certified.  What makes 
homebrewed any different?  Is a Dell/HP/clone PC running Linux and a Netgear 



[The entire original message is not included]
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Matt Liotta

Mike Hammett wrote:

Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.

If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the 
other guys can...  Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring 
using different bands for each link for less than the other guys.  
Even the greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy.


Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost 
of MT was similar to other vendors.
Speed.  I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70 
megabits with a single set of gear.  I can increase that in 70 megabit 
increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available 
spectrum allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff.


What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you 
have in such a configuration?
With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can 
provide 10 megs plus to each user.  When your system can do 70 megs 
plus, you can fit a lot more customers with higher speeds.  He who can 
scale wins.  The more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your 
bandwidth becomes.  When your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you 
pass this along to your customer, but you can also profit more.  I can 
have multiple customers on a sector that each can consume more 
bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only dream of supplying.


Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the 
available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a 
single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy. 
In this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 802.11-based 
radio would make more sense. Can't those radios do 10Mbps plus to each user?
In an AP application all electronics are in one system.  I don't need 
to have a bunch of patch cords and a switch and a router and a {etc} 
sitting on a tower.  All coax runs into one box that hosts the AP.  
All sector to sector to backhaul to backhaul communications are 
internal, allowing for greater flexibility in traffic control and 
uptime (reduced failures).


I agree it is nice not to have a ton of components. However, the above 
would seem to require every radio at the site to be MT or you would 
still need to have separate components.
When I implement a QoS feature or a firewall or a {etc} I can do so 
directly on the inbound interface, before it has gone completely 
through the AP, through a switch, and into a router.  The AP is the 
router.


Does the QoS feature actually prioritize the radio? Obviously, people 
who use a separate route/switch can apply QoS, but it doesn't affect the 
radio. The radios we use allow prioritization on the radio itself, which 
is very useful.
When I need to add another wireless interface to a system (AP, 
backhaul, CPE, etc.), I can just add a mPCI, antenna, and cables.  
This is an even cheaper route than a new MT system, which is cheaper 
than just about anything else you could do.  Again, all of the above 
advantages also apply here.


That certainly is nice, but is that going to work in the future when the 
system is certified? I didn't think you could have a certified system 
where it is possible to add additional radio cards at a later date.
MT (and I believe Star-OS) can do everything.  It is far 
easier\cheaper to get an MT system certified (which would only require 
a firmware that was restricted to US band options) than it is to have 
Motorola or Trango or Alvarion completely overhaul their entire lines 
to have the same abilities.


I don't agree MT can do everything since it is missing several key 
features we require. However, I do agree that the vendors you mention 
above don't have the anywhere near the features of MT, nor do I think 
they want to. What about the other 802.11-based radios though?


-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
I thought once you had a dish, panel, yagi, etc. certified at x dbi, all 
antenna in that category under that dbi were allowed.  However, the guy I 
know said that isn't so...  ALL antenna under the tested dbi are safe.  All 
of the FCC statements I have read only mention a gain, not a gain\type.


https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPYRequestTimeout=500application_id=992995fcc_id=SWX-XR5

That says a 31.4 dbi is certified with the XR5.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble


If indeed, an XR5 is certified with that particular 32dbi antenna, cable and 
pigtail.  No reason they wouldnt certify popular antenna combos, not to 
mention the changes to the law regarding like-gain antennas that was made a 
few years back.


-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:40 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I never thought of it that way.  Doug makes a lot of valid points.

I can put an XR5 with a 32 dbi antenna into a PC and install Windows and be
legal.  Why can't I install Mikrotik (a specialized Linux distribution) on
it instead?


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble


Ok.  I've said this before.  On a home PC, I don't need to certify a Dell
computer running Win2k and a Netgear wireless card to be FCC legal, so why
is Mikrotik any different?

Almost everything computerized is ALL modular certified.  What makes
homebrewed any different?  Is a Dell/HP/clone PC running Linux and a Netgear



[The entire original message is not included]
--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread John Scrivner
Bravo. The best way to get gear certified from vendors is to NOT buy it 
until it is. The problem then fixes itself. There are plenty of 
certified gear options out there already.

Scriv


Matt Liotta wrote:

I don't really understand this MT thread at all. Why use MT over all 
the other certified systems available? Further, why spend time and 
money trying to get MT certified? Why not just use certified gear that 
is available from vendors that are actually interested in 
participating in this market?


-Matt


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Tim Kerns

Why $200 more?

At $200 if the vendor sell 10 systems, that is $2000, almost 66% of the 
certification cost returned. Sell 100 and that is $20,000, a lot more than 
the cost of certification.


Certification should not raise the price of a unit more than a few dollars, 
but then we have greed set in don't we?


At $20 more per, 100 units is $2000 and 1000 units is $20,000.  So break 
even for a vendor is less than 200 units going by the cost Jack has shared 
with us. I would think that vendors are looking to sell a lot more than just 
200 units, aren't they?


Tim Kerns
CV-Access, Inc.


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I would.  I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for 
whatever he makes that I could use.  $200 more isn't really that much of a 
difference on the AP.



-
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: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS 
are used because of price. Period.


If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 for 
a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are going 
to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 extra, 
are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they haven't 
worried about it?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

George Rogato wrote:

Matt
The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it.


I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't 
really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I 
mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are 
willing to use it in favor of something else that is certified.


I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear 
should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and 
disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether 
someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the 
choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified 
every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other 
gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one 
would choose it. What is MT's advantage?


-Matt


--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
On a volume of 1, I can get a 5 GHz CPE for $185.  IIRC, 100 unit quantities 
were $140.  I can configure 2 CPE for a PtP.  I can have an AP that has 4 
radios for about $800, plus cables and antenna.


I can configure 5, 10, 20, or 40 MHz per radio, two radios are required for 
full duplex operation.  The 70+ megabits is with 40 MHz.  With the full 
duplex operation I can configure the same frequency for all transmitting on 
a given tower, allowing for major frequency reuse.  I agree that this route 
isn't as spectrally efficient as Orthogon or...  I forget the new guys... 
Exalt?  The XR5 radio has 23 dbm at 54 meg and 28 dbm at 6 meg.  It also 
ranges from -74 to -94 for receive sensitivity.  That radio has been 
certified with a 31.4 db antenna.


I haven't tried, but I'd imagine putting a similar channel size would result 
in a similar number of collocated APs, though I don't know.  MT is different 
than generic 802.11 in that it has the N-Streme protocol, solving many (if 
not all) problems with using 802.11 in WISP applications as well as allowing 
for a much higher throughput.  Star-OS has a similar feature.  Everything 
else 802.11 is plain vanilla.


I have nothing wrong with every radio being MT.  You can use 900, 2.4, and 5 
GHz (not 5.4) with any antenna (as long as the gain is under the certified 
gain for that radio), allowing for any combination you could want.  The 
exceptions to this that I know of are Orthogon's spatial diversity and any 
sort of MIMO, beam steering, etc.  You can put as many cards as you want on 
a given PC based Mikrotik system.


I am unsure of the innerworkings of the QoS.  I do know that I can 
prioritize what goes into and out of each interface independent of any other 
interface.


I would imagine that if it was certified with 32 radios, you could use 1 
radio and be fine, though I am not fully aware of those specifics.  I would 
assume that you could have both setups certified, and could then add the 
second radio to the first, making it the second certified system.


Star-OS is the only system that I know of that has anywhere near the feature 
set of Mikrotik.  What features is it missing?  They could already be 
incorporated or slated for 3.0, which is in beta as we speak.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Mike Hammett wrote:

Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.

If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the 
other guys can...  Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using 
different bands for each link for less than the other guys.  Even the 
greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy.


Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost of 
MT was similar to other vendors.
Speed.  I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70 
megabits with a single set of gear.  I can increase that in 70 megabit 
increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available spectrum 
allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff.


What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you 
have in such a configuration?
With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can provide 
10 megs plus to each user.  When your system can do 70 megs plus, you can 
fit a lot more customers with higher speeds.  He who can scale wins.  The 
more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your bandwidth becomes.  When 
your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you pass this along to your 
customer, but you can also profit more.  I can have multiple customers on 
a sector that each can consume more bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only 
dream of supplying.


Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the 
available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a 
single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy. In 
this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 802.11-based radio 
would make more sense. Can't those radios do 10Mbps plus to each user?
In an AP application all electronics are in one system.  I don't need to 
have a bunch of patch cords and a switch and a router and a {etc} sitting 
on a tower.  All coax runs into one box that hosts the AP.  All sector to 
sector to backhaul to backhaul communications are internal, allowing for 
greater flexibility in traffic control and uptime (reduced failures).


I agree it is nice not to have a ton of components. However, the above 
would seem to require every radio at the site to be MT or you would still 
need to have separate components.
When I implement a QoS feature or a firewall or a {etc} I can do so 
directly on the inbound interface, before it has gone completely through 
the AP, through a switch, and into a router.  The AP is the router.


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
There certainly would be more than 200 units as then those of us using MT 
would have no reason to not migrate to the new, FCC-friendly platform.


I imagine that vendors that are providing the FCC-friendly MT platforms 
could accept trade-ins of non-certified gear and turn around acceptable 
components into a refurbished line containing all components of the 
certified system, but just used, not new.


I am also a firm believer that intent and reasonable advancement towards a 
goal is enough to satisfy anything.  Haven't paid your credit card or 
mortgage in a few months?  You work out a reasonable plan to get you back on 
course.  You have 900 MT systems out there and you are replacing them at a 
reasonable rate (the rate itself isn't what's being discussed here, but at 
that volume, say 75/month or 3/month if you only have 20) with certified 
solutions, the FCC will be happy.  From all disciplinary action that I've 
seen done on their behalf, they've attempted to work something out with the 
violator 3 or 4 times before they cracked down.



-
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: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Why $200 more?

At $200 if the vendor sell 10 systems, that is $2000, almost 66% of the 
certification cost returned. Sell 100 and that is $20,000, a lot more than 
the cost of certification.


Certification should not raise the price of a unit more than a few 
dollars, but then we have greed set in don't we?


At $20 more per, 100 units is $2000 and 1000 units is $20,000.  So break 
even for a vendor is less than 200 units going by the cost Jack has shared 
with us. I would think that vendors are looking to sell a lot more than 
just 200 units, aren't they?


Tim Kerns
CV-Access, Inc.


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I would.  I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for 
whatever he makes that I could use.  $200 more isn't really that much of a 
difference on the AP.



-
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: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS 
are used because of price. Period.


If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 
for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are 
going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 
extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they 
haven't worried about it?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

George Rogato wrote:

Matt
The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it.


I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That 
doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over 
something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like 
it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is 
certified.


I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear 
should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and 
disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether 
someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the 
choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose 
certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage 
to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way 
or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage?


-Matt


--
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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test 
and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. 
So far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band 
transmissions were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you 
believe will transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and 
report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this 
discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that 
provide my more technical opinions of the definition of outside the 
band and non-FCC frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of 
FCC permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and 
WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs 
to be addressed before we will see a potential flood of 
Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to 
certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any 
confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my 
submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 
must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies 
and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer 
submit a system for certification that includes the ability to 
software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is 
included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some 
mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not 
transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be 
outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned 
is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to 
the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed 
your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider 
myself vocally pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be 
able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't 
put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines 
and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit 
once we shed this outlaw image and are seen as responsible business 
operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of 
WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you 
say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious 
intelligence will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never 
will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call 
them.


What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced. I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did 
not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good 
idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my 
router boards certified without radios because they are not 
intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to 
them I still don't have to have them certified because they are 
still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board 
computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be 
certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both 
you and Dawn are incorrect.




1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 
2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen 
times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, 
end of

chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, 

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
I have suggested a FDD-style system like this on the MT forums before.  My
thoughts were to have a full-protocol scheme like NStreme dual but tailored
for PTMP.   HOWEVER, utilizing some bridge / mangle / filter tricks I have
done FDD schemes without NStreme-dual, making re-use and hidden node a very
small issue and performance much better on FDX traffic.  CIR/MIR is easier
to manage - and oversubscription becomes a smaller issue.  

If I could find some decent CPE dual-polarity antennas, I would do this in a
heartbeat.  I have a tower to re-do, and I may go this route if it works
well in the lab.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:38 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

On a volume of 1, I can get a 5 GHz CPE for $185.  IIRC, 100 unit quantities

were $140.  I can configure 2 CPE for a PtP.  I can have an AP that has 4 
radios for about $800, plus cables and antenna.

I can configure 5, 10, 20, or 40 MHz per radio, two radios are required for 
full duplex operation.  The 70+ megabits is with 40 MHz.  With the full 
duplex operation I can configure the same frequency for all transmitting on 
a given tower, allowing for major frequency reuse.  I agree that this route 
isn't as spectrally efficient as Orthogon or...  I forget the new guys... 
Exalt?  The XR5 radio has 23 dbm at 54 meg and 28 dbm at 6 meg.  It also 
ranges from -74 to -94 for receive sensitivity.  That radio has been 
certified with a 31.4 db antenna.

I haven't tried, but I'd imagine putting a similar channel size would result

in a similar number of collocated APs, though I don't know.  MT is different

than generic 802.11 in that it has the N-Streme protocol, solving many (if 
not all) problems with using 802.11 in WISP applications as well as allowing

for a much higher throughput.  Star-OS has a similar feature.  Everything 
else 802.11 is plain vanilla.

I have nothing wrong with every radio being MT.  You can use 900, 2.4, and 5

GHz (not 5.4) with any antenna (as long as the gain is under the certified 
gain for that radio), allowing for any combination you could want.  The 
exceptions to this that I know of are Orthogon's spatial diversity and any 
sort of MIMO, beam steering, etc.  You can put as many cards as you want on 
a given PC based Mikrotik system.

I am unsure of the innerworkings of the QoS.  I do know that I can 
prioritize what goes into and out of each interface independent of any other

interface.

I would imagine that if it was certified with 32 radios, you could use 1 
radio and be fine, though I am not fully aware of those specifics.  I would 
assume that you could have both setups certified, and could then add the 
second radio to the first, making it the second certified system.

Star-OS is the only system that I know of that has anywhere near the feature

set of Mikrotik.  What features is it missing?  They could already be 
incorporated or slated for 3.0, which is in beta as we speak.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 Mike Hammett wrote:
 Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.

 If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the 
 other guys can...  Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using 
 different bands for each link for less than the other guys.  Even the 
 greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy.

 Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost of

 MT was similar to other vendors.
 Speed.  I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70 
 megabits with a single set of gear.  I can increase that in 70 megabit 
 increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available spectrum

 allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff.

 What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you 
 have in such a configuration?
 With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can provide 
 10 megs plus to each user.  When your system can do 70 megs plus, you can

 fit a lot more customers with higher speeds.  He who can scale wins.  The

 more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your bandwidth becomes.  When 
 your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you pass this along to your 
 customer, but you can also profit more.  I can have multiple customers on

 a sector that each can consume more bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only

 dream of supplying.

 Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the 
 available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a 
 single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy. In 
 this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 802.11-based radio

 would make more 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

I disagree with you on this one Jack.

I've got plenty of certified products here that give me the ability to set 
them for non fcc areas.  All the need is a MODE that puts the device into an 
FCC compatible format.


laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs 
now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based certified 
products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based 
equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC 
via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must 
the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC 
permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system 
for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country 
of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on 
devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in 
unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of 
the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the 
FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer 
to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself vocally 
pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to 
low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their 
businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) 
The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this outlaw image and 
are seen as responsible business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. 
I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you say 
but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will 
they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then

after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call them.

What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced. 
I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did not get into an 
argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't 
have to have them certified because they are still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are 
incorrect.




1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) 
comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of
chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing.

Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in 
this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a 
reading from them.





Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product. 
Ryan








--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP 

[WISPA] Candidate Questions

2007-06-11 Thread John Scrivner
Here are some questions that our board candidates can answer to help 
give some insight to those of you who will be voting for our board this 
Friday:


What do you hope to achieve as a board member in WISPA over the next 12 
months?


What is WISPA doing right and what do you think needs to be changed?

What are the top 3 laws or rules that you feel should be the highest 
priority for WISPA involvement right now. How should they be changed?


Do you serve, or plan to serve, on any WISPA committees while in office? 
If yes then what committees?


I will answer my own post with answers shortly. I encourage all board 
candidates to answer these questions so people can decide who they want 
to represent them in the next year.

John Scrivner

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Candidate Questions

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Scriv,

Where are you suggesting the candidates answer these questions? In what 
forum?


Tnx,
   jack

John Scrivner wrote:
Here are some questions that our board candidates can answer to help 
give some insight to those of you who will be voting for our board 
this Friday:


What do you hope to achieve as a board member in WISPA over the next 
12 months?


What is WISPA doing right and what do you think needs to be changed?

What are the top 3 laws or rules that you feel should be the highest 
priority for WISPA involvement right now. How should they be changed?


Do you serve, or plan to serve, on any WISPA committees while in 
office? If yes then what committees?


I will answer my own post with answers shortly. I encourage all board 
candidates to answer these questions so people can decide who they 
want to represent them in the next year.

John Scrivner



--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
The amount of power it can do certainly has nothing to do with 
certification.  The Orthogon link I have prompts me for the antenna gain, 
just like MT.  I could theoretically plug a 48 dbi antenna into either one 
and type in 3.  While probably not legal, the MT would have no disadvantage 
to the Orthogon in this case.  Is someone going to tell me Orthogon is not 
legal?


If that's the case, then the only thing non-compliant about MT is the 
RouterBoards haven't been certified as a computing device (if going the PC 
route).


If going the traditional route, then all we have to do is mail it off to a 
lab.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



I disagree with you on this one Jack.

I've got plenty of certified products here that give me the ability to set 
them for non fcc areas.  All the need is a MODE that puts the device into 
an FCC compatible format.


laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs 
now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based 
certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use 
Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this 
issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must 
the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC 
permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system 
for certification that includes the ability to software-select the 
country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the 
selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism 
on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in 
unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of 
the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the 
FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer 
to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself vocally 
pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to 
low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their 
businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) 
The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this outlaw image and 
are seen as responsible business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. 
I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you say 
but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will 
they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call 
them.


What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced. 
I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did not get into an 
argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't 
have to have them certified because they are still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, 
which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all 
those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are 
incorrect.




1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) 
comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why 
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have 
the option of setting non-FCC?


I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would 
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember 
it.  :-p



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
technical opinions of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC 
frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs 
now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based 
certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use 
Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this 
issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must 
the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at 
FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a 
system for certification that includes the ability to software-select 
the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the 
selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism 
on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in 
unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control 
of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the 
FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer 
to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself vocally 
pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access 
to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and 
their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, 
and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this outlaw 
image and are seen as responsible business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of 
WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you 
say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence 
will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never 
will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call 
them.


What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced. I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did 
not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good 
idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my router 
boards certified without radios because they are not intentional 
radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still 
don't have to have them certified because they are still 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Marlon,

Disagreement is good because it helps to clarify technical details which 
may otherwise be misunderstood (or misungerstood) :)


What point that I made are you disagreeing with?

Are you disagreeing with me or with the FCC's reply to my question?

Which certified product do you have that allowed you to configure it, to 
test it and to confirm transmitter power output outside the allowed U.S. 
band?


Thanks,
  jack



Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

I disagree with you on this one Jack.

I've got plenty of certified products here that give me the ability to 
set them for non fcc areas.  All the need is a MODE that puts the 
device into an FCC compatible format.


laters,
marlon

- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and 
WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs 
to be addressed before we will see a potential flood of 
Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to 
certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any 
confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my 
submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 
must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies 
and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer 
submit a system for certification that includes the ability to 
software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is 
included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some 
mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not 
transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be 
outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned 
is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to 
the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed 
your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider 
myself vocally pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be 
able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't 
put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines 
and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit 
once we shed this outlaw image and are seen as responsible business 
operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of 
WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and you 
say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious 
intelligence will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never 
will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait till 
someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call 
them.


What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced. I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I did 
not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a good 
idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my 
router boards certified without radios because they are not 
intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to 
them I still don't have to have them certified because they are 
still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be 
certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board 
computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be 
certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both 
you and Dawn are incorrect.




1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 
2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.


This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen 
times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, 
end of

chapter.  Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing.

Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced.  I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word 
in this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC 
to get a reading from them.





Do this, I would like 

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Marlon K. Schafer
Yeah, these new ones are working really well.  They had some ethernet issues 
in one production run, but I've not had trouble with them for quite a while 
now.


The other nice thing about them is that they seem to work just fine in G 
mode (not something I've had much luck with with Inscape Data or MT).  I did 
have to pull one out of g mode and put it back to b for a customer with bad 
Vonage performance.  A swap to a G cpe might have helped too.  Shrug.


I do wish they had radius built in and some kind of spectrum analyzer/ap 
browser.  But for $200 what's a guy want?  grin


marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Can you use nice and Teletronics in the same sentence? ;)

Travis

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

I disagree with that.

I can get a nice Teletronics AP for about $220.  My last MT solution ran 
closer to $500.


I tried MT (lost one of two out there in the first big storm we got) 
because I was going to try a solution that would do routing at the ap. 
Glad I didn't go that route!  I'd still be working to get customers back 
online.


It was sure nice to have all of the test modes that the MT has though. 
Pretty cool stuff.

marlon

- Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS 
are used because of price. Period.


If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 
for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are 
going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 
extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they 
haven't worried about it?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

George Rogato wrote:

Matt
The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it.


I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That 
doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over 
something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like 
it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is 
certified.


I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear 
should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and 
disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether 
someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the 
choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose 
certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage 
to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way 
or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage?


-Matt


--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread George Rogato
I am still very surprised that we have not seen more certified products 
from the non certified sector.


I would like to get a system certified that I can build on for some 
time, but waiting for the dust to settle on certification actions taken 
by the vendors is like watching paint dry.


George

Tim Kerns wrote:

Why $200 more?

At $200 if the vendor sell 10 systems, that is $2000, almost 66% of the 
certification cost returned. Sell 100 and that is $20,000, a lot more 
than the cost of certification.


Certification should not raise the price of a unit more than a few 
dollars, but then we have greed set in don't we?


At $20 more per, 100 units is $2000 and 1000 units is $20,000.  So break 
even for a vendor is less than 200 units going by the cost Jack has 
shared with us. I would think that vendors are looking to sell a lot 
more than just 200 units, aren't they?


Tim Kerns
CV-Access, Inc.


- Original Message - From: Mike Hammett 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I would.  I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for 
whatever he makes that I could use.  $200 more isn't really that much 
of a difference on the AP.



-
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: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and 
Star-OS are used because of price. Period.


If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 
for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are 
going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only 
$50 extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far 
they haven't worried about it?


Travis
Microserv

Matt Liotta wrote:

George Rogato wrote:

Matt
The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it.


I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That 
doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over 
something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you 
like it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that 
is certified.


I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified 
gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and 
disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of 
whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that 
given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would 
choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a 
disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage 
some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage?


-Matt


--
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/






--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread George Rogato

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?






Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say 
in what can and cannot be certified.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


--
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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Sam Tetherow
I check my highgainantenna and ez bridge equipment tonight and get back 
to you on those two.  I know the options are there in the software, but 
I haven't confirmed with an SA that it actually broadcasts outside of 
the US bands.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Jack Unger wrote:
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test 
and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. 
band. So far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band 
transmissions were actually taking place. If you have equipment that 
you believe will transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself 
and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this 
discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts 
that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of outside 
the band and non-FCC frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of 
FCC permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and 
WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that 
needs to be addressed before we will see a potential flood of 
Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to 
certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any 
confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my 
submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 
must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies 
and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer 
submit a system for certification that includes the ability to 
software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is 
included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some 
mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not 
transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be 
outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned 
is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to 
the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed 
your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider 
myself vocally pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be 
able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't 
put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines 
and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit 
once we shed this outlaw image and are seen as responsible 
business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of 
WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and 
you say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious 
intelligence will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never 
will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait 
till someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call 
them.


What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced. I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I 
did not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a 
good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my 
router boards certified without radios because they are not 
intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to 
them I still don't have to have them certified because they are 
still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to 
be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board 
computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be 
certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both 
you and Dawn are incorrect.




1) drivers for the wireless 

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Matt Liotta

George Rogato wrote:

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?



I don't think that is fair. It isn't Dawn telling you how to run your 
WISP in this case; it is the FCC.


-Matt

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Candidate Questions

2007-06-11 Thread John Scrivner
I have asked Dave Smith in my office to have an email list setup for all 
paid members of WISPA to openly discuss this and other WISPA internal 
related business. This includes all Associate, Vendor and Principal 
Members of WISPA. It will be called [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list will be 
populated with one email address from each paid member company of WISPA. 
Each person will act as the representative for their company within 
WISPA. The first order of business will be our election. I will pose the 
candidate questions below on that list for open discussion.


I do not believe that this public forum wireless@wispa.org is a good 
place for candidates to discuss issues as there are some ideas we may 
have for WISPA which we do not want shared on Google or other open 
forums. The [EMAIL PROTECTED] list will also be where all announcements 
to members will take place. If we need a vote of the entire WISPA 
membership then we will address those issues to [EMAIL PROTECTED] also. 
It will not become a heavily used general discussion list and will act 
as the one place where all WISPA members can be addressed. This is 
slightly different than [EMAIL PROTECTED] as that list is only for paid 
operator Principal Members of WISPA.


Dave is populating this new [EMAIL PROTECTED] list with member's 
addresses right away. Obviously someone could ask to be unsubscribed 
from it if they wish but the list will not be used for anything other 
than important internal WISPA related business. I would assume that 
every paid member would want to be included in the inner workings of the 
organization including elections. I will see you paid members in that 
forum starting tomorrow. I am guessing it will take that long to get the 
email addresses populated.

All the best,
John Scrivner


Jack Unger wrote:


Scriv,

Where are you suggesting the candidates answer these questions? In 
what forum?


Tnx,
   jack

John Scrivner wrote:

Here are some questions that our board candidates can answer to help 
give some insight to those of you who will be voting for our board 
this Friday:


What do you hope to achieve as a board member in WISPA over the next 
12 months?


What is WISPA doing right and what do you think needs to be changed?

What are the top 3 laws or rules that you feel should be the highest 
priority for WISPA involvement right now. How should they be changed?


Do you serve, or plan to serve, on any WISPA committees while in 
office? If yes then what committees?


I will answer my own post with answers shortly. I encourage all board 
candidates to answer these questions so people can decide who they 
want to represent them in the next year.

John Scrivner




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
Is that really a necessary question, in determining whether this falls under
a DoC computer assembly or a dedicated wireless access point?  

That's the question.  It's a concept, in that having a declaration of
conformity certified computer with a certified wireless PCI/miniPCI card and
a non-standard OS is no longer a computer but a dedicated access point.  Are
we required to certify operating systems when using wireless?  This also
affects SBC-based systems such a Linksys wireless router.  If hardware is
certified exclusively, there's no regulation that I can find that says that
changing operating system, drivers, etc, is cause to lose hardware
certification.

That's the clarification we need to know.  I've been building computers
since 1991, and I remember this back in 96 when it was a huge win for us
small computer builders to be able to be free of FCC whole system
certification.  This clarification will allow Mikrotik to certify their
boards under much less strict Part 15 Class B rules (i.e. a power-on style
emissions test, rather than a software/transmitter test).


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread George Rogato

Matt Liotta wrote:

George Rogato wrote:

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?



I don't think that is fair. It isn't Dawn telling you how to run your 
WISP in this case; it is the FCC.


-Matt



Nope, it's only you guys that have anything to say.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


[WISPA] Election Housekeeping

2007-06-11 Thread John Scrivner
I need to ask a favor for those of you who may be looking at membership 
in WISPA. If you want to take part in this election then you will need 
to get me your application and payment by no later than close of 
business on Wednesday. Any new members paying after 5 pm Central on 
Wednesday will not be allowed to take part in this year's election.


If you are a current member and your dues are late then the same rule 
applies. Pay your past due balances by Wednesday at 5 pm or you will not 
get a ballot. Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you need to make payment 
arrangements or just send your payment to [EMAIL PROTECTED] through 
Paypal for immediate credit.

Thank you,
John Scrivner
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread George Rogato

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
Is that really a necessary question, 


It sure is to find out where she's coming from.

As a wisp, a long term wisp, as the person that bootstrapped this tiny 
bbs-isp from the dial up days in 99 to where we are today, who has put 
his money where his mouth is, and taken all the risks of mine and my 
families security to bring broadband at an affordable price to an 
underserved market and create jobs and commerce from where there were 
none, I find it odd that those that don't have a stake in anything have 
so much to say about us that do.


I don't mind advice, but it's a broken record with not much more being 
brought to the table for my benefit. Maybe for someone's ego, but not my 
benefit.



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Stephen Patrick
This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
 see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
 far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
 were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
 Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
 accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
 technical opinions of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC 
 frequencies.

 jack


 Mike Hammett wrote:
 Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
 PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
 different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.

 Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
 permission?


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com


 - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
 Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 Michael,

 Just for info -

 The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
 operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs

 now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
 addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based 
 certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use 
 Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this 
 issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:

 _My Submission: _
 For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must 
 the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at 
 FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a 
 system for certification that includes the ability to software-select 
 the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the

 selections?

 _FCC Response: _
 The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism 
 on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in 
 unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control 
 of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is 

RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Brad Belton
Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user
was able to make these changes?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
 see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
 far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
 were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
 Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
 accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
 technical opinions of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC 
 frequencies.

 jack


 Mike Hammett wrote:
 Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
 PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
 different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.

 Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
 permission?


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com


 - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
 Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 Michael,

 Just for info -

 The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
 operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs

 now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
 addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based 
 certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use 
 Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this 
 issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:

 _My Submission: _
 For intentional radiators certified under 

RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Brad Belton
Or maybe it was Adaptive Broadband gear that allowed the end user to break
the rules?  Anyone remember?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: Brad Belton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:56 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user
was able to make these changes?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
 see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
 far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
 were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
 Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
 accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
 technical opinions of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC 
 frequencies.

 jack


 Mike Hammett wrote:
 Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
 PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
 different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.

 Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
 permission?


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com


 - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
 Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 Michael,

 Just for info -

 The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
 operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs

 now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs to be 
 addressed before we will see a 

Re: [WISPA] what can be said?

2007-06-11 Thread Tom DeReggi

Patrick,

I will say, that your words spoken, are wise words.

However, whether what the FCC gave us, is the best thing or not, has many 
persectives, and a debate could only be won after watching this case in the 
future over time.

I look at this as a big victory for WISPs.
3650 is a experiment, and experiment that is very important to be had. 
The results will define what policy should be made in the future.
I'm very happy with the FCC's decission. Most importantly it gets rid of the 
road block, for just about all involved. Any terms and conditions are 
better, than spectrum sitting their idle and legally unusable.  This ruling 
takes into consideration, as best it can, all the views that were submitted, 
without giving up the original intent of the allocation.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 7:37 PM
Subject: [WISPA] what can be said?


I wanted to close my week with a maybe unpopular statement - imagine
that! :)

On 3650 I was pleased so many WISPs filed comments, but as I feared
almost all filing WISPs failed to really think through what you were
asking for. You got want you want and over time you will learn the
result, which will be a messy (legally) band that will force you to
spend lots of money on lawyers. At the same time, for those places where
competitive risks will be low, the band maybe great for you, but because
of the rules the gear you will have to use (that will work) will be much
less than what could have been, meaning that your wireline or licensed
competition will eat you lunch overtime in terms of performance.

When you file a comment, you need to REALLY think through. I suspect
many filed knee-jerked responses in terms of opposition filings from an
us vs. them perspective instead of trying to understand the merits of
the argument of those who warned about the problems of the proposed
rules.

It is sad that this is such a mixed bag, but the long and short is that
all the excitement from an investment perspective -- those who were
reaching for their wallets to fund good WISPs -- will shrivel up and
withdraw as soon as the full impact of the rules are understood as I
already understand them. Many of you will still make good use of the
band, but it will not allow you to become more than what you are able to
be today. For some and some areas, that will be okay and nothing wrong
with that at all.

I am not trying to be a buzz kill and for sure the rules technically
open MORE doors for us than previous (if we want we now can sell VL or
BreezeMAX), I am just trying to make a point and be, as always, candid
with you.

Have a great weekend,


Patrick Leary

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] the big wild card statement from the 3650 order

Are you joking Marlon? What do you think WiMAX does? It generates far
higher payload through a time slot than does current 802.11. Regardless,
that is not the point and it does not matter.

The point is that this band will be really difficult for someone to plan
and operate a business except in a rural area with little to no other
competition (so it should be great for WISPs). It has zero to do with RF
and everything to do with the cooperation REQUIREMENT of the rule. It
forces a new entrant to work with the incumbent and vice versa. So you
work something out and go home. Next day another guys pops up. Guess
what, your old agreement gets tossed out the window and you MUST make
accommodation for the next guy of else he can take you to court (and
win). So then the THREE of you strike a deal and go back home. The next
day a 4th WISP comes in and guess what? It starts all over again.

Each time you MUST, by law, cooperate and come to a mutually
satisfactory agreement. Again. And Again. And again.

In a Part-15 world, you'd just blow off the competition if you could not
work something out -- may the best operator win. But, in this set of
rules back you must go to work around every new entity that pops up.
Guys like you will spend 1/4 your time educating the new WISP and 1/2
your time constantly changing your architecture to accommodate them. The
other 1/4 you can spend making money.

Build a model around that that works. Hope you have lots of money for
legal fees embedded into the model.

I am not being alarmist or silly. I just read two different legal
analyses that agree entirely.

Now take that with the fact that almost all the east and west coast
cities (70% of the population maybe) is off the table due to the
exclusion zones. What it means is that no major vendor will invest to
develop something new for this band. Instead, you are going to get low
end downbanded stuff, legacy sync products, or WiMAX that will 

RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
Still, Mikrotik could offer a FCC-only license code - or make all license
codes FCC only, and for no charge offer an additional world license
(included free with all non-US orders).

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:56 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user
was able to make these changes?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
 see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
 far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
 were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
 Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
 accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
 technical opinions of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC 
 frequencies.

 jack


 Mike Hammett wrote:
 Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
 PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
 different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.

 Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
 permission?


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com


 - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
 Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 Michael,

 Just for info -

 The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
 operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs

 now for several 

[WISPA] Hotspot construction

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the whole 
area.  Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities.  Does a 
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards with 
output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of multiple APs 
with rubber duckies?

My thought is that the increased gain of the sectors helps pull in the laptops, 
allowing for someone to deploy less APs, resulting in a cleaner band.  My 
thought on the XR2s in that they have increased receive sensitivity and cleaner 
reception than other cards, the increased power output would be negated by a 
lowering of the transmit power to not step on my own feet, crowd the spectrum, 
overload close receivers, etc.

I would think to mount on building roofs, with downtilt on the sectors and have 
more than 1 sector cover areas that are likely to have reduced signal due to 
building density and foliage.  Tough areas could just have a smaller AP with a 
ducky.


-
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/


RE: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

2007-06-11 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
I have successfully used a pair of SR2s, 9db 120 degree sectors on either
side of a middle hallway hotel (where it's narrow and long, with a hallway
in the middle), up to 8 stories tall from the parking lot and the pool deck.

For a longer hotel, say a 240 room, 7 story hotel (lower 2 floors, no rooms,
so it's really about 50 rooms per floor), I needed 2 per side to cover all
the rooms, for a total of 4 units.

I've found these work best aimed at the unit's windows.  And yes, the extra
gain plus good RX sensitivity on SR2's.  Upper floors become the hardest
spots - at 50 feet from the building at ground level, on an 8' pole, you're
going through a lot of walls and floors on the 8th floor.  If you had other
buildings, you could put them on the rooftops firing into the buildings.

I just use the look test - if you can see the window from the point you're
at, you're safe.  If not, consider more APs - or for me, since they're
repeaters, I use a omni-broadcast on the roof, which feeds the ground units,
and also provides a boost of signal on the upper units.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:11 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the whole
area.  Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities.  Does a
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards
with output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of
multiple APs with rubber duckies?

My thought is that the increased gain of the sectors helps pull in the
laptops, allowing for someone to deploy less APs, resulting in a cleaner
band.  My thought on the XR2s in that they have increased receive
sensitivity and cleaner reception than other cards, the increased power
output would be negated by a lowering of the transmit power to not step on
my own feet, crowd the spectrum, overload close receivers, etc.

I would think to mount on building roofs, with downtilt on the sectors and
have more than 1 sector cover areas that are likely to have reduced signal
due to building density and foliage.  Tough areas could just have a smaller
AP with a ducky.


-
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/



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43
PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett

oh, I should mention that this is a 300 x 1400 yard area...  22 city blocks.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Hotspot construction


When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the whole 
area.  Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities.  Does a 
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards 
with output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of 
multiple APs with rubber duckies?


My thought is that the increased gain of the sectors helps pull in the 
laptops, allowing for someone to deploy less APs, resulting in a cleaner 
band.  My thought on the XR2s in that they have increased receive 
sensitivity and cleaner reception than other cards, the increased power 
output would be negated by a lowering of the transmit power to not step on 
my own feet, crowd the spectrum, overload close receivers, etc.


I would think to mount on building roofs, with downtilt on the sectors and 
have more than 1 sector cover areas that are likely to have reduced signal 
due to building density and foliage.  Tough areas could just have a smaller 
AP with a ducky.



-
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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

2007-06-11 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
Wow.  Do you have access to rooftops and/or light poles?

Mikrotik w/ mesh allows lots of flexibility in a power-only situation.  I
use it all the time.  You may need a big backhaul mesh arrangement.

Other options include Meraki Mesh, a good value @ only $99/outdoor,
$49/indoor, and a wall-adapter style plug-in for $79 (nice little unit).
Those need an ethernet / wireless backhaul every 3 hops, but work good.  I
like their management system included free, I just set and forget, it'll
email me if a node goes down.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

oh, I should mention that this is a 300 x 1400 yard area...  22 city blocks.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Hotspot construction


When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the whole

area.  Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities.  Does a 
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards 
with output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of 
multiple APs with rubber duckies?

My thought is that the increased gain of the sectors helps pull in the 
laptops, allowing for someone to deploy less APs, resulting in a cleaner 
band.  My thought on the XR2s in that they have increased receive 
sensitivity and cleaner reception than other cards, the increased power 
output would be negated by a lowering of the transmit power to not step on 
my own feet, crowd the spectrum, overload close receivers, etc.

I would think to mount on building roofs, with downtilt on the sectors and 
have more than 1 sector cover areas that are likely to have reduced signal 
due to building density and foliage.  Tough areas could just have a smaller 
AP with a ducky.


-
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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43
PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread John Scrivner
I think that is an extra burden Mikrotik should not have to face. There 
are many other manufacturers who somehow get certification with software 
country codes which set the limits and are selected by the end user. If 
the FCC is allowing some but not all of them to do this then that is not 
fair.

Scriv


Doug Ratcliffe wrote:


Still, Mikrotik could offer a FCC-only license code - or make all license
codes FCC only, and for no charge offer an additional world license
(included free with all non-US orders).

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:56 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user
was able to make these changes?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen It is illegal to use this

device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 

One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
technical opinions of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC 
frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
   

Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Dawn DiPietro

George,

As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to 
be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they 
need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among 
some on this list.


How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing 
on this discussion?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?






Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final 
say in what can and cannot be certified.


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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Mike,

I'll do my best to answer your specific questions; I'll not attempt to 
answer your more vaguely-worded general statements because there are too 
many assumptions implied that I'm sure you understand but that are not 
clear to me.


Certification has EVERYTHING to do with power. The FCC limits AP 
transmitter to a maximum of 1 watt. The FCC limits EIRP to a maximum of 
four watts. The certification process checks and verifies both 
transmitter power and EIRP.


Your Orthogon is likely (I'm speculating here) prompting you for antenna 
gain so it can reduce the transmitter power to legal levels given the 
antenna that you tell it you are connecting. If you can tell it 3 dBi 
antenna gain and then hook up a 48 dBi antenna then you are 
intentionally defeating it's attempt to keep you legal. It can try to 
keep the end-user legal but it may not have a perfect ability to force 
everyone to be legal or to keep people who just don't have a clue to be 
legal. As to how it is designed to work, you can read the manual that 
came with your Orthogon or you can research this at the FCC web site by 
searching and finding the Orthogon certification and then reading the 
manual that Orthogon submitted as part of their certification process. I 
don't have the time to do this for you but you can certainly do it 
yourself and then come back here and update us with your findings.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
The amount of power it can do certainly has nothing to do with 
certification.  The Orthogon link I have prompts me for the antenna 
gain, just like MT.  I could theoretically plug a 48 dbi antenna into 
either one and type in 3.  While probably not legal, the MT would have 
no disadvantage to the Orthogon in this case.  Is someone going to 
tell me Orthogon is not legal?


If that's the case, then the only thing non-compliant about MT is the 
RouterBoards haven't been certified as a computing device (if going 
the PC route).


If going the traditional route, then all we have to do is mail it off 
to a lab.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



I disagree with you on this one Jack.

I've got plenty of certified products here that give me the ability 
to set them for non fcc areas.  All the need is a MODE that puts the 
device into an FCC compatible format.


laters,
marlon

- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and 
WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that 
needs to be addressed before we will see a potential flood of 
Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to 
certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any 
confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my 
submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 
must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies 
and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer 
submit a system for certification that includes the ability to 
software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is 
included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some 
mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not 
transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be 
outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned 
is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to 
the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed 
your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider 
myself vocally pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be 
able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't 
put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines 
and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit 
once we shed this outlaw image and are seen as responsible 
business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of 
WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and 
you say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.

Re: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
The city and university are putting out an RFP, so I'm assuming that I'd 
have access to their poles.  I would like to have rooftop access (and I know 
I can get it in a couple locations).  What I need for this to work really 
all depends on what I hear back on the usefulness of sectors in this sort of 
arrangement.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Hotspot construction



Wow.  Do you have access to rooftops and/or light poles?

Mikrotik w/ mesh allows lots of flexibility in a power-only situation.  I
use it all the time.  You may need a big backhaul mesh arrangement.

Other options include Meraki Mesh, a good value @ only $99/outdoor,
$49/indoor, and a wall-adapter style plug-in for $79 (nice little unit).
Those need an ethernet / wireless backhaul every 3 hops, but work good.  I
like their management system included free, I just set and forget, it'll
email me if a node goes down.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

oh, I should mention that this is a 300 x 1400 yard area...  22 city 
blocks.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Hotspot construction


When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the 
whole


area.  Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities.  Does a
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards
with output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of
multiple APs with rubber duckies?

My thought is that the increased gain of the sectors helps pull in the
laptops, allowing for someone to deploy less APs, resulting in a cleaner
band.  My thought on the XR2s in that they have increased receive
sensitivity and cleaner reception than other cards, the increased power
output would be negated by a lowering of the transmit power to not step on
my own feet, crowd the spectrum, overload close receivers, etc.

I would think to mount on building roofs, with downtilt on the sectors and
have more than 1 sector cover areas that are likely to have reduced signal
due to building density and foliage.  Tough areas could just have a 
smaller

AP with a ducky.


-
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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 
6:43

PM


--
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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger
Well, there are several reports from people who have said that their 
radio (or some radio they've heard about) can be configured to work on 
non-US frequencies but no actual reports of transmissions on non-FCC 
frequencies so clearly if we are to understand this issue and move 
forward, we need to do actual power-output testing. To answer your 
software question, it appears to be necessary to ask the manufacturer - 
please consider asking whichever manufacturer you are using.

jack



Mike Hammett wrote:
I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do 
it, why does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC 
certified device have the option of setting non-FCC?


I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that 
would change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just 
don't remember it.  :-p



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test 
and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. 
band. So far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band 
transmissions were actually taking place. If you have equipment that 
you believe will transmit outside the US band, please test it 
yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and 
make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my 
recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the 
definition of outside the band and non-FCC frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of 
FCC permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that 
denied operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over 
Mikrotik and WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last 
issue that needs to be addressed before we will see a potential 
flood of Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs 
want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up 
any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's 
my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 
must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies 
and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer 
submit a system for certification that includes the ability to 
software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is 
included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some 
mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not 
transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be 
outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned 
is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to 
the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed 
your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider 
myself vocally pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be 
able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They 
won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary 
fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will 
benefit once we shed this outlaw image and are seen as 
responsible business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of 
WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and 
you say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious 
intelligence will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but 
never will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait 
till someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call 
them.


What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Thanks, Sam !!

Sam Tetherow wrote:
I check my highgainantenna and ez bridge equipment tonight and get 
back to you on those two.  I know the options are there in the 
software, but I haven't confirmed with an SA that it actually 
broadcasts outside of the US bands.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Jack Unger wrote:
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test 
and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. 
band. So far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band 
transmissions were actually taking place. If you have equipment that 
you believe will transmit outside the US band, please test it 
yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and 
make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my 
recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the 
definition of outside the band and non-FCC frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of 
FCC permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that 
denied operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over 
Mikrotik and WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last 
issue that needs to be addressed before we will see a potential 
flood of Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs 
want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up 
any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's 
my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 
must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies 
and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer 
submit a system for certification that includes the ability to 
software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is 
included as one of the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some 
mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not 
transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be 
outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned 
is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to 
the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed 
your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider 
myself vocally pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be 
able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They 
won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary 
fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will 
benefit once we shed this outlaw image and are seen as 
responsible business operators.


Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you 
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of 
WISPs.


Respectfully,
 jack


Michael Erskine wrote:

Ryan,

A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and 
you say but if it were...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this 
question already?

The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/

It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious 
intelligence will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but 
never will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them.  Rather they will wait 
till someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, Yeah, Go ahead! You call 
them.


What a joke.
-m-

Ryan Langseth wrote:

On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:


Rick;

I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and 
experienced. I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I 
did not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a 
good idea.


That said, let me also say this.  If I don't have to have my 
router boards certified without radios because they are not 
intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to 
them I still don't have to have them certified because they are 
still what they were.


If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to 
be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board 
computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be 
certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both 
you and Dawn are 

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread John Scrivner
I think we can all agree that gear certification is the law. Could we 
maybe kill this thread off before we start losing list members from the 
inflation of the number of posts about this seemingly elementary topic?

Scriv


Dawn DiPietro wrote:


George,

As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has 
to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions 
they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the 
norm among some on this list.


How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing 
on this discussion?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:


Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a 
wisp?


Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running 
a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our 
wisps?






Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final 
say in what can and cannot be certified.


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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett

Right, I know that.

Apparently I wasn't all that clear in that post.

Mikrotik is catching slack because you are technically able to do something 
like that, yet no one has a beef with the other systems that have the same 
functionality.


This also applies to frequency usage.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Mike,

I'll do my best to answer your specific questions; I'll not attempt to 
answer your more vaguely-worded general statements because there are too 
many assumptions implied that I'm sure you understand but that are not 
clear to me.


Certification has EVERYTHING to do with power. The FCC limits AP 
transmitter to a maximum of 1 watt. The FCC limits EIRP to a maximum of 
four watts. The certification process checks and verifies both transmitter 
power and EIRP.


Your Orthogon is likely (I'm speculating here) prompting you for antenna 
gain so it can reduce the transmitter power to legal levels given the 
antenna that you tell it you are connecting. If you can tell it 3 dBi 
antenna gain and then hook up a 48 dBi antenna then you are intentionally 
defeating it's attempt to keep you legal. It can try to keep the end-user 
legal but it may not have a perfect ability to force everyone to be legal 
or to keep people who just don't have a clue to be legal. As to how it is 
designed to work, you can read the manual that came with your Orthogon or 
you can research this at the FCC web site by searching and finding the 
Orthogon certification and then reading the manual that Orthogon submitted 
as part of their certification process. I don't have the time to do this 
for you but you can certainly do it yourself and then come back here and 
update us with your findings.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
The amount of power it can do certainly has nothing to do with 
certification.  The Orthogon link I have prompts me for the antenna gain, 
just like MT.  I could theoretically plug a 48 dbi antenna into either 
one and type in 3.  While probably not legal, the MT would have no 
disadvantage to the Orthogon in this case.  Is someone going to tell me 
Orthogon is not legal?


If that's the case, then the only thing non-compliant about MT is the 
RouterBoards haven't been certified as a computing device (if going the 
PC route).


If going the traditional route, then all we have to do is mail it off to 
a lab.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



I disagree with you on this one Jack.

I've got plenty of certified products here that give me the ability to 
set them for non fcc areas.  All the need is a MODE that puts the device 
into an FCC compatible format.


laters,
marlon

- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and 
WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that needs 
to be addressed before we will see a potential flood of Mikrotik-based 
certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use 
Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this 
issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response:


_My Submission: _
For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must 
the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at 
FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a 
system for certification that includes the ability to software-select 
the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of 
the selections?


_FCC Response: _
The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism 
on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in 
unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control 
of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted.


Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the 
FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your 
offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself 
vocally pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to 
have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put 
themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and 
possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we 
shed 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Stephen,

Yes; very interesting indeed. Clearly Cisco is trying to keep users of 
their equipment from using it illegally, either intentionally or by 
accident. I think the FCC is also trying to achieve the same thing - 
legal operation. Nobody welcomes being regulated. WISPs would probably 
choose NOT to have an FCC agent permanently stationed at their WISP to 
be sure that they don't break the law. Instead, the FCC is trying to 
write the equipment certification regulations in such a way as to assure 
WISPs (and others) that they are operating legally if they purchase 
FCC-certified equipment.


The Cisco domain chart (if current) that you linked to reveals another 
interesting point. Apparently Israel has more restrictive regulations 
than the U.S. so it appears that selecting an Israel configuration 
would also allow the equipment to be legally used within the U.S. On the 
other hand, selecting a Japan configuration would result in 
illegal-frequency operation in the U.S. What I'm pointing out is that 
just because some non-U.S. country may be selectable and may transmit 
does not mean that selection will result in illegal operation in the 
U.S. therefore U.S-legal equipment may also be legal in some other 
countries and vice-versa.


Finally, I recently deployed some Cisco 1240 APs. They appeared to allow 
non-U.S. countries to be selected although I didn't try transmitting 
with any non_US country code. Later, I asked the lab (twice, because I 
doubted their answer the first time) about the legality of this. They 
said that the Cisco 1240 with the model number suffix that I had would 
have shipped with US-specific firmware which should have denied it the 
ability to operate on non-US frequencies.


Can you test the power output of your Netgear AP? Isn't the allowable 
output power in the U.K. lowered than the allowed U.S output power? 
Please try to configure your AP to US/FCC and see if the power output is 
greater than allowed in the U.K.


Thanks,
  jack


Stephen Patrick wrote:

This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen It is illegal to use this

device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


  
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
Also, 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Brad,

IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz sub-band 
outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this sub-band. 
The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that frequency 
sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low power level. 
The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law or else broke 
it out of simple ignorance.


jack


Brad Belton wrote:

Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user
was able to make these changes?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen It is illegal to use this

device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


  
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
technical opinions of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC 
frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:

Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


  

Michael,

Just for info -

The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and WISPs
 

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Brad Belton

How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on
this discussion?


Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a resident is
more qualified to answer.  Certainly the intern is not to be considered a
dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world experience and
overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced resident.

Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless
experience is certainly relevant to this discussion.  Anyone that has scaled
their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients knows the
difficulty and complexity is compounded.  It is quite a different animal to
run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few
hundred.

No offense is intended Dawn.  I enjoy reading your posts and agree with your
FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more in many
cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly question
what you offer here as the gospel.

Best,


Brad




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

George,

As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to 
be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they 
need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among 
some on this list.

How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing 
on this discussion?

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:
 Dawn,

 Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

 Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
 wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?





 Dawn DiPietro wrote:
 All,

 I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
 think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
 clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final 
 say in what can and cannot be certified.

 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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Matt Liotta
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers 
(including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't 
kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of 
the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding 
certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many 
people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the 
law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally 
I am fined for doing so.


-Matt

Brad Belton wrote:

How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on
this discussion?


Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a resident is
more qualified to answer.  Certainly the intern is not to be considered a
dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world experience and
overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced resident.

Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless
experience is certainly relevant to this discussion.  Anyone that has scaled
their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients knows the
difficulty and complexity is compounded.  It is quite a different animal to
run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few
hundred.

No offense is intended Dawn.  I enjoy reading your posts and agree with your
FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more in many
cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly question
what you offer here as the gospel.

Best,


Brad




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

George,

As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to 
be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they 
need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among 
some on this list.


How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing 
on this discussion?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:
  

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?






Dawn DiPietro wrote:


All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final 
say in what can and cannot be certified.


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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Sam Tetherow
You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band.  The article that was posted 
implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that 
stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use.  I seem to remember 
they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Jack Unger wrote:

Brad,

IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz sub-band 
outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this 
sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that 
frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low 
power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law 
or else broke it out of simple ignorance.


jack


Brad Belton wrote:
Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had 
set their

gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the 
end user

was able to make these changes?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

Doing a quick google I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a 


p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were 
in 2003)

not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a 


p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power 
level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for 
the

country in which you use the access point.
Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
frequencies.
And
Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power 
level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for 
the

country in which you use the access point. 
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  
I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the 
device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific 
software
version that I can see.  Again, the software says on the config 
screen It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio 
for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to 
turn on

the radio.

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices 
(Cisco

and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 
2007 16:25

To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do 
it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified 
device have

the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that 
would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't 
remember

it.  :-p


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


 
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to 
test and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the 
U.S. band. So far, I've received no confirmation that 
outside-the-band transmissions were actually taking place. If you 
have equipment that you believe will transmit outside the US band, 
please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your 
understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, 
please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions 
of the definition of outside the band and non-FCC frequencies.


jack


Mike Hammett wrote:
   
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.


Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of 
FCC permission?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jeromie Reeves

The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it asks
is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it and not
MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to pose this
question directly to the same individual.

Jeromie

On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band.  The article that was posted
implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that
stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use.  I seem to remember
they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Jack Unger wrote:
 Brad,

 IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz sub-band
 outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this
 sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that
 frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low
 power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law
 or else broke it out of simple ignorance.

 jack


 Brad Belton wrote:
 Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had
 set their
 gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
 manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
 rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

 So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the
 end user
 was able to make these changes?

 Best,


 Brad


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

 This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

 Doing a quick google I found this:
 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a

 p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
 Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
 Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were
 in 2003)
 not legal in USA.
 And an interesting page here:
 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a

 p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
 Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
 level for
 radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
 the
 country in which you use the access point.
 Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
 frequencies.
 And
 Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
 level for
 radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
 the
 country in which you use the access point. 
 I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

 Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
 country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.
 I'd
 assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the
 device
 for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific
 software
 version that I can see.  Again, the software says on the config
 screen It is illegal to use this
 device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio
 for 11a
 interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to
 turn on
 the radio.

 So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices
 (Cisco
 and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
 locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

 Regards

 Stephen

 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June
 2007 16:25
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

 I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do
 it, why
 does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified
 device have
 the option of setting non-FCC?

 I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that
 would
 change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't
 remember
 it.  :-p


 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com


 - Original Message -
 From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
 Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble



 One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to
 test and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the
 U.S. band. So far, I've received no confirmation that
 outside-the-band transmissions were actually taking place. If you
 have equipment that you believe will transmit outside the US band,
 please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your
 understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable,
 please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions
 of the definition of outside the band and 

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Sam Tetherow
I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be 
certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is 
allowed with a PC/laptop. 

And you are right that then FCC makes the rules.  What is not clear is 
that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply 
to an RB or other SBC.  The only people that can clarify this is the FCC.


As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major factors 
that come into play with uncertified gear.  There are several that 
deployed  the equipment under the false impression that it was legal 
because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still persist in 
this belief). 

The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my 
knowledge, for using uncertified gear.  There have been instances of 
people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of 
licensed bands.


If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial 
statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 477, 
it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law.  As you 
pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is a law 
with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the fine is 
not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an effective deterrent.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Matt Liotta wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of 
customers (including me) understand and agree with the position 
presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn 
or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements 
regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by 
law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't 
change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and 
occasionally I am fined for doing so.


-Matt



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Butch Evans

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dawn DiPietro wrote:

How would the number of customers I had on my network have any 
bearing on this discussion?


The question was, however, why it matters to you what gear WISPs are 
using.  Sounds like George agrees with me in his opinion of your 
harping on this issue.


--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Jeromie,

Before we go accusing the FCC of anything, I'd suggest we test one of 
your routers and to see if it really transmits outside of the US 
frequency band.


Also, out of respect for eveyone else on this list, please read my 
previous posts today regarding what non-US appears to mean so I don't 
have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time 
someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained 
this on-list twice today).


Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for Japan' 
and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power 
output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your 
findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually 
transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who 
at the FCC said what.


Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so 
darn easy to accuse and shoot from the hip these days but it's a lot 
harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's 
really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to 
follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to Seek first to 
understand, and then to be understood.


I look forward to hearing your test results.

jack


Jeromie Reeves wrote:

The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it asks
is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it and not
MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to pose this
question directly to the same individual.

Jeromie

On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band.  The article that was posted
implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that
stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use.  I seem to remember
they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Jack Unger wrote:
 Brad,

 IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz sub-band
 outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this
 sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that
 frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low
 power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law
 or else broke it out of simple ignorance.

 jack


 Brad Belton wrote:
 Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had
 set their
 gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
 manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to 
follow the

 rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

 So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the
 end user
 was able to make these changes?

 Best,


 Brad


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

 Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

 This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.

 Doing a quick google I found this:
 
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a 



 p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
 Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
 Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were
 in 2003)
 not legal in USA.
 And an interesting page here:
 
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a 



 p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
 Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
 level for
 radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
 the
 country in which you use the access point.
 Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
 frequencies.
 And
 Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
 level for
 radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
 the
 country in which you use the access point. 
 I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

 Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
 country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.
 I'd
 assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the
 device
 for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific
 software
 version that I can see.  Again, the software says on the config
 screen It is illegal to use this
 device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio
 for 11a
 interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to
 turn on
 the radio.

 So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices
 (Cisco
 and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
 locked country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing 
more


 Regards

 Stephen

 -Original Message-
 From: Mike Hammett 

[WISPA] Orthogon MIB

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Hammett
Does anyone have the Orthogon MIB?  I'm looking to set it up in The Dude, but I 
wanted to make sure that I had exactly what Orthogon set it up for.


-
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/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Dawn DiPietro

Sam,

Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a 
WISP I will let you decide from this information provided.


Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the 
wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Sam Tetherow wrote:
I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can 
be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as 
is allowed with a PC/laptop.
And you are right that then FCC makes the rules.  What is not clear is 
that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not 
apply to an RB or other SBC.  The only people that can clarify this is 
the FCC.


As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major 
factors that come into play with uncertified gear.  There are several 
that deployed  the equipment under the false impression that it was 
legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still 
persist in this belief).
The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my 
knowledge, for using uncertified gear.  There have been instances of 
people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use 
of licensed bands.


If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial 
statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 
477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law.  As 
you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is 
a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the 
fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an 
effective deterrent.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Matt Liotta wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of 
customers (including me) understand and agree with the position 
presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not 
Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate 
statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is 
required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but 
that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the 
speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so.


-Matt





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread George Rogato

Butch Evans wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dawn DiPietro wrote:

How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing 
on this discussion?


The question was, however, why it matters to you what gear WISPs are 
using.  Sounds like George agrees with me in his opinion of your harping 
on this issue.




Thats my only point.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Doug Ratcliffe
But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional
radiator.  So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an
intentional radiator as a whole?  

When you add a wireless card?  That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load
of trouble.  But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than
an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas?

I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking
about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after the
sale.

I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an intentional
radiator?  At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power
supply, which become a Personal Computer.  At the end of the day, you add
a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then?  

Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense.  Cisco
Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Sam,

Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a 
WISP I will let you decide from this information provided.

Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the 
wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers.
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Sam Tetherow wrote:
 I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can 
 be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as 
 is allowed with a PC/laptop.
 And you are right that then FCC makes the rules.  What is not clear is 
 that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not 
 apply to an RB or other SBC.  The only people that can clarify this is 
 the FCC.

 As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major 
 factors that come into play with uncertified gear.  There are several 
 that deployed  the equipment under the false impression that it was 
 legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still 
 persist in this belief).
 The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my 
 knowledge, for using uncertified gear.  There have been instances of 
 people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use 
 of licensed bands.

 If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial 
 statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 
 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law.  As 
 you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is 
 a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the 
 fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an 
 effective deterrent.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

 Matt Liotta wrote:
 This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
 irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of 
 customers (including me) understand and agree with the position 
 presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not 
 Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate 
 statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is 
 required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but 
 that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the 
 speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so.

 -Matt



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/836 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
1:10 PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Sam Tetherow
For the record, I don't feel that you have no credibility because you 
no longer run a WISP, I just don't agree with you and if 15.201-221 is 
your basis for the belief that a RB can't be considered under component 
rules I have to believe that you don't understand what a RB is.


It is NOT an intentional radiator which is what 15.201-221 addresses.   
A RB is simply a single board computer, the same thing as a soekris, 
gateworks or wrap board as well as most PDA (pre-wifi) and most laptops.


The only intentional radiator is the miniPCI or PCMCIA radio that is put 
into the expansion slot of the SBC, just like in a laptop which has a 
PCMCIA and miniPCI slot where I can install wireless cards.


I am NOT saying that with 100% certainty, the RB can be component 
certified, the question needs to be asked of the FCC.  And this still 
leaves the fact that as far as I know none of the MT routerboards are 
even FCC part B certified.


This also does not address the fact that you still would have to use 
certified radio/antenna pairs in the SBC once component certification 
was verified.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Sam,

Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a 
WISP I will let you decide from this information provided.


Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the 
wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Sam Tetherow wrote:
I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can 
be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as 
is allowed with a PC/laptop.
And you are right that then FCC makes the rules.  What is not clear 
is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not 
apply to an RB or other SBC.  The only people that can clarify this 
is the FCC.


As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major 
factors that come into play with uncertified gear.  There are several 
that deployed  the equipment under the false impression that it was 
legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still 
persist in this belief).
The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my 
knowledge, for using uncertified gear.  There have been instances of 
people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use 
of licensed bands.


If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial 
statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 
477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law.  As 
you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is 
a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the 
fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an 
effective deterrent.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Matt Liotta wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of 
customers (including me) understand and agree with the position 
presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not 
Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate 
statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is 
required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, 
but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over 
the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so.


-Matt







--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Already looked into that and it does use non legal channels if you
tell it to. I only shoot from the hip when I have a target, and I
plainly do in this case. Seek first to understand, and then to be
understood is exactly why I asked for your contact instead of
running to the one I have used before. I wanted to be sure to follow
the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the
issue.



On 6/11/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jeromie,

Before we go accusing the FCC of anything, I'd suggest we test one of
your routers and to see if it really transmits outside of the US
frequency band.

Also, out of respect for eveyone else on this list, please read my
previous posts today regarding what non-US appears to mean so I don't
have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time
someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained
this on-list twice today).

Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for Japan'
and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power
output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your
findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually
transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who
at the FCC said what.

Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so
darn easy to accuse and shoot from the hip these days but it's a lot
harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's
really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to
follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to Seek first to
understand, and then to be understood.

I look forward to hearing your test results.

jack


Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
 from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it asks
 is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it and not
 MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to pose this
 question directly to the same individual.

 Jeromie

 On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band.  The article that was posted
 implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that
 stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use.  I seem to remember
 they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Jack Unger wrote:
  Brad,
 
  IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz sub-band
  outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this
  sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that
  frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low
  power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law
  or else broke it out of simple ignorance.
 
  jack
 
 
  Brad Belton wrote:
  Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had
  set their
  gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
  manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to
 follow the
  rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.
 
  So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the
  end user
  was able to make these changes?
 
  Best,
 
 
  Brad
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
  Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
 
  This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.
 
  Doing a quick google I found this:
 
 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a

 
  p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
  Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
  Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were
  in 2003)
  not legal in USA.
  And an interesting page here:
 
 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a

 
  p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
  Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
  level for
  radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
  the
  country in which you use the access point.
  Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
  frequencies.
  And
  Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
  level for
  radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
  the
  country in which you use the access point. 
  I have to say I've never used the above product myself.
 
  Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
  country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.
  I'd
  assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the
  device
  for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific
  software
  version that I can see.  Again, the software says 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

OK. Which non-legal channel did you confirm that it transmitted on?

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

Already looked into that and it does use non legal channels if you
tell it to. I only shoot from the hip when I have a target, and I
plainly do in this case. Seek first to understand, and then to be
understood is exactly why I asked for your contact instead of
running to the one I have used before. I wanted to be sure to follow
the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the
issue.



On 6/11/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Jeromie,

Before we go accusing the FCC of anything, I'd suggest we test one of
your routers and to see if it really transmits outside of the US
frequency band.

Also, out of respect for eveyone else on this list, please read my
previous posts today regarding what non-US appears to mean so I don't
have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time
someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained
this on-list twice today).

Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for Japan'
and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power
output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your
findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually
transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who
at the FCC said what.

Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so
darn easy to accuse and shoot from the hip these days but it's a lot
harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's
really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to
follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to Seek first to
understand, and then to be understood.

I look forward to hearing your test results.

jack


Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
 from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it asks
 is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it and not
 MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to pose this
 question directly to the same individual.

 Jeromie

 On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band.  The article that was 
posted

 implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that
 stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use.  I seem to 
remember

 they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.

 Sam Tetherow
 Sandhills Wireless

 Jack Unger wrote:
  Brad,
 
  IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz 
sub-band

  outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this
  sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that
  frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low
  power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke 
the law

  or else broke it out of simple ignorance.
 
  jack
 
 
  Brad Belton wrote:
  Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had
  set their
  gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  
The

  manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to
 follow the
  rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.
 
  So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the
  end user
  was able to make these changes?
 
  Best,
 
 
  Brad
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
  Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
 
  This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.
 
  Doing a quick google I found this:
 
 
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a 



 
  p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
  Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 
2003.
  Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or 
were

  in 2003)
  not legal in USA.
  And an interesting page here:
 
 
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a 



 
  p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
  Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
  level for
  radio devices. This setting must conform to established 
standards for

  the
  country in which you use the access point.
  Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
  frequencies.
  And
  Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
  level for
  radio devices. This setting must conform to established 
standards for

  the
  country in which you use the access point. 
  I have to say I've never used the above product myself.
 
  Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
  country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any 
country.

  I'd
  assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the
  device
  for 

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jeromie Reeves

Read the manual for the WGX102, it plainly says you have have to
select the correct regulatory domain and that not doing so could is a
violation. I was not able to find my paper manual for the WPN824 but I
think it was the same (It might be the WGR614's that are)

On 6/11/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

OK. Which non-legal channel did you confirm that it transmitted on?

Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 Already looked into that and it does use non legal channels if you
 tell it to. I only shoot from the hip when I have a target, and I
 plainly do in this case. Seek first to understand, and then to be
 understood is exactly why I asked for your contact instead of
 running to the one I have used before. I wanted to be sure to follow
 the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the
 issue.



 On 6/11/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jeromie,

 Before we go accusing the FCC of anything, I'd suggest we test one of
 your routers and to see if it really transmits outside of the US
 frequency band.

 Also, out of respect for eveyone else on this list, please read my
 previous posts today regarding what non-US appears to mean so I don't
 have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time
 someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained
 this on-list twice today).

 Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for Japan'
 and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power
 output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your
 findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually
 transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who
 at the FCC said what.

 Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so
 darn easy to accuse and shoot from the hip these days but it's a lot
 harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's
 really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to
 follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to Seek first to
 understand, and then to be understood.

 I look forward to hearing your test results.

 jack


 Jeromie Reeves wrote:
  The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
  from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it asks
  is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it and not
  MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to pose this
  question directly to the same individual.
 
  Jeromie
 
  On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band.  The article that was
 posted
  implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that
  stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use.  I seem to
 remember
  they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.
 
  Sam Tetherow
  Sandhills Wireless
 
  Jack Unger wrote:
   Brad,
  
   IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz
 sub-band
   outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this
   sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that
   frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low
   power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke
 the law
   or else broke it out of simple ignorance.
  
   jack
  
  
   Brad Belton wrote:
   Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had
   set their
   gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?
 The
   manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to
  follow the
   rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.
  
   So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the
   end user
   was able to make these changes?
  
   Best,
  
  
   Brad
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
   Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
  
   This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.
  
   Doing a quick google I found this:
  
 
 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a

 
  
   p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
   Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in
 2003.
   Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or
 were
   in 2003)
   not legal in USA.
   And an interesting page here:
  
 
 http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a

 
  
   p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
   Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
   level for
   radio devices. This setting must conform to established
 standards for
   the
   country in which you use the access point.
   Clearly implies the user could set a wrong country and use their
   frequencies.
   And
   Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power
   level for
   

Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Jack Unger

Jeromie,

That's good info. We had a report today on the WISPA Certification list 
of six Netgear WGR614v6s. The first five or so had the Region 
configuration field greyed out so that other regulatory domains could 
not be selected. These units had NA after the firmware version - 
possibly standing for North America. The sixth unit DID allow other 
regulatory domains to be selected. I'm guessing at this point that some 
(possibly earlier) versions of that unit may have allowed other domains 
to be selected and that later versions sold in the U.S. (with the NA) 
do/did not allow other domains to be selected. I'll be researching that 
unit on the FCC website later tonight to try to gain further understanding.


Were you able to confirm transmission on any non-US channel? If so, on 
which channel?


jack

Jeromie Reeves wrote:

Read the manual for the WGX102, it plainly says you have have to
select the correct regulatory domain and that not doing so could is a
violation. I was not able to find my paper manual for the WPN824 but I
think it was the same (It might be the WGR614's that are)

On 6/11/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

OK. Which non-legal channel did you confirm that it transmitted on?

Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 Already looked into that and it does use non legal channels if you
 tell it to. I only shoot from the hip when I have a target, and I
 plainly do in this case. Seek first to understand, and then to be
 understood is exactly why I asked for your contact instead of
 running to the one I have used before. I wanted to be sure to follow
 the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the
 issue.



 On 6/11/07, Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jeromie,

 Before we go accusing the FCC of anything, I'd suggest we test one of
 your routers and to see if it really transmits outside of the US
 frequency band.

 Also, out of respect for eveyone else on this list, please read my
 previous posts today regarding what non-US appears to mean so I 
don't

 have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time
 someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already 
explained

 this on-list twice today).

 Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for Japan'
 and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF 
power

 output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your
 findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually
 transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of 
who

 at the FCC said what.

 Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but 
It's so
 darn easy to accuse and shoot from the hip these days but it's a 
lot
 harder to get factual information and then to try to understand 
what's

 really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to
 follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to Seek 
first to

 understand, and then to be understood.

 I look forward to hearing your test results.

 jack


 Jeromie Reeves wrote:
  The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
  from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it 
asks
  is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it 
and not
  MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to 
pose this

  question directly to the same individual.
 
  Jeromie
 
  On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band.  The article that was
 posted
  implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote 
that

  stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use.  I seem to
 remember
  they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.
 
  Sam Tetherow
  Sandhills Wireless
 
  Jack Unger wrote:
   Brad,
  
   IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz
 sub-band
   outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this
   sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because 
that
   frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a 
very low

   power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke
 the law
   or else broke it out of simple ignorance.
  
   jack
  
  
   Brad Belton wrote:
   Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because 
they had

   set their
   gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?
 The
   manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to
  follow the
   rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.
  
   So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified 
if the

   end user
   was able to make these changes?
  
   Best,
  
  
   Brad
  
  
   -Original Message-
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
   Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
   Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
   To: WISPA General List
   Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
  
   This FCC country-code-lock-down question is interesting.
 

Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Carl A jeptha

Sam,
Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear. If a system board is 
certified then the operating system is certified for FCC and of 
course your mini-pci was certified by the manufacturer.
Now anybody can attach an antenna and have it certified. Total 
certification.


You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha



Sam Tetherow wrote:
For the record, I don't feel that you have no credibility because you 
no longer run a WISP, I just don't agree with you and if 15.201-221 
is your basis for the belief that a RB can't be considered under 
component rules I have to believe that you don't understand what a RB is.


It is NOT an intentional radiator which is what 15.201-221 
addresses.   A RB is simply a single board computer, the same thing as 
a soekris, gateworks or wrap board as well as most PDA (pre-wifi) and 
most laptops.


The only intentional radiator is the miniPCI or PCMCIA radio that is 
put into the expansion slot of the SBC, just like in a laptop which 
has a PCMCIA and miniPCI slot where I can install wireless cards.


I am NOT saying that with 100% certainty, the RB can be component 
certified, the question needs to be asked of the FCC.  And this still 
leaves the fact that as far as I know none of the MT routerboards are 
even FCC part B certified.


This also does not address the fact that you still would have to use 
certified radio/antenna pairs in the SBC once component certification 
was verified.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Sam,

Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a 
WISP I will let you decide from this information provided.


Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the 
wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Sam Tetherow wrote:
I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can 
be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as 
is allowed with a PC/laptop.
And you are right that then FCC makes the rules.  What is not clear 
is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can 
not apply to an RB or other SBC.  The only people that can clarify 
this is the FCC.


As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major 
factors that come into play with uncertified gear.  There are 
several that deployed  the equipment under the false impression that 
it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many 
still persist in this belief).
The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my 
knowledge, for using uncertified gear.  There have been instances of 
people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use 
of licensed bands.


If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made 
unofficial statements to the effect that they are more worried about 
EIRP and 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow 
the law.  As you pointed out most people regularly break the speed 
limit, which is a law with an associated fine but they continue to 
do so because the fine is not large enough or incurred often enough 
to make it an effective deterrent.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Matt Liotta wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of 
customers (including me) understand and agree with the position 
presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not 
Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate 
statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is 
required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, 
but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over 
the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so.


-Matt








--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: [WISPA] 3.65 radio wish list

2007-06-11 Thread Mike Bushard, Jr
Aperto has had 3650 equipment available for testing since 05, nothing new
here

Mike Bushard, Jr
Wisper Wireless Solutions, LLC
320-256-WISP (9477)
320-256-9478 Fax
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 radio wish list

Gino Villarini wrote:
 Matt,

 What gear have you tested

   
We were asked not to share any vendor information as part of our 
testing. However, one could always read the last update to our 
experimental license and see it was for use with Aperto equipment.

-Matt
-- 
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread George Rogato
I wonder how many wisps who would usually discuss their infrastructure 
and talk about their issues and performance of the equipment they are 
using, etc, no longer say a word on this list because of the fear 
mongers who have them running scared?


We used to have lots of wisps discussing this stuff in detail, not any 
longer.



Matt Liotta wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers 
(including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't 
kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of 
the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding 
certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many 
people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the 
law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally 
I am fined for doing so.


-Matt

Brad Belton wrote:
How would the number of customers I had on my network have any 
bearing on

this discussion?


Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a 
resident is

more qualified to answer.  Certainly the intern is not to be considered a
dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world experience and
overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced resident.

Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless
experience is certainly relevant to this discussion.  Anyone that has 
scaled
their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients knows 
the
difficulty and complexity is compounded.  It is quite a different 
animal to

run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few
hundred.

No offense is intended Dawn.  I enjoy reading your posts and agree 
with your
FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more 
in many
cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly 
question

what you offer here as the gospel.

Best,


Brad




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

George,

As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has 
to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions 
they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the 
norm among some on this list.


How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing 
on this discussion?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:
 

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a 
wisp?


Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running 
a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our 
wisps?






Dawn DiPietro wrote:
   

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final 
say in what can and cannot be certified.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
  


  




--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Travis Johnson
Or fear that their competition is watching... it's bad enough I have my 
competitors actually climbing my towers to see what equipment I am 
using... it's hard to give any more info here... :(


Travis
Microserv

George Rogato wrote:
I wonder how many wisps who would usually discuss their infrastructure 
and talk about their issues and performance of the equipment they are 
using, etc, no longer say a word on this list because of the fear 
mongers who have them running scared?


We used to have lots of wisps discussing this stuff in detail, not any 
longer.



Matt Liotta wrote:
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of 
customers (including me) understand and agree with the position 
presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not 
Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate 
statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is 
required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but 
that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the 
speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so.


-Matt

Brad Belton wrote:
How would the number of customers I had on my network have any 
bearing on

this discussion?


Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a 
resident is
more qualified to answer.  Certainly the intern is not to be 
considered a
dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world 
experience and
overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced 
resident.


Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless
experience is certainly relevant to this discussion.  Anyone that 
has scaled
their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients 
knows the
difficulty and complexity is compounded.  It is quite a different 
animal to

run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few
hundred.

No offense is intended Dawn.  I enjoy reading your posts and agree 
with your
FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more 
in many
cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly 
question

what you offer here as the gospel.

Best,


Brad




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

George,

As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what 
has to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any 
questions they need to be clarified not argued against which seems 
to be the norm among some on this list.


How would the number of customers I had on my network have any 
bearing on this discussion?


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


George Rogato wrote:
 

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a 
wisp?


Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in 
running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how 
to run our wisps?






Dawn DiPietro wrote:
  

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list 
that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need 
for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the 
final say in what can and cannot be certified.


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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Michael Erskine

Ryan Langseth wrote:

I made one comment in this entire thread, which I am already regretting.
I hardly consider that vocal.
  
My bad, Ryan, My bad.  I did not mean to lump you in with a few vocal 
people..

My comment was not meant to be sarcastic, I would like to see a ruling
on it one way or another, but I am not going to run around trying to get
it. Its not worth my time, I don't need to start working 70-hour weeks.

this thread  /dev/null,
Ryan
  

I get as tired of this chatter as you and so many other's do.

-m-

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Michael Erskine

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

All,

I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that 
think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for 
clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final 
say in what can and cannot be certified.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


I am glad that you get it now, Dawn.  I was under the impression that 
you thought you had the final say in what the FCC required to be 
certified.  Clearly I was in error.


Regards

Michale Erskine.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Joe

Not sure about now but when smartbridges came out with Nexus line it had a a
few extra channells. And it was certified. 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:57 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


Or maybe it was Adaptive Broadband gear that allowed the end user to break
the rules?  Anyone remember?

Best,


Brad


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread George Rogato



Joe wrote:

Not sure about now but when smartbridges came out with Nexus line it had a a
few extra channells. And it was certified. 


Did you know it was Pac Wireless who paid for the certifications on the 
original Smart Bridges, not Smart Bridges?



--
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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Sam Tetherow
Just to be absolutely clear since this topic has generated a lot of 
'assumptions'.  I have NOT confirmed with the FCC that a 
routerboard/wrap/gateworks SBC is considered a unintentional radiator I 
have just made the statement that *I* don't see how it could be 
considered an intentional radiator since they are sold as SBCs without 
radios.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills Wireless

Carl A jeptha wrote:

Sam,
Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear. If a system board is 
certified then the operating system is certified for FCC and of 
course your mini-pci was certified by the manufacturer.
Now anybody can attach an antenna and have it certified. Total 
certification.


You have a Good Day now,


Carl A Jeptha
http://www.airnet.ca
Office Phone: 905 349-2084
Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm
skype cajeptha



Sam Tetherow wrote:
For the record, I don't feel that you have no credibility because 
you no longer run a WISP, I just don't agree with you and if 
15.201-221 is your basis for the belief that a RB can't be considered 
under component rules I have to believe that you don't understand 
what a RB is.


It is NOT an intentional radiator which is what 15.201-221 
addresses.   A RB is simply a single board computer, the same thing 
as a soekris, gateworks or wrap board as well as most PDA (pre-wifi) 
and most laptops.


The only intentional radiator is the miniPCI or PCMCIA radio that is 
put into the expansion slot of the SBC, just like in a laptop which 
has a PCMCIA and miniPCI slot where I can install wireless cards.


I am NOT saying that with 100% certainty, the RB can be component 
certified, the question needs to be asked of the FCC.  And this still 
leaves the fact that as far as I know none of the MT routerboards are 
even FCC part B certified.


This also does not address the fact that you still would have to use 
certified radio/antenna pairs in the SBC once component certification 
was verified.


   Sam Tetherow
   Sandhills 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] MT Babble

2007-06-11 Thread Marlon K. Schafer

It works like this Doug.

A radio card is an intentional radiator.  Under part 15 rules it can only be 
sold as a part of a certified system.  That means if you put the radio card 
in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's 
own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok.  As 
long as it's CERTIFIED that way.


If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it.  You 
are out of compliance.  If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, 
you are out of compliance.  If you put a different type of antenna than it 
was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of 
compliance.


The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is 
that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us.


And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are 
UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them.  Many 
of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them.


Yes the rule is silly.  Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC.  No, 
uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world.


However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark 
because you want to ignore the rules?  Do you really want to give your 
competition that much ammunition against you?


I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the 
time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job.  We have 
basically no FCC committee though.  The principal membership doesn't seem to 
be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that 
other people do.  No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues.


When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY 
and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get 
this certified system rule changed.  Ideally I'd like to get a real pro 
installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified 
systems, but we could just buy certified components.


Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a road map 
and some basic language worked out already :-).


In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you possibly can.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble



But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional
radiator.  So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an
intentional radiator as a whole?

When you add a wireless card?  That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a 
load

of trouble.  But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than
an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas?

I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking
about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after 
the

sale.

I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an 
intentional

radiator?  At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power
supply, which become a Personal Computer.  At the end of the day, you 
add

a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then?

Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense.  Cisco
Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Sam,

Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a
WISP I will let you decide from this information provided.

Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the
wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers.
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Sam Tetherow wrote:

I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can
be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as
is allowed with a PC/laptop.
And you are right that then FCC makes the rules.  What is not clear is
that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not
apply to an RB or other SBC.  The only people that can clarify this is
the FCC.

As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major
factors that come into play with uncertified gear.  There are several
that deployed  the equipment under the false impression that it was
legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still
persist in this belief).
The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my
knowledge, for using uncertified gear.  There have been instances of
people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use
of licensed bands.

If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has