Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
Yes for the 3.65GHz band, antenna gain does matter, because the band is EIRP restricted. For instance, for the XR3, if you look on the grant: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/Eas731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPYRequestTimeout=500application_id=930658fcc_id=SWX-XR3B The maximum output (in watts) is 4.2, 4.7, and 4.7 for emission designators (4M24D7D,8M44D7D,17M2D7D), or 5/10/20 MHz channel bandwidths respectively. Thats ~ 36dBm total *EIRP* If you look at the test report: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=900106native_or_pdf=pdf (Page 36) It shows the max tx power tested by the FCC Lab which still met spectral density requirements. If you are using the XR3 at the allowed max txpower (~18dBm), you must use less than or equal an 18dBI antenna. (This should be specified in the user manuals you received when you purchased the XR3) Hope that helps... -Matt rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Antenna gain does matter. UBNT has only one certified antenna combination - or did back when I first filed for the license. Useful only for P2P, actually. You have to specificy EIRP, which UBNT's grant details, using the antenna specified. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Not mine, but http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/licenseLocDetail.jsp?keyLoc=15533393licKey=2969764rsc=NN That's a Ubiquiti XR3. It doesn't say Mikrotik or Star-OS or Ikarus or because it doesn't matter. Nor does antenna gain. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John Scrivner j...@scrivner.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:34 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp So Reader, are you saying you have a 3.65 GHz license and have registered your 3.65 GHz access points and end user locations through the FCC ULS? I did not recall seeing a Star OS 3.65 FCC certified system. You are required to use FCC certified equipment and to register every AP and customer location using this band. If you do not then you are breaking the law. Since you are using WISPA list resources to discuss this as a system option for 3.65 GHz I expect to see a full answer from you here on this. Scriv On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:42 AM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I am. Works ok. Using Star-OS. I use ok to designate an unenthusiastic, but affirmative statement that it works. 3.65 seems to have unique propagation qualities that are affected by snow, rain, and fog, moreso than 5 or 2.4. Or, that's how it seems. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher br...@reliableinter.net To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:29 AM Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Anyone using 3.65 for ptp? What is available? Can ubiquiti's cards be used in mikrotik? brian WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today!
[WISPA] DW Horizon Tool - 11 Ghz and 8 ft dishes
Anyone with the tool to calculate this? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] 3.65 ptp
My system is fully licensed.How did you get your combination of XR3 + Routerboard 400 series + Mikrotik RouterOS 3.x + whatever antenna certified? What's the process like, and how much did it cost?Or did you just buy the kit from someone else who went through the certification process? If so, from whom? I'd be willing to pay a small premium over the price of all those parts just to avoid the legal heat.David SmithMVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] 3.65 ptp
I think the confusion on this comes from the fact that for the P90 licensing process, only the transmitter information is collected. Remember that even with Part 90 devices, they still must comply with Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. This is covered with a Declaration of Conformity for the system typically. So the previous example of the XR3 + ARC + RB411 + PoE (sic) is technically only legal if it meets all Part 90 requirements (which it should according to the test report on file at the FCC) as well as Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. In this case, a Declaration of Conformity should be on file at the assembler's location. This is why the label is important. This kind of system built from modular components should include a label with a manufacturer name/model number, the contains FCC ID: xx, and the 2 required statements about unintentional interference. This information tells anyone including the FCC who to contact for intentional emission issues (P-90 in this example) as well as unintentional emission issues (P-15 in this case). If there is no label on there, then it is illegal by default. Then if there are problems with the intentional radiator, it is the module maker's problem (assuming the integration instructions were followed properly). Finally if there are problems with the unintentional emissions, it is the system assembler's problem. I know, I knowthis is a licensed, Part 90 band. So why does Part 15 even matter? Simply put, P-90 covers the transmitter, P-15 covers the rest of the crap spewing from the device in the rest of the spectrum. :-) -Hal -Original Message- From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:05:36 GMT My system is fully licensed. How did you get your combination of XR3 + Routerboard 400 series + Mikrotik RouterOS 3.x + whatever antenna certified? What's the process like, and how much did it cost?Or did you just buy the kit from someone else who went through the certification process? If so, from whom? I'd be willing to pay a small premium over the price of all those parts just to avoid the legal heat.David SmithMVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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] 3.65 ptp
Other vendors of 3.65 GHz gear told me size doesn't matter. I guess that's what I get for listening to that phrase, no matter who's right. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: rea...@muddyfrogwater.us Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 12:36 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Antenna gain does matter. UBNT has only one certified antenna combination - or did back when I first filed for the license. Useful only for P2P, actually. You have to specificy EIRP, which UBNT's grant details, using the antenna specified. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Not mine, but http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/licenseLocDetail.jsp?keyLoc=15533393licKey=2969764rsc=NN That's a Ubiquiti XR3. It doesn't say Mikrotik or Star-OS or Ikarus or because it doesn't matter. Nor does antenna gain. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John Scrivner j...@scrivner.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:34 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp So Reader, are you saying you have a 3.65 GHz license and have registered your 3.65 GHz access points and end user locations through the FCC ULS? I did not recall seeing a Star OS 3.65 FCC certified system. You are required to use FCC certified equipment and to register every AP and customer location using this band. If you do not then you are breaking the law. Since you are using WISPA list resources to discuss this as a system option for 3.65 GHz I expect to see a full answer from you here on this. Scriv On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:42 AM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I am. Works ok. Using Star-OS. I use ok to designate an unenthusiastic, but affirmative statement that it works. 3.65 seems to have unique propagation qualities that are affected by snow, rain, and fog, moreso than 5 or 2.4. Or, that's how it seems. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher br...@reliableinter.net To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:29 AM Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Anyone using 3.65 for ptp? What is available? Can ubiquiti's cards be used in mikrotik? brian WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
Lower your transmit power, duh. You go a hell of a lot further with a 0 db radio and 36 db of antenna than 30 db of radio and 6 db of antenna. That do you think negative db values are for? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Matt Hardy mha...@ligowave.com Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 7:41 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Yes for the 3.65GHz band, antenna gain does matter, because the band is EIRP restricted. For instance, for the XR3, if you look on the grant: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/Eas731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPYRequestTimeout=500application_id=930658fcc_id=SWX-XR3B The maximum output (in watts) is 4.2, 4.7, and 4.7 for emission designators (4M24D7D,8M44D7D,17M2D7D), or 5/10/20 MHz channel bandwidths respectively. Thats ~ 36dBm total *EIRP* If you look at the test report: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=900106native_or_pdf=pdf (Page 36) It shows the max tx power tested by the FCC Lab which still met spectral density requirements. If you are using the XR3 at the allowed max txpower (~18dBm), you must use less than or equal an 18dBI antenna. (This should be specified in the user manuals you received when you purchased the XR3) Hope that helps... -Matt rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: Antenna gain does matter. UBNT has only one certified antenna combination - or did back when I first filed for the license. Useful only for P2P, actually. You have to specificy EIRP, which UBNT's grant details, using the antenna specified. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Not mine, but http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/licenseLocDetail.jsp?keyLoc=15533393licKey=2969764rsc=NN That's a Ubiquiti XR3. It doesn't say Mikrotik or Star-OS or Ikarus or because it doesn't matter. Nor does antenna gain. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: John Scrivner j...@scrivner.com Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:34 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp So Reader, are you saying you have a 3.65 GHz license and have registered your 3.65 GHz access points and end user locations through the FCC ULS? I did not recall seeing a Star OS 3.65 FCC certified system. You are required to use FCC certified equipment and to register every AP and customer location using this band. If you do not then you are breaking the law. Since you are using WISPA list resources to discuss this as a system option for 3.65 GHz I expect to see a full answer from you here on this. Scriv On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:42 AM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote: I am. Works ok. Using Star-OS. I use ok to designate an unenthusiastic, but affirmative statement that it works. 3.65 seems to have unique propagation qualities that are affected by snow, rain, and fog, moreso than 5 or 2.4. Or, that's how it seems. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Brian Rohrbacher br...@reliableinter.net To: Conversations over a new WISP Trade Organization wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:29 AM Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Anyone using 3.65 for ptp? What is available? Can ubiquiti's cards be used in mikrotik? brian WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA
Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
As per the FCC only the anufacturer can make the determination which antenna is similar in specifications. Otherwise it needs FCC certification as a system. That was from the horses mouth about 18 months ago Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:47:42 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Who has the final word on this? I've been told by testing laboratories that do testing for the FCC that this is not the case... They said if the radio card (5Ghz when I asked but for this discussion it doesn't matter) had been approved with an antenna then you could use the same or less db like antenna and you were good to go - assuming the card manufacturer (like ubiquity) had had appropriate testing completed and filed with FCC. It sure is difficult for any of us to make heads or tales out of what can or can't be done because everyone has a different opinion - even the people at the top of the food chain I guess. Who's right? And how am I supposed to know? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Harold Bledsoe hbled...@deliberant.net Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp I think the confusion on this comes from the fact that for the P90 licensing process, only the transmitter information is collected. Remember that even with Part 90 devices, they still must comply with Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. This is covered with a Declaration of Conformity for the system typically. So the previous example of the XR3 + ARC + RB411 + PoE (sic) is technically only legal if it meets all Part 90 requirements (which it should according to the test report on file at the FCC) as well as Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. In this case, a Declaration of Conformity should be on file at the assembler's location. This is why the label is important. This kind of system built from modular components should include a label with a manufacturer name/model number, the contains FCC ID: xx, and the 2 required statements about unintentional interference. This information tells anyone including the FCC who to contact for intentional emission issues (P-90 in this example) as well as unintentional emission issues (P-15 in this case). If there is no label on there, then it is illegal by default. Then if there are problems with the intentional radiator, it is the module maker's problem (assuming the integration instructions were followed properly). Finally if there are problems with the unintentional emissions, it is the system assembler's problem. I know, I knowthis is a licensed, Part 90 band. So why does Part 15 even matter? Simply put, P-90 covers the transmitter, P-15 covers the rest of the crap spewing from the device in the rest of the spectrum. :-) -Hal -Original Message- From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:05:36 GMT My system is fully licensed. How did you get your combination of XR3 + Routerboard 400 series + Mikrotik RouterOS 3.x + whatever antenna certified? What's the process like, and how much did it cost?Or did you just buy the kit from someone else who went through the certification process? If so, from whom? I'd be willing to pay a small premium over the price of all those parts just to avoid the legal heat.David SmithMVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join
Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp
That is my understanding as well from talking with a certification lab. Lower and equal gain antennas of same type as certified are allowed to be substituted by the manufacturer. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: lakel...@gbcx.net Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:52:36 To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp As per the FCC only the anufacturer can make the determination which antenna is similar in specifications. Otherwise it needs FCC certification as a system. That was from the horses mouth about 18 months ago Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Scott Carullo sc...@brevardwireless.com Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:47:42 To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Who has the final word on this? I've been told by testing laboratories that do testing for the FCC that this is not the case... They said if the radio card (5Ghz when I asked but for this discussion it doesn't matter) had been approved with an antenna then you could use the same or less db like antenna and you were good to go - assuming the card manufacturer (like ubiquity) had had appropriate testing completed and filed with FCC. It sure is difficult for any of us to make heads or tales out of what can or can't be done because everyone has a different opinion - even the people at the top of the food chain I guess. Who's right? And how am I supposed to know? Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 Original Message From: Harold Bledsoe hbled...@deliberant.net Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:21 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp I think the confusion on this comes from the fact that for the P90 licensing process, only the transmitter information is collected. Remember that even with Part 90 devices, they still must comply with Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. This is covered with a Declaration of Conformity for the system typically. So the previous example of the XR3 + ARC + RB411 + PoE (sic) is technically only legal if it meets all Part 90 requirements (which it should according to the test report on file at the FCC) as well as Part 15 requirements for unintentional radiators. In this case, a Declaration of Conformity should be on file at the assembler's location. This is why the label is important. This kind of system built from modular components should include a label with a manufacturer name/model number, the contains FCC ID: xx, and the 2 required statements about unintentional interference. This information tells anyone including the FCC who to contact for intentional emission issues (P-90 in this example) as well as unintentional emission issues (P-15 in this case). If there is no label on there, then it is illegal by default. Then if there are problems with the intentional radiator, it is the module maker's problem (assuming the integration instructions were followed properly). Finally if there are problems with the unintentional emissions, it is the system assembler's problem. I know, I knowthis is a licensed, Part 90 band. So why does Part 15 even matter? Simply put, P-90 covers the transmitter, P-15 covers the rest of the crap spewing from the device in the rest of the spectrum. :-) -Hal -Original Message- From: David E. Smith d...@mvn.net Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 ptp Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:05:36 GMT My system is fully licensed. How did you get your combination of XR3 + Routerboard 400 series + Mikrotik RouterOS 3.x + whatever antenna certified? What's the process like, and how much did it cost?Or did you just buy the kit from someone else who went through the certification process? If so, from whom? I'd be willing to pay a small premium over the price of all those parts just to avoid the legal heat.David SmithMVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/ WISPA
