Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Grin It's certainly a fuzzy one. A unique connector was defined a few years back. As I recall, It's one that's not commonly available to the average consumer. It's one of the reasons that the old Orinoco cards had those goofy connectors on them. They had to come up with something that wasn't common. Yet, the FCC still certifies millions of Linksys devices with RPSMA connectors. Go figure. Like I said, I think that the FCC is MOSTLY worried about getting broadband out to people. No harmful interference, and no blasting over the EIRP limits. Other than that, they sure don't seem to care. But if they ever do start to care, I hope to have my network in dang good shape when the "man" come a callin'. marlon - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval I am still wondering what is meant by "unique" for the connector. I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed. Why is that? Lonnie On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a "non unique" connector are devices labeled for and sold only to "professional installers". The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 professional installer is. What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro installer. Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap without also including the cable and antenna for it. To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on a specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad ol' wpcs days). The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP limits. So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit. The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device designed for a professional installer. If you're not sure that your device is for a pro installer, look in the manual. If it's got an n connector on it, it should also say that it's only available to professional installers. That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone. We are, as users of this gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like a Linksys dsl router etc.). Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna. But they clearly aren't yet ready to go there. Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time with the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules). I'll pass along what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it. Hope that helps, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval >I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says > that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N > connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something > becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness. > > Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes > that antenna must be removable. Just try and unsolder an antenna lead > while hanging off a tower. I doubt that is their intention and thus > they would certainly allow a removable antenna. > > I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having > Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom > consumer router. > > For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I > did see that in the document. I felt it was a very positive step and > one that will help the Industry in general. > > > > On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
I am still wondering what is meant by "unique" for the connector. I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed. Why is that? Lonnie On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a "non unique" connector are devices labeled for and sold only to "professional installers". The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 professional installer is. What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro installer. Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap without also including the cable and antenna for it. To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on a specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad ol' wpcs days). The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP limits. So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit. The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device designed for a professional installer. If you're not sure that your device is for a pro installer, look in the manual. If it's got an n connector on it, it should also say that it's only available to professional installers. That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone. We are, as users of this gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like a Linksys dsl router etc.). Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna. But they clearly aren't yet ready to go there. Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time with the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules). I'll pass along what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it. Hope that helps, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval >I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says > that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N > connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something > becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness. > > Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes > that antenna must be removable. Just try and unsolder an antenna lead > while hanging off a tower. I doubt that is their intention and thus > they would certainly allow a removable antenna. > > I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having > Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom > consumer router. > > For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I > did see that in the document. I felt it was a very positive step and > one that will help the Industry in general. > > > > On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I certainly DO want to mix and match. Hell, it's going on all over >> anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway. The >> mix >> and match "thing" is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. >> However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done. >> >> This is the specific clause that applies to us: >> The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be >> applied to modules. >> >> If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for >> professional installation only. >> >> This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the >> world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say >> otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have >> changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would >> bring almost all of them back into compliance. &g
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Please see inline... - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a "non unique" connector are devices labeled for and sold only to "professional installers". The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 professional installer is. What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro installer. Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap without also including the cable and antenna for it. To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on a specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad ol' wpcs days). The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP limits. So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit. up to here I agreewith you. The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device designed for a professional installer. If you're not sure that your device is for a pro installer, look in the manual. If it's got an n connector on it, it should also say that it's only available to professional installers. *** From the new rule: 4. The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of Section 15.203 and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or employ a "unique" antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the antenna, including the cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the module, either at the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive change. The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be applied to modules. In other words it MUST ALWAYS have a unique connector *** This from part 15 says that the "unique" conector is NOT required if intended for a "professional installer" The "N" connector is considered a "unique connector" Section 15.203 Antenna requirement.An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this Section. The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or electrical connector is prohibited. This requirement does not apply to carrier current devices or to devices operated under the provisions of Sections 15.211, 15.213, 15.217, 15.219, or 15.221. Further, this requirement does not apply to intentional radiators that must be professionally installed, such as perimeter protection systems and some field disturbance sensors, or to other intentional radiators which, in accordance with Section 15.31(d), must be measured at the installation site. However, the installer shall be responsible for ensuring that theproper antenna is employed so that the limits in this Part are not exceeded. ** That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone. We are, as users of this gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like a Linksys dsl router etc.). TRUE. all radios are to be sold with cable and antennas Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna. But they clearly aren't yet ready to go there. The mix/match can still ONLY be with antennas that were certified with the radio module / firmware. Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time with the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules). I'll pass along what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it. Thanks, looking forward to response. Hope that helps, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a "non unique" connector are devices labeled for and sold only to "professional installers". The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 professional installer is. What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro installer. Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap without also including the cable and antenna for it. To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on a specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad ol' wpcs days). The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP limits. So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit. The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device designed for a professional installer. If you're not sure that your device is for a pro installer, look in the manual. If it's got an n connector on it, it should also say that it's only available to professional installers. That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone. We are, as users of this gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like a Linksys dsl router etc.). Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna. But they clearly aren't yet ready to go there. Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time with the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules). I'll pass along what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it. Hope that helps, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness. Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes that antenna must be removable. Just try and unsolder an antenna lead while hanging off a tower. I doubt that is their intention and thus they would certainly allow a removable antenna. I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom consumer router. For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I did see that in the document. I felt it was a very positive step and one that will help the Industry in general. On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I certainly DO want to mix and match. Hell, it's going on all over anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway. The mix and match "thing" is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done. This is the specific clause that applies to us: The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be applied to modules. If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for professional installation only. This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would bring almost all of them back into compliance. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Most SBC units use Linux which is also used with some PDA's, laptops and desktop systems. Most laptops can be classed as a SBC since they have what they need on a single board. Many SBC gear makes use of expansion connectors, based on the PCI or mini PCI standard, making them similar to many desktop motherboards. The SBC gear from Gateworks, ADI, for example, have a processor, RAM, boot rom, file storage, Ethernet, and mini PCI slots. You could actually install a video card in one of the mini PCI slots and have an actual desktop PC. It would be slow, but it would do it, just the same. The block diagrams for a SBC and desktop motherboard will look pretty identical. Thus any talk of distinctions between different types of base units is not really on the right track and shows a lack of understanding of that sort of technology. I'm not sure why anybody in this Industry would be trying to say that it is OK to use an approved modular transmitter in a laptop but that it is not OK to use that same equipment in a board such as you get from Gateworks or ADI, and many others, I might add. I personally take great joy in the FCC saying that base unit is not an issue and that they are concerned with the transmitter and antenna portion. Lonnie On 4/26/07, Tim Kerns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181> > This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the > world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say > otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have > changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would > bring almost all of them back into compliance. > This is where I don't see that we are any different. What is the difference between an IPAQ, Dell, and SBC's like WRAP, Gateworks, Metro, etc. They are computers, they are base units that a radio module is installed into, they run an OS. Their primary purpose is to be a computer and we the WISP community have used them to become AP's or Clients. My Dell laptop with it's installed minipci radio is a "Client". And if I chose to install other software it can be an AP. The only thing I see my laptop from being legal is if I chose to attach a different antenna than what is already there. But if the manufacture of that radio had certified it with say a 24bd grid then I could attach that grid to the laptop and still be legal. Again this is MY wishful understanding of this new rule. Tim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness. Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes that antenna must be removable. Just try and unsolder an antenna lead while hanging off a tower. I doubt that is their intention and thus they would certainly allow a removable antenna. I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom consumer router. For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I did see that in the document. I felt it was a very positive step and one that will help the Industry in general. On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I certainly DO want to mix and match. Hell, it's going on all over anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway. The mix and match "thing" is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done. This is the specific clause that applies to us: The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be applied to modules. If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for professional installation only. This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would bring almost all of them back into compliance. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
- Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181> This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would bring almost all of them back into compliance. This is where I don't see that we are any different. What is the difference between an IPAQ, Dell, and SBC's like WRAP, Gateworks, Metro, etc. They are computers, they are base units that a radio module is installed into, they run an OS. Their primary purpose is to be a computer and we the WISP community have used them to become AP's or Clients. My Dell laptop with it's installed minipci radio is a "Client". And if I chose to install other software it can be an AP. The only thing I see my laptop from being legal is if I chose to attach a different antenna than what is already there. But if the manufacture of that radio had certified it with say a 24bd grid then I could attach that grid to the laptop and still be legal. Again this is MY wishful understanding of this new rule. Tim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Marlon, What does The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 say? and how does this change things? I thought the "professional installation" only meant that the installer had the knowledge and was allowed by the FCC to determine what antenna and xmitter could work together without the complete assembly being certified as one. To me the exclusion of this only means that again the radio module, firmware, and antenna have to be certified. Thus if the mfg did this with several different antenna then these modules with any of the certified combinations of antenna would be legal. I'm not sure what an "N" connector has to do with this? The rule says a "unique" connector. Don't know about you but a u.fl is about as unique as you can get and not for the consumer. Tim - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:11 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval I certainly DO want to mix and match. Hell, it's going on all over anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway. The mix and match "thing" is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done. This is the specific clause that applies to us: may not be applied to modules. If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for professional installation only. This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would bring almost all of them back into compliance. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval Why were you waiting for that one? It sounds like you do NOT want to mix and match to suit the job. You can mix and match, you just have to make sure that the transmitters you mix are certified with the antennas you use. Certified is certified. It does not matter that you have other types in use. Imagine if you could not mix and match, since that would mean you could not use Alvarion and Tranzeo on the same tower, which is certainly not the intent. Since you can clearly mix different systems on a tower then it also holds that you can mix different transmitters with a system. Just keep each one meeting the proper requirements and you should be OK. The new regs are not regulating your entire network as a whole, but rather are wanting individual parts to be proper. Lonnie On 4/25/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: THAT's the one I've been waiting for. This pretty much rules out any intent what so ever that WE can use this to mix and match transmitters. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval > Scott, > > In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular > transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what > would > you be certifying exactly? > > As quoted from said document; > > The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of > Section 15.203 > and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or > employ a > "unique" > antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the > antenna, > including the > cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the > module, > either at > the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive > change. > The > "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be &
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Right. And my point is, they should be easy to get certified. How do we get the various SBC vendors we use to get their boards certified as non-intentional radiators that can hold intentionally radiating modules? ralph wrote: Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device SBC=not WRAP=not RB=not -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Right, for the transmitter. That is the mPCI card that goes in the laptop. I am talking about the laptop itself. Laptop = SBC = WRAP = RB = ??? Dawn DiPietro wrote: Scott, In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what would you be certifying exactly? As quoted from said document; The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of Section 15.203 and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or employ a "unique" antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the antenna, including the cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the module, either at the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive change. The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be applied to modules. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Scott Reed wrote: And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card vendor is certified with. From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions. If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in its certification then: 1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it? 2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified if it is in a box? Here is what I am thinking. If we would get an SBC certified bare as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever enclosure we want to use. The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise being emitted. I don't think there are very many enclosures that increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in a box shouldn't negate the certification. That would be like saying I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on. If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of us use in our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought. And if we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to legally use a lot more equipment. Jack Unger wrote: Scott, I believe that your comments are substantially correct. The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember that the software used must limit operation of the complete system only to those frequencies and power levels that are legal in the U.S. jack Scott Reed wrote: I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not about "split modular" to be the part the refers to a PC. And I read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card and antenna can be used. So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track. Jack is right, not any "base," but I would read it that any "certified base" is doable. I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered to find it. This makes sense. Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with a set of antennae. Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card. Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an antenna, using the proper cable, that was certified with the CM9. Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a "base" unit, we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna and be good. The "gotcha" here is those sections of Part 15 I have not yet followed up on. I am not sure what the "professional installer" stuff is about. What am I missing or is this good news? Jack Unger wrote: Tim, I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any "base" unit. I think what the FCC is doing is: 1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a legal modular assembly is. 2. Allowing some flexibility re
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Ralph, you hit the mark. The sbc guys need to get their stuff tested and certified. End of story. If some can't do it and others do, they will soon be without sales. That ought to drive them to conform. I can see the domino effect starting. ADI has done a very good thing for us. The pressure is on the other guys now. George ralph wrote: I'm just trying to say that most of these boards have never been certified to even use as a computing device in the US. They could be putting out spurs and harmonics all over the aircraft band or anywhere else. I had an SBC once whose crystal oscillator was putting out a strong signal right on 146.055 MHZ, the input of a local Ham repeater. It shut them completely down until I could get there and shut the computer off. Manufacturer had me pad the crystal with a capacitor. Moved the spur off to who knows where else. Hopefully not to the aircraft distress frequency or something like that. This board was not FCC certified either. I have a Routerboard 153 sitting here on my desk. Nowhere on it is an FCC compliance note about its compliance as an unintentional radiator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval - Original Message - From: "ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device SBC=not WRAP=not RB=not I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... I know that lots of SBC's have been certified within systems, and gettting them certified outside of systems, as unintentional radiators should be... well.. almost trivial. I don't think a WRAP board has been, but then, the WRAP is now obsolete. The various RB / Compex / Gateworks, etc SBC's are nothing but PARTS of already certified systems. The CPU's and other parts are common parts. They'd probably qualify under plain old "declaration of compliance" rules. -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
I'm just trying to say that most of these boards have never been certified to even use as a computing device in the US. They could be putting out spurs and harmonics all over the aircraft band or anywhere else. I had an SBC once whose crystal oscillator was putting out a strong signal right on 146.055 MHZ, the input of a local Ham repeater. It shut them completely down until I could get there and shut the computer off. Manufacturer had me pad the crystal with a capacitor. Moved the spur off to who knows where else. Hopefully not to the aircraft distress frequency or something like that. This board was not FCC certified either. I have a Routerboard 153 sitting here on my desk. Nowhere on it is an FCC compliance note about its compliance as an unintentional radiator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 10:26 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval - Original Message - From: "ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval > Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device > SBC=not > WRAP=not > RB=not > I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... I know that lots of SBC's have been certified within systems, and gettting them certified outside of systems, as unintentional radiators should be... well.. almost trivial. I don't think a WRAP board has been, but then, the WRAP is now obsolete. The various RB / Compex / Gateworks, etc SBC's are nothing but PARTS of already certified systems. The CPU's and other parts are common parts. They'd probably qualify under plain old "declaration of compliance" rules. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
- Original Message - From: "ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:42 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval > Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device > SBC=not > WRAP=not > RB=not > I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... I know that lots of SBC's have been certified within systems, and gettting them certified outside of systems, as unintentional radiators should be... well.. almost trivial. I don't think a WRAP board has been, but then, the WRAP is now obsolete. The various RB / Compex / Gateworks, etc SBC's are nothing but PARTS of already certified systems. The CPU's and other parts are common parts. They'd probably qualify under plain old "declaration of compliance" rules. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
