THAT's the one I've been waiting for.
This pretty much rules out any intent what so ever that WE can use this
to
mix and match transmitters.
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) WISP Operator since
1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
> Scott,
>
> In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular
> transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what
> would
> you be certifying exactly?
>
> As quoted from said document;
>
> The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of
> Section 15.203
> and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or
> employ a
> "unique"
> antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the antenna,
> including the
> cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the
> module,
> either at
> the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive
> change.
> The
> "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be
> applied
> to modules.
>
> Regards,
> Dawn DiPietro
>
>
> Scott Reed wrote:
>> And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card vendor
>> is
>> certified with.
>>
>> From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions.
>> If
>> we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in its
>> certification then:
>> 1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC
>> certified
>> as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
>> 2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified
>> if
>> it is in a box?
>>
>> Here is what I am thinking. If we would get an SBC certified bare as
>> a
>> base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever
>> enclosure
>> we want to use. The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise being
>> emitted. I don't think there are very many enclosures that increase
>> the
>> RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in a box
>> shouldn't
>> negate the certification. That would be like saying I can't put my
>> laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.
>>
>> If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of us use in
>> our
>> operations certified may not be as hard as once thought. And if we
>> can
>> show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the antennae
>> we
>> use in their certifications, we may be able to legally use a lot more
>> equipment.
>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> I believe that your comments are substantially correct.
>>>
>>> The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that
>>> very
>>> few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have certified
>>> them
>>> with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. I don't think
>>> this
>>> 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember that the software
>>> used
>>> must limit operation of the complete system only to those frequencies
>>> and power levels that are legal in the U.S.
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Reed wrote:
>>>> I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the
>>>> referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not
>>>> about
>>>> "split modular" to be the part the refers to a PC. And I read it
>>>> that
>>>> if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the radio card is
>>>> certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card and antenna can
>>>> be
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>> So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track. Jack is
>>>> right, not any "base," but I would read it that any "certified base"
>>>> is
>>>> doable.
>>>> I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered
>>>> to
>>>> find it. This makes sense. Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with a
>>>> set
>>>> of antennae. Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card. Putting a
>>>> CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an antenna,
>>>> using the proper cable, that was certified with the CM9.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a "base" unit,
>>>> we
>>>> should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna
>>>> and
>>>> be good. The "gotcha" here is those sections of Part 15 I have not
>>>> yet
>>>> followed up on. I am not sure what the "professional installer"
>>>> stuff
>>>> is about.
>>>>
>>>> What am I missing or is this good news?
>>>>
>>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>> Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying
>>>>> that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any "base" unit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think what the FCC is doing is:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a
>>>>> legal modular assembly is.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data
>>>>> inputs, and power supply regulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Clarifying the definition of what a "split" modular assembly is.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a "split"
>>>>> modular assembly must meet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating system,
>>>>> I
>>>>> don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any motherboard
>>>>> meets
>>>>> the FCC's definition of a "split" modular assembly. I think the FCC
>>>>> considers a "split" modular assembly to be where circuitry that
>>>>> today
>>>>> would be contained on a single modular assembly is (now or in the
>>>>> future) "split" between two different physical assemblies. This
>>>>> splitting allows more equipment design flexibility because one
>>>>> "transmitter control element" (the new term that the FCC formerly
>>>>> called the module "firmware") could theoretically be interfaced
>>>>> with
>>>>> and control more than one "radio front end" (the amplifier and
>>>>> antenna-connecting) section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add
>>>>> more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and
>>>>> Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we
>>>>> do
>>>>> business.
>>>>>
>>>>> jack
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Kerns wrote:
>>>>>> Am I reading this correctly???? Does this mean that if a mfg of a
>>>>>> mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> can be put into ANY base unit and be certified?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been
>>>>>> asking for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro"
>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of
>>>>>> the,Commission's
>>>>>> Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just received this document and thought it might be of some
>>>>>>> interest to the list.
>>>>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Dawn DiPietro
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> 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/
