Deliberant has a nice cpe now in the 2714 model.
Using it in a few places - more stable / better throughput than the
tranzeo equivs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JohnnyO
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 1:28 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject:
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"
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: [W
If a radio had a design like "listen before transmit for clear airspace
and only transmit when the clock says I can" then it could be used in
any band including all of 3650. What would keep this out of all of 3650?
Scriv
Mike Hammett wrote:
The N-Streme protocol has been around for a while a
All,
Anyone that is familiar,very familiar, with Ethereal Please contact me. I need
some help.
Ron Wallace
Hahnron, Inc.
220 S. Jackson Dt.
Addison, MI 49220
Phone: (517)547-8410
Mobile: (517)605-4542
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
I just don't know enough about the innerworkings of N-Streme to know if it
is WIFI enough to use the whole thing.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: S
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
Only if all radios were required to use the same time slot
assignments. That would make full duplex links impossible (or at least
hinder them greatly since they would have to have a down time not to
step on another radios RX period)
On 6/9/07, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WiMAX, scheduled
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"
Sent
I bet Mike meant to say "As long as there's a Mikrotik 3.6 GHZ certified
system out there
that people can buy to use with this band, it's a non-issue."
:)
I'm willing to bet that will be soon.
- Original Message -
From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent
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?
Mike;
She is making perfectly good sense and she is not trying to make you
look like anything. When you deal with legal issues things are usually
pretty black and white for the little guy. Now if your name is Paris
Hilton usually things are pretty much white all the time, except
yesterday ;
Cheaper / Better. Faster would remain to be seen.
I like having filtering / queuing / all the mikrotik
routing features, etc right behind the radio instead of
one hop inside the antenna.
And it doesn't matter whether Mikrotik's really interested or not
in the market - Ubiquity Networks IS, and t
Mike,
If this is what you think I am trying to do then you are sorely
mistaken. I just don't want others to think that if there is any
Mikrotik FCC Certified System in the works then all Mikrotik systems are
legal in any way shape or form. Which is what I took you to say with
your statement.
Smith, Rick wrote:
Cheaper / Better. Faster would remain to be seen.
I figured that would be the answer, but how does that help people who
have no idea why MT might be cheaper or better? I'm not trying to start
an argument; I would just like to know what about MT makes it worth
risking on
>From what I've seen to date; Alvarion / Canopy / Trango backhaul
equipment - they are merely (sometimes fancy) bridges.
I prefer to route. Everything. Let's not start a war there, either
pls.
Ubiquity does NOT have to certify the whole system - they have to cert
the miniPCI card - which I bel
Smith, Rick wrote:
>From what I've seen to date; Alvarion / Canopy / Trango backhaul
equipment - they are merely (sometimes fancy) bridges.
I don't know about all vendors, but Canopy APs certainly can be
configured to route. Additionally, the Deliberant radios I have seen do
routing as well
It looks like the list is about to go down the finger pointing exercise
of legalities, perceptions of legality, and interpretations of minutia.
That is probably not a good idea so in the true tradition of "casting
the first stone", let me say this:
If you are absolutely certain that you are a
Ok... we've been down this road before. STOP NOW,
There is no need to rip WISPA apart AGAIN over this issue.
This is the general list and all of these messages are open to everyone
through Google search. This continued debate on certification will only in
the end destroy WISPA. I ask again STO
I currently use both Deliberant and Highgain products without any
issues. I mean, don't get me wrong, I have had some very simple problems
with both vendors, but all of it was corrected ASAP. The only way I will
use Tranzeo is for their 5Ghz units, as I have a bunch of them deployed
as backhaul
Thank you, Tim for agreeing with me.
-m-
Tim Kerns wrote:
Ok... we've been down this road before. STOP NOW,
There is no need to rip WISPA apart AGAIN over this issue.
This is the general list and all of these messages are open to
everyone through Google search. This continued debate on certi
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 det
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 uniq
Matt
The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it.
The future is arriving, there will be lots of new certified Star and MT
products to choose from.
http://forums.star-os.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=67&stc=1&d=1180571824
That one is called the Can-O-War. See it looks like
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
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 uncer
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 f
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 Spot
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.
Matt there is a tool for every job. J
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
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-in
?
ryan
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
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
I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications. If Mikrotik
would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their boards
and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no
peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the
manufactur
One correction, I had originally specified the 1996 order regarding this,
but further research lead me to the full updated part 15. So disregard the
1996 rule amendment reference below, it was a referring to a 1996 order that
amended part 15.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ma
Doug,
You have to certify the system as a whole INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURE and
the power supply and you cannot deviate from the configuration that was
certified.
This cannot be compared to a PC because that is a different
certification. PC's are unintentional radiators the systems in question
ar
Dawn;
I think you are reading the letter of the law and not understanding the
reality. An RB153 is *NOT* an intentional radiator any more than the PC
you mention is an intentional radiator. The cards which are placed in
the RB153 are intentional radiators just like the cards you put in that
Hey Michael, Dawn's right. Don't get into an argument on all this here,
again.
In order to be a LABELLED CERTIFIED system, you take antennas, jumpers,
pigtails,
minipci cards (already separately cert'd most likely), RB's, ENCLOSURE,
POE device, and
anything else that's necessary to that system ru
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
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 i
The current 532 board will NOT pass FCC certs. Too much noise coming
directly off the board at 150mHz and 400mHz ranges. Thus the reason it
has never been FCC tested.
Travis
Microserv
joelaura wrote:
So are we saying that it would be under 5K to get MT certified with
different antennas? If
well yeah, but aren't those Ethernet emissions?
I had trouble interfering with HAM repeaters until I went to 10 mbps...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 10:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject:
No. It is emissions from the DC to DC converter on the board. With no
cards and no ethernet connection, using just a power supply, it can emit
up to +30db of noise in both of those bands.
I have setup several tests with our spectrum analyzer. The board uses a
very cheap DC to DC converter.
W
Matt,
What gear have you tested
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:41 PM
To: WISPA General
I wonder if the new revision 5 RB 532's addressed this issue?
On 6/10/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No. It is emissions from the DC to DC converter on the board. With no
cards and no ethernet connection, using just a power supply, it can emit
up to +30db of noise in both of
George Rogato wrote:
Matt there is a tool for every job. Just because someone uses MT or
Star does not mean they don't use canopy, trango or alvarion as well.
And nobody needs to explain why.
I am well aware of that, which is why we use so many different vendors'
radios. We first started wit
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@
Travis Johnson wrote:
I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS
are used because of price. Period.
Thats right, MT and Star are priced to the point a wisp can make the
market happen a whole lot faster than other more expensive solutions.
The guys that cherry
The issue of certification is a simple one.
Certs are only good for the assembler or complete system manufacturer.
If you assemble your own, you need to get your own certs.
MT and Star do not sell assembled products, yet. hence you can't buy
their certified system, you have to make your own.
Depends on how much the FCC's Notice Of Apparent Liability (aka "fine") is
for those of you who are rolling your own.
If it is enough, and the word gets around, I'll bet most of you will realize
that the certification thing isn't a joke like many treat it.
The FCC doesn't play around. I know one
How was it in the 118-136 band? That is the one that FAA considers most
critical. (FAA has their own folks and control their own band)
It isn't taken very lightly when anything interferes in that band.
Ralph
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
So if I buy all of the parts for a fully functioning AP and get it certified
and then sell this complete system to other people I am good to go? (like
could I buy a Zcomax card and throw it in an attractive radome and certify
that system I would legal!) Cool.
ryan
-Original Message-
From:
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
Yes, if you send an AP to the lab and get it certified then you can use
it yourself and sell it to others. You will be legal and everyone who
buys it from you and uses it would be legal. The FCC could drop in and
inspect your equipment and you would simply point to the sticker which
shows your
SR2 AP:
SR2 - 100
532a - 160
enclosure - 30
POE - 25
Ethernet passthru - $7
Pigtail - $15
Jumper - $10
Antenna - omni - $35
Total - About $400.
BUT you've got PPPOE / VPN / Routing / everything else built right into
the AP. Radius server / client now too... filtering... queueing...
QOS...
If
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 goin
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 with
Matt Liotta wrote:
George Rogato wrote:
Matt there is a tool for every job. Just because someone uses MT or
Star does not mean they don't use canopy, trango or alvarion as well.
And nobody needs to explain why.
I am well aware of that, which is why we use so many different
vendors' radios.
Mike,
Your offer to take this issue up with the FCC sounds like a *GREAT
*idea. If you do that, I think the information gained would be a very
valuable asset to the WISP community.
jack
Michael Erskine wrote:
Rick;
I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and
experienced. I
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 al
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 ce
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
61 matches
Mail list logo
