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

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,

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

[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).

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

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. -

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:

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

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

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

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

[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

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:

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

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)

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

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

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

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,

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

[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:

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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,

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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