Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Or maybe it was Adaptive Broadband gear that allowed the end user to break the rules? Anyone remember? Best, Brad -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
>> >> > power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke >> the law >> >> > or else broke it out of simple ignorance. >> >> > >> >> > jack >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Brad Belton wrote: >> >> >> 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the >> >> >> end user >> >> >> was able to make these changes? >> >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> >> >> Behalf Of Stephen Patrick >> >> >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM >> >> >> To: WISPA General List >> >> >> Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> >> >> >> >> 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) have channels that are (or >> were >> >> >> in 2003) >> >> >> not legal in USA. >> >> >> And an interesting page here: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> p120scg/bkscgch3.htm >> >> >> "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power >> >> >> level for >> >> >> radio devices. This setting must conform to established >> standards for >> >> >> the >> >> >> country in which you use the access point." >> >> >> Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their >> >> >> frequencies. >> >> >> And >> >> >> "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power >> >> >> level for >> >> >> radio devices. This setting must conform to established >> standards for >> >> >> the >> >> >> country in which you use the access point. " >> >> >> I have to say I've never used the above product myself. >> >> >> >> >> >> Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a >> >> >> country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any >> country. >> >> >> I'd >> >> >> assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the >> >> >> device >> >> >> for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific >> >> >> software >> >> >> version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config >> >> >> screen "It is illegal to use this >> >> >> device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio >> >> >> for 11a >> >> >> interface is default to off, you have to select a correct >> country to >> >> >> turn on >> >> >> the radio." >> >> >> >> >> >> So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these >> devices >> >> >> (Cisco >> >> >> and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to >> have a >> >> >> "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing >> >> more >> >> &
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 > understood" is >exactly< why I asked for your contact instead of > running to the one I have used before. I wanted to be sure to follow > the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the > issue. > > > > On 6/11/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 don't >> have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time >> someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained >> this on-list twice today). >> >> Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for "Japan' >> and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power >> output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your >> findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually >> transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who >> at the FCC said what. >> >> Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so >> darn easy to accuse and "shoot from the hip" these days but it's a lot >> harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's >> really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to >> follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to "Seek first to >> understand, and then to be understood". >> >> I look forward to hearing your test results. >> >> jack >> >> >> Jeromie Reeves wrote: >> > 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 to the same individual. >> > >> > Jeromie >> > >> > On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> Sandhills Wireless >> >> >> >> Jack Unger wrote: >> >> > 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 law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke >> the law >> >> > or else broke it out of simple ignorance. >> >> > >> >> > jack >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Brad Belton wrote: >> >> >> 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the >> >> >> end user
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 understood" is >exactly< why I asked for your contact instead of running to the one I have used before. I wanted to be sure to follow the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the issue. On 6/11/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 don't have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained this on-list twice today). Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for "Japan' and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who at the FCC said what. Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so darn easy to accuse and "shoot from the hip" these days but it's a lot harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood". I look forward to hearing your test results. jack Jeromie Reeves wrote: > 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 to the same individual. > > Jeromie > > On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 >> Sandhills Wireless >> >> Jack Unger wrote: >> > 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 law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law >> > or else broke it out of simple ignorance. >> > >> > jack >> > >> > >> > Brad Belton wrote: >> >> 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the >> >> end user >> >> was able to make these changes? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> >> Behalf Of Stephen Patrick >> >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM >> >> To: WISPA General List >> >> Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> >> >> 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) have channels that are (or were
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 before. I wanted to be sure to follow the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the issue. On 6/11/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 don't have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained this on-list twice today). Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for "Japan' and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who at the FCC said what. Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so darn easy to accuse and "shoot from the hip" these days but it's a lot harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood". I look forward to hearing your test results. jack Jeromie Reeves wrote: > 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 to the same individual. > > Jeromie > > On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 >> Sandhills Wireless >> >> Jack Unger wrote: >> > 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 law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law >> > or else broke it out of simple ignorance. >> > >> > jack >> > >> > >> > Brad Belton wrote: >> >> 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the >> >> end user >> >> was able to make these changes? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> >> Behalf Of Stephen Patrick >> >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM >> >> To: WISPA General List >> >> Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> >> >> 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) have channels that are (or were >> >> in 2003) >> >> not legal in USA. >> >> And an interesting page
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 don't have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already explained this on-list twice today). Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for "Japan' and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF power output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of who at the FCC said what. Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but It's so darn easy to accuse and "shoot from the hip" these days but it's a lot harder to get factual information and then to try to understand what's really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood". I look forward to hearing your test results. jack Jeromie Reeves wrote: 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 to the same individual. Jeromie On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 Sandhills Wireless Jack Unger wrote: > 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 law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law > or else broke it out of simple ignorance. > > jack > > > Brad Belton wrote: >> 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the >> end user >> was able to make these changes? >> >> Best, >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Stephen Patrick >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> 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) have channels that are (or were >> in 2003) >> not legal in USA. >> And an interesting page here: >> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a >> >> p120scg/bkscgch3.htm >> "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power >> level for >> radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for >> the >> country in which you use the access point." >> Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their >> frequencies. >> And >> "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power >> level for >> radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for >> the >> country in which you use the access point. " >> I have to say I've never used the above product myself. >> >> Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a >> country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. >> I'd >> assume they ship the same firmwar
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 to the same individual. Jeromie On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 Sandhills Wireless Jack Unger wrote: > 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 law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law > or else broke it out of simple ignorance. > > jack > > > Brad Belton wrote: >> 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the >> end user >> was able to make these changes? >> >> Best, >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Stephen Patrick >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> 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) have channels that are (or were >> in 2003) >> not legal in USA. >> And an interesting page here: >> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a >> >> p120scg/bkscgch3.htm >> "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power >> level for >> radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for >> the >> country in which you use the access point." >> Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their >> frequencies. >> And >> "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power >> level for >> radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for >> the >> country in which you use the access point. " >> I have to say I've never used the above product myself. >> >> Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a >> country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. >> I'd >> assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the >> device >> for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific >> software >> version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config >> screen "It is illegal to use this >> device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio >> for 11a >> interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to >> turn on >> the radio." >> >> So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices >> (Cisco >> and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a >> "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more >> >> Regards >> >> Stephen >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June >> 2007 16:25 >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> 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 >> chang
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 Sandhills Wireless Jack Unger wrote: 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 law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law or else broke it out of simple ignorance. jack Brad Belton wrote: 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user was able to make these changes? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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 us
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law or else broke it out of simple ignorance. jack Brad Belton wrote: 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user was able to make these changes? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM Subject:
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 choose NOT to have an FCC agent permanently stationed at their WISP to be sure that they don't break the law. Instead, the FCC is trying to write the equipment certification regulations in such a way as to assure WISPs (and others) that they are operating legally if they purchase FCC-certified equipment. The Cisco domain chart (if current) that you linked to reveals another interesting point. Apparently Israel has more restrictive regulations than the U.S. so it appears that selecting an "Israel" configuration would also allow the equipment to be legally used within the U.S. On the other hand, selecting a "Japan" configuration would result in illegal-frequency operation in the U.S. What I'm pointing out is that just because some non-U.S. country may be selectable and may transmit does not mean that selection will result in illegal operation in the U.S. therefore U.S-legal equipment may also be legal in some other countries and vice-versa. Finally, I recently deployed some Cisco 1240 APs. They appeared to allow non-U.S. countries to be selected although I didn't try transmitting with any non_US country code. Later, I asked the lab (twice, because I doubted their answer the first time) about the legality of this. They said that the Cisco 1240 with the model number suffix that I had would have shipped with US-specific firmware which should have denied it the ability to operate on non-US frequencies. Can you test the power output of your Netgear AP? Isn't the allowable output power in the U.K. lowered than the allowed U.S output power? Please try to configure your AP to US/FCC and see if the power output is greater than allowed in the U.K. Thanks, jack Stephen Patrick wrote: 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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -----Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:40 PM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 limits AP transmitter to a maximum of 1 watt. The FCC limits EIRP to a maximum of four watts. The certification process checks and verifies both transmitter power and EIRP. Your Orthogon is likely (I'm speculating here) prompting you for antenna gain so it can reduce the transmitter power to legal levels given the antenna that you tell it you are connecting. If you can tell it "3 dBi" antenna gain and then hook up a 48 dBi antenna then you are intentionally defeating it's attempt to keep you legal. It can try to keep the end-user legal but it may not have a perfect ability to force everyone to be legal or to keep people who just don't have a clue to be legal. As to how it is designed to work, you can read the manual that came with your Orthogon or you can research this at the FCC web site by searching and finding the Orthogon certification and then reading the manual that Orthogon submitted as part of their certification process. I don't have the time to do this for you but you can certainly do it yourself and then come back here and update us with your findings. jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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 Orthogon in this case. Is someone going to tell me Orthogon is not legal? If that's the case, then the only thing non-compliant about MT is the RouterBoards haven't been certified as a computing device (if going the PC route). If going the traditional route, then all we have to do is mail it off to a lab. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They w
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 Wireless Jack Unger wrote: 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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting th
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 to do actual power-output testing. To answer your software question, it appears to be necessary to ask the manufacturer - please consider asking whichever manufacturer you are using. jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask t
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 limits AP transmitter to a maximum of 1 watt. The FCC limits EIRP to a maximum of four watts. The certification process checks and verifies both transmitter power and EIRP. Your Orthogon is likely (I'm speculating here) prompting you for antenna gain so it can reduce the transmitter power to legal levels given the antenna that you tell it you are connecting. If you can tell it "3 dBi" antenna gain and then hook up a 48 dBi antenna then you are intentionally defeating it's attempt to keep you legal. It can try to keep the end-user legal but it may not have a perfect ability to force everyone to be legal or to keep people who just don't have a clue to be legal. As to how it is designed to work, you can read the manual that came with your Orthogon or you can research this at the FCC web site by searching and finding the Orthogon certification and then reading the manual that Orthogon submitted as part of their certification process. I don't have the time to do this for you but you can certainly do it yourself and then come back here and update us with your findings. jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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 Orthogon in this case. Is someone going to tell me Orthogon is not legal? If that's the case, then the only thing non-compliant about MT is the RouterBoards haven't been certified as a computing device (if going the PC route). If going the traditional route, then all we have to do is mail it off to a lab. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 fair. Scriv Doug Ratcliffe wrote: 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, June 11, 2007 1:56 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user was able to make these changes? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -Original Message----- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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 allo
RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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, June 11, 2007 1:56 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user was able to make these changes? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -Original Message----- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble > 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 > transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. > Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more > accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more > technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC > frequencies". > > jack > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> 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? >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >&g
RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 Babble 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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user was able to make these changes? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -Original Message----- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble > 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 > transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. > Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more > accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more > technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC > frequencies". > > jack > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> 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? >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To:
RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user was able to make these changes? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Patrick Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble > 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 > transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. > Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more > accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more > technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC > frequencies". > > jack > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> 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? >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM >> Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> >>> Michael, >>> >>> Just for info - >>> >>> The question of being required to use a software version that denied >
RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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) have channels that are (or were in 2003) not legal in USA. And an interesting page here: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a p120scg/bkscgch3.htm "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point." Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their frequencies. And "Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the country in which you use the access point. " I have to say I've never used the above product myself. Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country. I'd assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on the radio." So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a "locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more Regards Stephen -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble > 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 > transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. > Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more > accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more > technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC > frequencies". > > jack > > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> 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? >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM >> Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> >>> 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 Mikrotik-based >>> certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use >>> Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this >>> issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: >>> >>> _My Submission: _ >>> "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, which
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 allowed you to configure it, to test it and to confirm transmitter power output outside the allowed U.S. band? Thanks, jack Marlon K. Schafer wrote: 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 PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect. 1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector. This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of chapter. Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing. Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced. I don
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember it. :-p - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 Orthogon in this case. Is someone going to tell me Orthogon is not legal? If that's the case, then the only thing non-compliant about MT is the RouterBoards haven't been certified as a computing device (if going the PC route). If going the traditional route, then all we have to do is mail it off to a lab. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect. 1) drivers for th
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect. 1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector. This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of chapter. Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing. Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced. I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a reading from them. Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product. Ryan -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wirele
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies". jack Mike Hammett wrote: 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? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect. 1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector. This discussion has
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble 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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect. 1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector. This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of chapter. Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing. Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced. I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a reading from them. Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product. Ryan -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC
Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my submission and the FCC response: _My Submission: _ "For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401 must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer submit a system for certification that includes the ability to software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is included as one of the selections?" _FCC Response: _ "The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned is not permitted." Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible business operators. Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of WISPs. Respectfully, jack Michael Erskine wrote: 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 ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious intelligence will debate ad nasuiem about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never will they find the courage to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait till someone suggests it and then after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call them." What a joke. -m- Ryan Langseth wrote: 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 also say this. If I don't have to have my router boards certified without radios because they are not intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to them I still don't have to have them certified because they are still what they were. If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both you and Dawn are incorrect. 1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power. 2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector. This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen times since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified, end of chapter. Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing. Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and experienced. I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last word in this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with the FCC to get a reading from them. Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their product. Ryan -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
