Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax)
I had a feeling this would unleash a can of worms. I'm the one who registered the locations. My first location (my office rooftop) was done purely as an academic exercise to see what exactly was required. I had hoped the FCC would come back and say, you need to do X Y and Z before this is acceptable. I would have been fine with that and taken that into consideration in my feasibility study. They did not. Since then, there has been some further digging to clarify some questions that were brought up by this approval. From what I understand, using the XR3, MT and an 18dbi antenna (or smaller) is approved as far as Part 90 goes. See http://forum.ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1451start=14 for clarification. Now, if you were to go out and SELL that bundle as a product, I would think there would need to be further licensing (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ ) to be approved. Hana Wireless ( http://www.streakwave.com/mmSWAVE1/Video/HW3.pdf ) is selling pretty much the same kit I made myself, but I do NOT see any OET approvals for them. I hear other WISPS are using the Hana units, but I see nothing of the sort registered in ULS, so I would think they are not legal. If I use any of these, they will be for PTP links. Because the XR3 was only approved for 18dBi antennas, and has a max output of 25dbm (see *http://tinyurl.com/4jpndg *, http://ubnt.com/downloads/ubi_mtik_power.pdf ) and assuming .5 dB loss for the jumper cable, at slow speeds we're only going to get a 42.5 dBm or 17.8 watts, not the full 20 watts allowed under the rules in a 20 mhz channel. If you want to run at full 54 mbps, you will only get 18 dBm on the radio, plus 18 on the antenna, or 35.5 dbm, or 3.5 watts. Not the ideal PTP solution. So is it moral or legal to run it? I'm glad this has stirred some debate and further clarifications. I'd like to see 802.11Y moved along and put into MT and the cards, that would help open up lots of other non-wimax possibilities. For now, it is what it is. I've seen nothing to indicate it is illegal. Is it unwise? I honestly am interested in hearing verifiable refutations to anything I've found so far. I want to do what is legal, as well as wise. Randy Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: George...you can not plug-n-play components as I said earlier. It has to be certified as a system that makes use of a contention based protocol. Leon * George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 11:22 AM: Thanks for explaining that Travis. I asked Jack Unger to look into this recently. There was a post somewhere else recently about 3650 use and I forwarded it to Jack to find out from the FCC if in fact it is the way the post read. I'd like to hear Jack's opinion based on what he has found out from the FCC. As far as using those cards, if they work in mt and star, then for most of us it's just add another card to the multi port board and go. It sounds a lot cheaper than I had expected. George Travis Johnson wrote: John, Here is what I have heard or read so far: (1) I heard that 3650 users that are conflicting will have to work it out and that more than likely the FCC would not get involved in a frequency conflict. (2) Getting a license for 3650 takes about 2 hours, start to finish (from what I have heard from people that have done it). Meaning any person with Internet access can have a valid, FCC license in 2 hours. (3) The FCC has already approved someone using just the Ubiquiti XR3 card as the registered base station. Putting that card in a MT system does not broadcast any call signs or info in the packet frame, yet you are licensed and FCC legal as per the registration. (4) If it truly is a first registered, everyone else work around me then I will be registering every single tower within a 1,000 mile radius from my NOC. :) I'm not trying bash you or anything you said... I'm just thinking the 3650 band is going to get just as messy as the 5ghz band within a few years... and I think the FCC has given false hope that it is somewhat protected... yet I don't see how. Travis Microserv John Scrivner wrote: Here is how it is different than 5 GHz. In 5 GHz the rules are that you have to accept interference. Also any equipment on earth can use the band from mobile phones to cameras and of course broadband devices of many types. There is little involved in dropping your link. Also there is little chance of you knowing what the interfering source is without some leg work. In 3650 only people who get a license can launch. Base stations must be certified systems with the FCC and must be registered with the FCC. The rules state that it is a requirement that anyone using the band must work to eliminate interference with other users. That means if you are there first and someone interferes with you then they broke the law and it is their duty to fix it. Also, since everyone must register base
Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax)
I've been in contact with UBNT for some time.The modular approval specifies the antenna to be used, and it is, according to both the FCC ( email from the FCC in response to an inquiry ) and UBNT entirely legal to use with any OS that properly operates the card. So, yes you can grow your own, and if nothing else, you simply use the FCC ID on the card itself as your FCC ID...If you wish to have your own number on the box, you must apply to the FCC for your own number, and simply cite the this is unchanged from XX in your applicaiton. All stated clearly and unambiguously by the FCC personell. I hope this puts this argument to bed.Modular approval is just that. The module, ON ITS OWN, is approved and can be put in anything appropriate. Again, stated clearly by the FCC. BTW, on your license, you're required to put the ID of the equipment you're putting in place. In this case, it's the FCC ID for UBNT. BTW, current XR3's out now are not ACTUALLY the right card. I've been promised a pair from the first stickered and channelized batch. I would not deploy anything being sold by retailers right now, as they are pretty much engineering mules... Not optimized and not properly channel filtered and limited. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Randy Cosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax) I had a feeling this would unleash a can of worms. I'm the one who registered the locations. My first location (my office rooftop) was done purely as an academic exercise to see what exactly was required. I had hoped the FCC would come back and say, you need to do X Y and Z before this is acceptable. I would have been fine with that and taken that into consideration in my feasibility study. They did not. Since then, there has been some further digging to clarify some questions that were brought up by this approval. From what I understand, using the XR3, MT and an 18dbi antenna (or smaller) is approved as far as Part 90 goes. See http://forum.ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1451start=14 for clarification. Now, if you were to go out and SELL that bundle as a product, I would think there would need to be further licensing (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ ) to be approved. Hana Wireless ( http://www.streakwave.com/mmSWAVE1/Video/HW3.pdf ) is selling pretty much the same kit I made myself, but I do NOT see any OET approvals for them. I hear other WISPS are using the Hana units, but I see nothing of the sort registered in ULS, so I would think they are not legal. If I use any of these, they will be for PTP links. Because the XR3 was only approved for 18dBi antennas, and has a max output of 25dbm (see *http://tinyurl.com/4jpndg *, http://ubnt.com/downloads/ubi_mtik_power.pdf ) and assuming .5 dB loss for the jumper cable, at slow speeds we're only going to get a 42.5 dBm or 17.8 watts, not the full 20 watts allowed under the rules in a 20 mhz channel. If you want to run at full 54 mbps, you will only get 18 dBm on the radio, plus 18 on the antenna, or 35.5 dbm, or 3.5 watts. Not the ideal PTP solution. So is it moral or legal to run it? I'm glad this has stirred some debate and further clarifications. I'd like to see 802.11Y moved along and put into MT and the cards, that would help open up lots of other non-wimax possibilities. For now, it is what it is. I've seen nothing to indicate it is illegal. Is it unwise? I honestly am interested in hearing verifiable refutations to anything I've found so far. I want to do what is legal, as well as wise. Randy Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: George...you can not plug-n-play components as I said earlier. It has to be certified as a system that makes use of a contention based protocol. Leon * George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 11:22 AM: Thanks for explaining that Travis. I asked Jack Unger to look into this recently. There was a post somewhere else recently about 3650 use and I forwarded it to Jack to find out from the FCC if in fact it is the way the post read. I'd like to hear Jack's opinion based on what he has found out from the FCC. As far as using those cards, if they work in mt and star, then for most of us it's just add another card to the multi port board and go. It sounds a lot cheaper than I had expected. George Travis Johnson wrote: John, Here is what I have heard or read so far: (1) I heard that 3650 users that are conflicting will have to work it out and that more than likely the FCC would not get involved in a frequency conflict. (2) Getting a license for 3650 takes about 2 hours, start to finish (from what I have heard from people that have done it). Meaning any person with Internet access can have a valid, FCC license in 2 hours. (3) The FCC has
Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax)
Does that apply to part 15 modular approval as well for SR2/SR5/XR2/XR5? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax) I've been in contact with UBNT for some time.The modular approval specifies the antenna to be used, and it is, according to both the FCC ( email from the FCC in response to an inquiry ) and UBNT entirely legal to use with any OS that properly operates the card. So, yes you can grow your own, and if nothing else, you simply use the FCC ID on the card itself as your FCC ID...If you wish to have your own number on the box, you must apply to the FCC for your own number, and simply cite the this is unchanged from XX in your applicaiton. All stated clearly and unambiguously by the FCC personell. I hope this puts this argument to bed.Modular approval is just that. The module, ON ITS OWN, is approved and can be put in anything appropriate. Again, stated clearly by the FCC. BTW, on your license, you're required to put the ID of the equipment you're putting in place. In this case, it's the FCC ID for UBNT. BTW, current XR3's out now are not ACTUALLY the right card. I've been promised a pair from the first stickered and channelized batch. I would not deploy anything being sold by retailers right now, as they are pretty much engineering mules... Not optimized and not properly channel filtered and limited. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Randy Cosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax) I had a feeling this would unleash a can of worms. I'm the one who registered the locations. My first location (my office rooftop) was done purely as an academic exercise to see what exactly was required. I had hoped the FCC would come back and say, you need to do X Y and Z before this is acceptable. I would have been fine with that and taken that into consideration in my feasibility study. They did not. Since then, there has been some further digging to clarify some questions that were brought up by this approval. From what I understand, using the XR3, MT and an 18dbi antenna (or smaller) is approved as far as Part 90 goes. See http://forum.ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1451start=14 for clarification. Now, if you were to go out and SELL that bundle as a product, I would think there would need to be further licensing (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ ) to be approved. Hana Wireless ( http://www.streakwave.com/mmSWAVE1/Video/HW3.pdf ) is selling pretty much the same kit I made myself, but I do NOT see any OET approvals for them. I hear other WISPS are using the Hana units, but I see nothing of the sort registered in ULS, so I would think they are not legal. If I use any of these, they will be for PTP links. Because the XR3 was only approved for 18dBi antennas, and has a max output of 25dbm (see *http://tinyurl.com/4jpndg *, http://ubnt.com/downloads/ubi_mtik_power.pdf ) and assuming .5 dB loss for the jumper cable, at slow speeds we're only going to get a 42.5 dBm or 17.8 watts, not the full 20 watts allowed under the rules in a 20 mhz channel. If you want to run at full 54 mbps, you will only get 18 dBm on the radio, plus 18 on the antenna, or 35.5 dbm, or 3.5 watts. Not the ideal PTP solution. So is it moral or legal to run it? I'm glad this has stirred some debate and further clarifications. I'd like to see 802.11Y moved along and put into MT and the cards, that would help open up lots of other non-wimax possibilities. For now, it is what it is. I've seen nothing to indicate it is illegal. Is it unwise? I honestly am interested in hearing verifiable refutations to anything I've found so far. I want to do what is legal, as well as wise. Randy Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: George...you can not plug-n-play components as I said earlier. It has to be certified as a system that makes use of a contention based protocol. Leon * George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 11:22 AM: Thanks for explaining that Travis. I asked Jack Unger to look into this recently. There was a post somewhere else recently about 3650 use and I forwarded it to Jack to find out from the FCC if in fact it is the way the post read. I'd like to hear Jack's opinion based on what he has found out from the FCC. As far as using those cards, if they work in mt and star, then for most of us it's just add another card to the multi port board and go. It sounds a lot cheaper than I had expected. George Travis Johnson wrote: John, Here is what I have heard or read so far: (1) I heard that 3650 users that are conflicting will have to work it out
Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax)
Yes. insert witty tagline here - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax) Does that apply to part 15 modular approval as well for SR2/SR5/XR2/XR5? WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/
