Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your competition that much ammunition against you? I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified components. Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a road map and some basic language worked out already :-). In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you possibly can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an intentional radiator as a whole? When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas? I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after the sale. I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an intentional radiator? At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power supply, which become a Personal Computer. At the end of the day, you add a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then? Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense. Cisco Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Sam, Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Sam Tetherow wrote: I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB or other SBC. The only
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Mike, What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to become certified. You must have all the components certified together. Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your competition that much ammunition against you? I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified components. Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a road map and some basic language worked out already :-). In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you possibly can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an intentional radiator as a whole? When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas? I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after the sale. I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an intentional radiator? At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power supply, which become a Personal Computer. At the end of the day, you add a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then? Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense. Cisco Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Sam, Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the wireless devices in question cannot
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I understood that was the way it was until perhaps yesterday when someone brought up the issue of PC's with add in wireless cards being in no way different than what we do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to become certified. You must have all the components certified together. Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your competition that much ammunition against you? I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified components. Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a road map and some basic language worked out already :-). In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you possibly can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an intentional radiator as a whole? When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas? I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after the sale. I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an intentional radiator? At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power supply, which become a Personal Computer. At the end of the day, you add a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then? Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense. Cisco Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Mike, That post was looking for clarification on whether or not it was possible it would make this legal without going through system certification as an intentional radiator. Since the FCC wording can be mind boggling sometimes there is confusion. In other words you cannot take certified parts and use them together and expect to be legal no matter how anyone tries to justify it. I am glad to see that you do understand. ;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I understood that was the way it was until perhaps yesterday when someone brought up the issue of PC's with add in wireless cards being in no way different than what we do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to become certified. You must have all the components certified together. Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your competition that much ammunition against you? I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified components. Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a road map and some basic language worked out already :-). In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you possibly can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an intentional radiator as a whole? When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas? I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking about
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Marlon K. Schafer wrote: I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. I can't speak for others, but I have no interest in stepping up to help on a certification issue. I believe that time better spent by vendors. Further, I have no interest in stepping up on CALEA since there is nothing that WISPA could do to help us as we had the be compliant by the deadline. There have been two times were I offered to help with spectrum discussions with the FCC. Only one of those times was my help accepted, which was WISPA's visit to the FCC in regard to 3.65Ghz. I feel like that was a worthwhile trip in the sense that I believe the FCC delivered what we asked for. My point from above is that the membership will likely only help on issues they care about. And, would probably complain about WISPA spending time on issues they don't care about. This is what happens when you have a diverse group of people needing to be represented by a single organization. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, That post was looking for clarification on whether or not it was possible it would make this legal without going through system certification as an intentional radiator. Since the FCC wording can be mind boggling sometimes there is confusion. In other words you cannot take certified parts and use them together and expect to be legal no matter how anyone tries to justify it. I am glad to see that you do understand. ;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I understood that was the way it was until perhaps yesterday when someone brought up the issue of PC's with add in wireless cards being in no way different than what we do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to become certified. You must have all the components certified together. Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your competition that much ammunition against you? I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified components. Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a road map and some basic language worked out already :-). In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you possibly can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an intentional radiator
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Mike Hammett wrote: Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop? Because the Netgear PCI card has been certified both as a computing device and a Part 15 intentional radiator - but only if it is used with the antenna which the Netgear was certified with. -forrestc -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Dawn, Do you have a laptop with a wireless card in it? Look on the bottom and tell us the FCC number. I will bet that number does not equate to certification of the laptop and wireless card together as a complete system. AND this is the point that many have been trying to make. The laptop is FCC certified, the wireless card is FCC certified, but it has not been certified as a complete system. WHY, EXPLAIN, LEGAL? So the contacts that Marlon has and the contacts that Jack have are telling one story, but the mfg of other devices are being allowed to build and sell computers without going the complete system certification. So if we could discover how they are allowed to do this, then we also should be allowed to produce a mix and match system using certified components just as they do. The second point several have been trying to make, that you just seem to blow off . Why is it legal to go to CompUSA, buy a Netgear, Linksys, or other PCI Wireless card, insert it into a PC. Where is the complete system certification. You do not get a new sticker to attach to the computer once the PCI card is inserted and used. I don't see any mention of the computer brand, or model number they are approved to be installed into. If this is not legal, why has the FCC allowed these mfg to continue selling these wireless parts to allow the consumer to put together an illegal system. The complete system seems to fall down for everyone except WISP. It appears that the contacts both Jack and Marlon have are hard liners, by the rules, no exception type. And this is not a slam to either of these fine guys who have been working hard to interface with the FCC for us. It is just that we are hearing one thing, but seeing something different. Now ADI is proclaiming a DYI certified system. So again, the rules say only the mfg holds the certificate. So how can others build this system using instructions and like components from ADI and be legal? SO, why is an SBC (one that has been FCC certified like ADI's Metro or Gateworks), a mini PCI radio (also certified) and an external antenna (again only one that has been certified with the Radio) NOT a legal system. In other words, WHY is my Dell laptop, or my partners Toshiba laptop NOT a legal system. They have all 3 of the mentioned components, but I don't see the FCC number where it was certified as a complete system. Did I miss something? Tim Kerns CV-Access, Inc. - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to become certified. You must have all the components certified together. Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
There is some degree of control used by at least some laptops. All 3 times I ever tried to switch mini-pci wireless cards in a laptop to something else, the computer refused to even POST, giving a BIOS error that an unsupported wireless card was installed. This was on IBM, Compaq, and Dell. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, That post was looking for clarification on whether or not it was possible it would make this legal without going through system certification as an intentional radiator. Since the FCC wording can be mind boggling sometimes there is confusion. In other words you cannot take certified parts and use them together and expect to be legal no matter how anyone tries to justify it. I am glad to see that you do understand. ;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I understood that was the way it was until perhaps yesterday when someone brought up the issue of PC's with add in wireless cards being in no way different than what we do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to become certified. You must have all the components certified together. Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your competition that much ammunition against you? I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified components
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
So is the Ubiquiti SRC and 4.9 PCMCIA card a computing device since it was designed for install in laptops? -Original Message- From: Forrest W. Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:32 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike Hammett wrote: Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop? Because the Netgear PCI card has been certified both as a computing device and a Part 15 intentional radiator - but only if it is used with the antenna which the Netgear was certified with. -forrestc -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Let me further clarify the statement below. Computer certifications permit each component to be certified separately and assembled as a system. As long as all of the components which go into the computer are certified individually, you can assemble them together into a computer which is also FCC legal, as far as the unintential radiation (FCC Class A and B computing device) certifications go. This is somewhat simplified, but you get the jist. The reason why this works is that each device is only adding a certain amount of noise, and as long as the total quantity of rf noise doesn't exceed a threshold, the computer is compliant. On the Part 15 intential radiator rules it is significantly different. This is because you are intending to transmit, and when this occurs you aren't just looking at random noise which happens because of the way the computer is put together... you are looking at a transmitter which must work correctly in order to meet the emission limits, both in and out of band. Because the limits are so tight, if you change an anteena you may affect the in-band or the out-of-band emissions or both. If either is out of spec, the equipment would not pass certification. Even changing the type of antenna may make a transmitter not work correctly, even if the gain is the same across the board. This is why the whole system needs to be certified together. The FCC has loosened this up a bit, so that the manufacturer can say that they tested it with antenna X which is similar to antennas Y and Z and as such X Y and Z are all certified. But this flexibility does not extend to the end user. They have to use only antenna X, Y, or Z and not antenna A. A certified radio card straddles both lines - as such it has been tested for emissions both under Part 15 intentional and also unintentional radiator rules. Both sets of permissions apply - it can be used, as certified, to operate as a Part 15 intentional radiator - and it can also be added to a certified computer system and comply with Class A and Class B computing device for the unintentional emissions. Think of it as two different devices - the radio part and the computer interface part. Forrest W. Christian wrote: Mike Hammett wrote: Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop? Because the Netgear PCI card has been certified both as a computing device and a Part 15 intentional radiator - but only if it is used with the antenna which the Netgear was certified with. -forrestc -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
So then we need Ubiquiti to certify their cards as a computing device and as a Part 15 intentional radiator? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Forrest W. Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike Hammett wrote: Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop? Because the Netgear PCI card has been certified both as a computing device and a Part 15 intentional radiator - but only if it is used with the antenna which the Netgear was certified with. -forrestc -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
A good read: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html. Specifically, look at Declaration of Conformity (DoC) under Equipment Authorization Procedures and Information. The bottoms of 2 of my nearby laptops (HP and Dell) have a FCC logo and list a FCC registration number. That, with the fact that the Netgear PCI also complies with the FCC part 15 rules (no external antennas) the combination is allowed. Most of the internal cards that come with laptops are put together as a complete system, and DELL, HP, Gateway are all assuming the responsibility that their complete system will not exceed FCC limits. If you look at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/Labelling_Guidelines_Parts_15_and_18.pdf on page 3 of 4, it states...Devices authorized under the DoC procedure must also include a compliance information statement as required. Now here is the killer statement, The main objective of this compliance statement is to allow the FCC to associate the equipment with the party responsible for compliance with the DoC requirements. There are two possibilities. First, what some have been saying is that IF someone (like ADI) says X, Y, and Z parts are used, and assembled this way; AND gets approved by the FCC as a system, then they can sell the rights as long as you follow their same procedures. You then are compliant, but only if you follow their tested procedures, but you need to follow the DoC procedure, and you also become liable. Second is if we (WISPA, independent ISPs, or hopefully Manufacturers) get a few SBCs tested as a Part 15 B device (un-intentional radiator) and get a couple mPCI cards tested with high-gain antennas (as a system). Then we (those that are testing) can certify the system. The bottom line, the DoC specifies who is liable. So those that are assembling those systems have to mimic the procedures of an approved system that someone will take responsibility for. No one has stepped to the plate and gotten a system approved and offered it to the general public. ADI is the first that I have seen that may be doing that. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:17 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Then why can I purchase a Netgear PCI card for my Dell desktop? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, That post was looking for clarification on whether or not it was possible it would make this legal without going through system certification as an intentional radiator. Since the FCC wording can be mind boggling sometimes there is confusion. In other words you cannot take certified parts and use them together and expect to be legal no matter how anyone tries to justify it. I am glad to see that you do understand. ;-) Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I understood that was the way it was until perhaps yesterday when someone brought up the issue of PC's with add in wireless cards being in no way different than what we do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to become certified. You must have all the components certified together. Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I feel like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on what the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a PC based system run a good chance of being legal? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Matt, I'm not a WISP (I do network design, deployment, and consulting for service providers), but, seeing as how none of the WISPs are answering, I'll give it a shot as to percieved advantages of MT or StarOS. 1. I don't think the FCC certification is a huge issue. This is largely because any of the certification stuff needs to be done once, and can then be replicated. Regardless of how you look at it, the initial cost of deploying a platform (any platform) is quite expensive especially once you start factoring in all of the things that are usually ignored by smaller service providers (ie their own time for RD). This is true whether you are doing Cisco, Moto, Alvarion, Trango, etc...--you have to (should!) do bench testing, draw up network diagrams, figure out all the specifics to getting install processes and so forth down pat), figure out how you are going to manage hundreds or thousands of these things, and so forth. The effort for certification is not a huge deal, then, since you can amoratize out the time across all of your systems, just like you're already doing for all the other aspects of your network. Is it an increased cost? Sure...but, in the end, not that big of one on a per-unit basis, especially since the whole concept of a business is to scale big (right?). That said, the irony is that the guys that tend to run MT or StarOS are often the small providers where there simply isn't the return of scale that makes this even vaguely a good idea. 2. The main advantage is (theoretically) the ability to have a single platform across the entire infrastructure. I say theoretically because there are areas where most providers diverge from this because they don't feel that it really fits. Still, the idea of having a unified platform across the infrastructure can potentially be very powerful and very good. Still, I tend to find the MT management app kinda weak in this regard; it hasn't (IMHO) sufficiently evolved from a mass managment app to a platform management app. Still, while these are criticisms, if MT can cover a sufficiently large portion of your infrastructure needs, then having a single (or 2 or 3) platforms can really reduce operational costs considerably. Conceptually, the idea of upgrade the hardware, not the platform is great. 3. Some degree of freedom. This is somewhat seperate from #2, but along the same lines. I can think of several instances of larger service providers being left with millions of dollars of infrastructure with no support and no future because a particular product line no longer fit into their vendors roadmap. Divorcing the hardware from the software makes this less of a possibility, although does not totally negate the possibility, especially given that most of the hardware vendors that MT stuff typically ends up running on (ie the embedded PC market) are often, well, not the most financially stable operations. I hope this helps. Just for the record, while I do think MT can be a good choice for some people, I would make the observation that there are providers out there who could have better allocated their resources elsewhere--most of the advantages don't really work until there is some degree of scale, but at that point there are other considerations that often take MT out of consideration. Thanks, Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On 6/10/07, Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: George Rogato wrote: Matt there is a tool for every job. Just because someone uses MT or Star does not mean they don't use canopy, trango or alvarion as well. And nobody needs to explain why. I am well aware of that, which is why we use so many different vendors' radios. We first started with Canopy on a recommendation and over time various operators (mostly WISPA members) introduced us to other vendors' radios. Every time we learned about a new vendor from the experiences of others. I respect the experience of my peers and find it quite useful in vendor selection. Why everyone is so defensive about MT I don't know. I personally don't care what equipment anyone uses. I am just curious why people use it in case it would be useful for us. But, no one seems willing to answer that. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
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 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Michael, This is the first time I have gotten into this subject, and the last. As I said, I have seen this same thing come up at least a dozen time on this list. While I did say how long I have been on this list, my time in the industry is only about a month longer. Its always the same thing, it goes round and round with people getting angry. I don't run MT, I was merely trying to point out the major differences, imho, between a PC (win32) with a wireless adapter, and MT with a wireless adapter. Do you think those pci card manufacturers have certified the card with a bigger antenna than it shipped with? I highly doubt it. Once that is changed, the card would no longer be a certified module. I made one comment in this entire thread, which I am already regretting. I hardly consider that vocal. My comment was not meant to be sarcastic, I would like to see a ruling on it one way or another, but I am not going to run around trying to get it. Its not worth my time, I don't need to start working 70-hour weeks. this thread /dev/null, Ryan On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 02:20 -0400, 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 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
The person I speak with about MT certified systems has asked me to keep it hush hush, so perhaps that lack of detail has been the source of confusion. For all I know, I may have already exceeded the bounds of what I'm allowed to say by even saying I know someone that's working on it. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, I see no evidence of anyone twisting your words. As I see it, problems of mis-interpretation of your words have come up because your statement that there will be certified option is so general that it omits specific details thereby almost guaranteeing that the unmentioned specific details will be misunderstood and/or mis-interpreted. I respectfully suggest that you consider one of the following three options. 1. Provide specific details about FCC certified Mikrotik-based systems that you know for a fact will soon be offered by one of more vendors. 2. If you are a WISPA member, let's take this discussion over WISPA's Certification email list which is a members-only list. 3. Contact me via phone or email (off-list) and we can discuss more specific details about the process of obtaining FCC 3650 MHz certification. Best Regards, jack Mike Hammett wrote: I...I give up talking to you. You take what I say and twist it horribly as if I am some renegade pioneer of MT. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, This does not make everyone using a Mikrotik system legal though. It is not just as easy as saying I use the same components in my system as the one certified so I am legal. In case you are unaware, this would also include the enclosure and the power supply even then you still need the documentation from the entity that certified the system. The system must be exactly the same soup to nuts. Again for you to say that an FCC Certified Mikrotik System would make any Mikrotik legality a non issue is an unreasonable statement. Below is a link that might be helpful; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: Well, it will be a non issue because there will be certified option. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Mike, That is a big IF there. As I said before I don't see that every single hardware configuration deployed using Mikrotik will be covered. So to say that Mikrotik FCC System Certification will be a non issue is not a reasonable statement to make. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: IIRC, if everything is the same, you can label it as containing X, Y, Z and be compliant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I have to agree that even if there is a certified system in the works this will not make ALL Mikrotik installations certified. There will most likely be some uncertified gear left in the field as I don't believe that some wireless providers will rip out there existing hardware to comply with system certification. I also don't think it will be a non issue anytime soon. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: I am aware that there was talk of that and maybe even a business in the works around it, but it is too early to say that in any certain time frame it will be a non-issue... Unless you are making an announcement (or someone is). And I highly doubt certification will be retroactive to whatever roo-tenna or tupperware box or whatever that people have been making systems out of prior to then. Don't get me wrong- I will be GLAD to see someone get MT certified. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I think there is a committee gathering information on the most common hardware configurations to get something certified for Mikrotik. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: Why do you say this? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I would. I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for whatever he makes that I could use. $200 more isn't really that much of a difference on the AP. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS are used because of price. Period. If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they haven't worried about it? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: George Rogato wrote: Matt The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it. I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is certified. I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.
If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the other
guys can... Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using different
bands for each link for less than the other guys. Even the greatest gear
will lose out to basic redundancy.
Speed. I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70 megabits
with a single set of gear. I can increase that in 70 megabit increments as
tower space (for additional antenna) and available spectrum allow, all
having a single Ethernet cable handoff.
With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can provide 10
megs plus to each user. When your system can do 70 megs plus, you can fit a
lot more customers with higher speeds. He who can scale wins. The more
bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your bandwidth becomes. When your
bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you pass this along to your customer, but
you can also profit more. I can have multiple customers on a sector that
each can consume more bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only dream of
supplying.
In an AP application all electronics are in one system. I don't need to
have a bunch of patch cords and a switch and a router and a {etc} sitting on
a tower. All coax runs into one box that hosts the AP. All sector to
sector to backhaul to backhaul communications are internal, allowing for
greater flexibility in traffic control and uptime (reduced failures).
When I implement a QoS feature or a firewall or a {etc} I can do so directly
on the inbound interface, before it has gone completely through the AP,
through a switch, and into a router. The AP is the router.
When I need to add another wireless interface to a system (AP, backhaul,
CPE, etc.), I can just add a mPCI, antenna, and cables. This is an even
cheaper route than a new MT system, which is cheaper than just about
anything else you could do. Again, all of the above advantages also apply
here.
I'd imagine Alvarion is pretty close in this respect, but they'd be the only
ones...The same interface (whether its GUI, SSH, SNMP, etc.) across
every piece of equipment.
I can run torch (a tool that tells you exactly what's running through any
interface at that exact time, with filtering capabilities).
I can stream traffic (matching a filter) to Wireshark for further analysis
from any device on the network.
CALEA utilities integrated into every device on the network (not yet in the
stable release, but present in the beta).
MT (and I believe Star-OS) can do everything. It is far easier\cheaper to
get an MT system certified (which would only require a firmware that was
restricted to US band options) than it is to have Motorola or Trango or
Alvarion completely overhaul their entire lines to have the same abilities.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I don't really understand this MT thread at all. Why use MT over all the
other certified systems available? Further, why spend time and money trying
to get MT certified? Why not just use certified gear that is available from
vendors that are actually interested in participating in this market?
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I never thought of it that way. Doug makes a lot of valid points. I can put an XR5 with a 32 dbi antenna into a PC and install Windows and be legal. Why can't I install Mikrotik (a specialized Linux distribution) on it instead? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble Ok. I've said this before. On a home PC, I don't need to certify a Dell computer running Win2k and a Netgear wireless card to be FCC legal, so why is Mikrotik any different? Almost everything computerized is ALL modular certified. What makes homebrewed any different? Is a Dell/HP/clone PC running Linux and a Netgear wireless card breaking the law? Does that Netgear need a cert for every OS supported? I remember this FCC modular computer battle in the early 90s. Also, many brands of wireless cards actually ask what governing domain is to be installed, again not unlike Mikrotik. I believe everything Mikrotik is running on as long as the components meet modular FCC cert , would be governed as PCs and not as dedicated electronics like Canopy or Trango. In the case of a laptop running a miniPCI card, if the local Best Buy puts a different brand in on a Linux OS, did they break the law and should be fined for violating Part 15? Is running Linux illegal by the FCC? -Original Message- From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 7:17 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee required to have the a Microtik based system certified. I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik offers-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
If indeed, an XR5 is certified with that particular 32dbi antenna, cable and pigtail. No reason they wouldnt certify popular antenna combos, not to mention the changes to the law regarding like-gain antennas that was made a few years back. -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:40 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I never thought of it that way. Doug makes a lot of valid points. I can put an XR5 with a 32 dbi antenna into a PC and install Windows and be legal. Why can't I install Mikrotik (a specialized Linux distribution) on it instead? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble Ok. I've said this before. On a home PC, I don't need to certify a Dell computer running Win2k and a Netgear wireless card to be FCC legal, so why is Mikrotik any different? Almost everything computerized is ALL modular certified. What makes homebrewed any different? Is a Dell/HP/clone PC running Linux and a Netgear [The entire original message is not included] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Mike Hammett wrote:
Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.
If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the
other guys can... Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring
using different bands for each link for less than the other guys.
Even the greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy.
Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost
of MT was similar to other vendors.
Speed. I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70
megabits with a single set of gear. I can increase that in 70 megabit
increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available
spectrum allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff.
What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you
have in such a configuration?
With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can
provide 10 megs plus to each user. When your system can do 70 megs
plus, you can fit a lot more customers with higher speeds. He who can
scale wins. The more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your
bandwidth becomes. When your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you
pass this along to your customer, but you can also profit more. I can
have multiple customers on a sector that each can consume more
bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only dream of supplying.
Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the
available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a
single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy.
In this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 802.11-based
radio would make more sense. Can't those radios do 10Mbps plus to each user?
In an AP application all electronics are in one system. I don't need
to have a bunch of patch cords and a switch and a router and a {etc}
sitting on a tower. All coax runs into one box that hosts the AP.
All sector to sector to backhaul to backhaul communications are
internal, allowing for greater flexibility in traffic control and
uptime (reduced failures).
I agree it is nice not to have a ton of components. However, the above
would seem to require every radio at the site to be MT or you would
still need to have separate components.
When I implement a QoS feature or a firewall or a {etc} I can do so
directly on the inbound interface, before it has gone completely
through the AP, through a switch, and into a router. The AP is the
router.
Does the QoS feature actually prioritize the radio? Obviously, people
who use a separate route/switch can apply QoS, but it doesn't affect the
radio. The radios we use allow prioritization on the radio itself, which
is very useful.
When I need to add another wireless interface to a system (AP,
backhaul, CPE, etc.), I can just add a mPCI, antenna, and cables.
This is an even cheaper route than a new MT system, which is cheaper
than just about anything else you could do. Again, all of the above
advantages also apply here.
That certainly is nice, but is that going to work in the future when the
system is certified? I didn't think you could have a certified system
where it is possible to add additional radio cards at a later date.
MT (and I believe Star-OS) can do everything. It is far
easier\cheaper to get an MT system certified (which would only require
a firmware that was restricted to US band options) than it is to have
Motorola or Trango or Alvarion completely overhaul their entire lines
to have the same abilities.
I don't agree MT can do everything since it is missing several key
features we require. However, I do agree that the vendors you mention
above don't have the anywhere near the features of MT, nor do I think
they want to. What about the other 802.11-based radios though?
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I thought once you had a dish, panel, yagi, etc. certified at x dbi, all antenna in that category under that dbi were allowed. However, the guy I know said that isn't so... ALL antenna under the tested dbi are safe. All of the FCC statements I have read only mention a gain, not a gain\type. https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPYRequestTimeout=500application_id=992995fcc_id=SWX-XR5 That says a 31.4 dbi is certified with the XR5. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:59 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble If indeed, an XR5 is certified with that particular 32dbi antenna, cable and pigtail. No reason they wouldnt certify popular antenna combos, not to mention the changes to the law regarding like-gain antennas that was made a few years back. -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:40 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I never thought of it that way. Doug makes a lot of valid points. I can put an XR5 with a 32 dbi antenna into a PC and install Windows and be legal. Why can't I install Mikrotik (a specialized Linux distribution) on it instead? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble Ok. I've said this before. On a home PC, I don't need to certify a Dell computer running Win2k and a Netgear wireless card to be FCC legal, so why is Mikrotik any different? Almost everything computerized is ALL modular certified. What makes homebrewed any different? Is a Dell/HP/clone PC running Linux and a Netgear [The entire original message is not included] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Bravo. The best way to get gear certified from vendors is to NOT buy it until it is. The problem then fixes itself. There are plenty of certified gear options out there already. Scriv Matt Liotta wrote: I don't really understand this MT thread at all. Why use MT over all the other certified systems available? Further, why spend time and money trying to get MT certified? Why not just use certified gear that is available from vendors that are actually interested in participating in this market? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Why $200 more? At $200 if the vendor sell 10 systems, that is $2000, almost 66% of the certification cost returned. Sell 100 and that is $20,000, a lot more than the cost of certification. Certification should not raise the price of a unit more than a few dollars, but then we have greed set in don't we? At $20 more per, 100 units is $2000 and 1000 units is $20,000. So break even for a vendor is less than 200 units going by the cost Jack has shared with us. I would think that vendors are looking to sell a lot more than just 200 units, aren't they? Tim Kerns CV-Access, Inc. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I would. I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for whatever he makes that I could use. $200 more isn't really that much of a difference on the AP. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS are used because of price. Period. If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they haven't worried about it? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: George Rogato wrote: Matt The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it. I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is certified. I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
On a volume of 1, I can get a 5 GHz CPE for $185. IIRC, 100 unit quantities
were $140. I can configure 2 CPE for a PtP. I can have an AP that has 4
radios for about $800, plus cables and antenna.
I can configure 5, 10, 20, or 40 MHz per radio, two radios are required for
full duplex operation. The 70+ megabits is with 40 MHz. With the full
duplex operation I can configure the same frequency for all transmitting on
a given tower, allowing for major frequency reuse. I agree that this route
isn't as spectrally efficient as Orthogon or... I forget the new guys...
Exalt? The XR5 radio has 23 dbm at 54 meg and 28 dbm at 6 meg. It also
ranges from -74 to -94 for receive sensitivity. That radio has been
certified with a 31.4 db antenna.
I haven't tried, but I'd imagine putting a similar channel size would result
in a similar number of collocated APs, though I don't know. MT is different
than generic 802.11 in that it has the N-Streme protocol, solving many (if
not all) problems with using 802.11 in WISP applications as well as allowing
for a much higher throughput. Star-OS has a similar feature. Everything
else 802.11 is plain vanilla.
I have nothing wrong with every radio being MT. You can use 900, 2.4, and 5
GHz (not 5.4) with any antenna (as long as the gain is under the certified
gain for that radio), allowing for any combination you could want. The
exceptions to this that I know of are Orthogon's spatial diversity and any
sort of MIMO, beam steering, etc. You can put as many cards as you want on
a given PC based Mikrotik system.
I am unsure of the innerworkings of the QoS. I do know that I can
prioritize what goes into and out of each interface independent of any other
interface.
I would imagine that if it was certified with 32 radios, you could use 1
radio and be fine, though I am not fully aware of those specifics. I would
assume that you could have both setups certified, and could then add the
second radio to the first, making it the second certified system.
Star-OS is the only system that I know of that has anywhere near the feature
set of Mikrotik. What features is it missing? They could already be
incorporated or slated for 3.0, which is in beta as we speak.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Mike Hammett wrote:
Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.
If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the
other guys can... Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using
different bands for each link for less than the other guys. Even the
greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy.
Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost of
MT was similar to other vendors.
Speed. I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70
megabits with a single set of gear. I can increase that in 70 megabit
increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available spectrum
allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff.
What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you
have in such a configuration?
With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can provide
10 megs plus to each user. When your system can do 70 megs plus, you can
fit a lot more customers with higher speeds. He who can scale wins. The
more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your bandwidth becomes. When
your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you pass this along to your
customer, but you can also profit more. I can have multiple customers on
a sector that each can consume more bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only
dream of supplying.
Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the
available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a
single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy. In
this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 802.11-based radio
would make more sense. Can't those radios do 10Mbps plus to each user?
In an AP application all electronics are in one system. I don't need to
have a bunch of patch cords and a switch and a router and a {etc} sitting
on a tower. All coax runs into one box that hosts the AP. All sector to
sector to backhaul to backhaul communications are internal, allowing for
greater flexibility in traffic control and uptime (reduced failures).
I agree it is nice not to have a ton of components. However, the above
would seem to require every radio at the site to be MT or you would still
need to have separate components.
When I implement a QoS feature or a firewall or a {etc} I can do so
directly on the inbound interface, before it has gone completely through
the AP, through a switch, and into a router. The AP is the router
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
There certainly would be more than 200 units as then those of us using MT would have no reason to not migrate to the new, FCC-friendly platform. I imagine that vendors that are providing the FCC-friendly MT platforms could accept trade-ins of non-certified gear and turn around acceptable components into a refurbished line containing all components of the certified system, but just used, not new. I am also a firm believer that intent and reasonable advancement towards a goal is enough to satisfy anything. Haven't paid your credit card or mortgage in a few months? You work out a reasonable plan to get you back on course. You have 900 MT systems out there and you are replacing them at a reasonable rate (the rate itself isn't what's being discussed here, but at that volume, say 75/month or 3/month if you only have 20) with certified solutions, the FCC will be happy. From all disciplinary action that I've seen done on their behalf, they've attempted to work something out with the violator 3 or 4 times before they cracked down. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Tim Kerns [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Why $200 more? At $200 if the vendor sell 10 systems, that is $2000, almost 66% of the certification cost returned. Sell 100 and that is $20,000, a lot more than the cost of certification. Certification should not raise the price of a unit more than a few dollars, but then we have greed set in don't we? At $20 more per, 100 units is $2000 and 1000 units is $20,000. So break even for a vendor is less than 200 units going by the cost Jack has shared with us. I would think that vendors are looking to sell a lot more than just 200 units, aren't they? Tim Kerns CV-Access, Inc. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I would. I already committed to my guy that he will be my source for whatever he makes that I could use. $200 more isn't really that much of a difference on the AP. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS are used because of price. Period. If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they haven't worried about it? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: George Rogato wrote: Matt The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it. I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is certified. I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
I have suggested a FDD-style system like this on the MT forums before. My thoughts were to have a full-protocol scheme like NStreme dual but tailored for PTMP. HOWEVER, utilizing some bridge / mangle / filter tricks I have done FDD schemes without NStreme-dual, making re-use and hidden node a very small issue and performance much better on FDX traffic. CIR/MIR is easier to manage - and oversubscription becomes a smaller issue. If I could find some decent CPE dual-polarity antennas, I would do this in a heartbeat. I have a tower to re-do, and I may go this route if it works well in the lab. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:38 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble On a volume of 1, I can get a 5 GHz CPE for $185. IIRC, 100 unit quantities were $140. I can configure 2 CPE for a PtP. I can have an AP that has 4 radios for about $800, plus cables and antenna. I can configure 5, 10, 20, or 40 MHz per radio, two radios are required for full duplex operation. The 70+ megabits is with 40 MHz. With the full duplex operation I can configure the same frequency for all transmitting on a given tower, allowing for major frequency reuse. I agree that this route isn't as spectrally efficient as Orthogon or... I forget the new guys... Exalt? The XR5 radio has 23 dbm at 54 meg and 28 dbm at 6 meg. It also ranges from -74 to -94 for receive sensitivity. That radio has been certified with a 31.4 db antenna. I haven't tried, but I'd imagine putting a similar channel size would result in a similar number of collocated APs, though I don't know. MT is different than generic 802.11 in that it has the N-Streme protocol, solving many (if not all) problems with using 802.11 in WISP applications as well as allowing for a much higher throughput. Star-OS has a similar feature. Everything else 802.11 is plain vanilla. I have nothing wrong with every radio being MT. You can use 900, 2.4, and 5 GHz (not 5.4) with any antenna (as long as the gain is under the certified gain for that radio), allowing for any combination you could want. The exceptions to this that I know of are Orthogon's spatial diversity and any sort of MIMO, beam steering, etc. You can put as many cards as you want on a given PC based Mikrotik system. I am unsure of the innerworkings of the QoS. I do know that I can prioritize what goes into and out of each interface independent of any other interface. I would imagine that if it was certified with 32 radios, you could use 1 radio and be fine, though I am not fully aware of those specifics. I would assume that you could have both setups certified, and could then add the second radio to the first, making it the second certified system. Star-OS is the only system that I know of that has anywhere near the feature set of Mikrotik. What features is it missing? They could already be incorporated or slated for 3.0, which is in beta as we speak. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike Hammett wrote: Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price. If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the other guys can... Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using different bands for each link for less than the other guys. Even the greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy. Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost of MT was similar to other vendors. Speed. I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70 megabits with a single set of gear. I can increase that in 70 megabit increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available spectrum allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff. What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you have in such a configuration? With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can provide 10 megs plus to each user. When your system can do 70 megs plus, you can fit a lot more customers with higher speeds. He who can scale wins. The more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your bandwidth becomes. When your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you pass this along to your customer, but you can also profit more. I can have multiple customers on a sector that each can consume more bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only dream of supplying. Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy. In this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 802.11-based radio would make more
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? I don't think that is fair. It isn't Dawn telling you how to run your WISP in this case; it is the FCC. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
Is that really a necessary question, in determining whether this falls under a DoC computer assembly or a dedicated wireless access point? That's the question. It's a concept, in that having a declaration of conformity certified computer with a certified wireless PCI/miniPCI card and a non-standard OS is no longer a computer but a dedicated access point. Are we required to certify operating systems when using wireless? This also affects SBC-based systems such a Linksys wireless router. If hardware is certified exclusively, there's no regulation that I can find that says that changing operating system, drivers, etc, is cause to lose hardware certification. That's the clarification we need to know. I've been building computers since 1991, and I remember this back in 96 when it was a huge win for us small computer builders to be able to be free of FCC whole system certification. This clarification will allow Mikrotik to certify their boards under much less strict Part 15 Class B rules (i.e. a power-on style emissions test, rather than a software/transmitter test). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:47 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Matt Liotta wrote: George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? I don't think that is fair. It isn't Dawn telling you how to run your WISP in this case; it is the FCC. -Matt Nope, it's only you guys that have anything to say. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Doug Ratcliffe wrote: Is that really a necessary question, It sure is to find out where she's coming from. As a wisp, a long term wisp, as the person that bootstrapped this tiny bbs-isp from the dial up days in 99 to where we are today, who has put his money where his mouth is, and taken all the risks of mine and my families security to bring broadband at an affordable price to an underserved market and create jobs and commerce from where there were none, I find it odd that those that don't have a stake in anything have so much to say about us that do. I don't mind advice, but it's a broken record with not much more being brought to the table for my benefit. Maybe for someone's ego, but not my benefit. -- 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
George, As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among some on this list. How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I think we can all agree that gear certification is the law. Could we maybe kill this thread off before we start losing list members from the inflation of the number of posts about this seemingly elementary topic? Scriv Dawn DiPietro wrote: George, As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among some on this list. How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a resident is more qualified to answer. Certainly the intern is not to be considered a dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world experience and overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced resident. Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless experience is certainly relevant to this discussion. Anyone that has scaled their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients knows the difficulty and complexity is compounded. It is quite a different animal to run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few hundred. No offense is intended Dawn. I enjoy reading your posts and agree with your FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more in many cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly question what you offer here as the gospel. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble George, As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among some on this list. How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt Brad Belton wrote: How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a resident is more qualified to answer. Certainly the intern is not to be considered a dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world experience and overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced resident. Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless experience is certainly relevant to this discussion. Anyone that has scaled their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients knows the difficulty and complexity is compounded. It is quite a different animal to run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few hundred. No offense is intended Dawn. I enjoy reading your posts and agree with your FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more in many cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly question what you offer here as the gospel. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble George, As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among some on this list. How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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
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 wireless@wispa.org 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
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 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 wireless@wispa.org 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
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB or other SBC. The only people that can clarify this is the FCC. As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major factors that come into play with uncertified gear. There are several that deployed the equipment under the false impression that it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still persist in this belief). The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my knowledge, for using uncertified gear. There have been instances of people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of licensed bands. If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law. As you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an effective deterrent. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dawn DiPietro wrote: How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? The question was, however, why it matters to you what gear WISPs are using. Sounds like George agrees with me in his opinion of your harping on this issue. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- 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
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 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
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Sam, Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Sam Tetherow wrote: I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB or other SBC. The only people that can clarify this is the FCC. As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major factors that come into play with uncertified gear. There are several that deployed the equipment under the false impression that it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still persist in this belief). The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my knowledge, for using uncertified gear. There have been instances of people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of licensed bands. If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law. As you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an effective deterrent. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an intentional radiator as a whole? When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas? I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after the sale. I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an intentional radiator? At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power supply, which become a Personal Computer. At the end of the day, you add a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then? Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense. Cisco Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Sam, Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Sam Tetherow wrote: I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB or other SBC. The only people that can clarify this is the FCC. As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major factors that come into play with uncertified gear. There are several that deployed the equipment under the false impression that it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still persist in this belief). The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my knowledge, for using uncertified gear. There have been instances of people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of licensed bands. If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law. As you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an effective deterrent. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/836 - Release Date: 6/6/2007 1:10 PM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
For the record, I don't feel that you have no credibility because you no longer run a WISP, I just don't agree with you and if 15.201-221 is your basis for the belief that a RB can't be considered under component rules I have to believe that you don't understand what a RB is. It is NOT an intentional radiator which is what 15.201-221 addresses. A RB is simply a single board computer, the same thing as a soekris, gateworks or wrap board as well as most PDA (pre-wifi) and most laptops. The only intentional radiator is the miniPCI or PCMCIA radio that is put into the expansion slot of the SBC, just like in a laptop which has a PCMCIA and miniPCI slot where I can install wireless cards. I am NOT saying that with 100% certainty, the RB can be component certified, the question needs to be asked of the FCC. And this still leaves the fact that as far as I know none of the MT routerboards are even FCC part B certified. This also does not address the fact that you still would have to use certified radio/antenna pairs in the SBC once component certification was verified. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dawn DiPietro wrote: Sam, Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Sam Tetherow wrote: I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB or other SBC. The only people that can clarify this is the FCC. As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major factors that come into play with uncertified gear. There are several that deployed the equipment under the false impression that it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still persist in this belief). The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my knowledge, for using uncertified gear. There have been instances of people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of licensed bands. If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law. As you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an effective deterrent. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt -- 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
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 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
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 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
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 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
Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Jeromie, That's good info. We had a report today on the WISPA Certification list of six Netgear WGR614v6s. The first five or so had the Region configuration field greyed out so that other regulatory domains could not be selected. These units had NA after the firmware version - possibly standing for North America. The sixth unit DID allow other regulatory domains to be selected. I'm guessing at this point that some (possibly earlier) versions of that unit may have allowed other domains to be selected and that later versions sold in the U.S. (with the NA) do/did not allow other domains to be selected. I'll be researching that unit on the FCC website later tonight to try to gain further understanding. Were you able to confirm transmission on any non-US channel? If so, on which channel? jack Jeromie Reeves wrote: 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 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
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Sam, Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear. If a system board is certified then the operating system is certified for FCC and of course your mini-pci was certified by the manufacturer. Now anybody can attach an antenna and have it certified. Total certification. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Sam Tetherow wrote: For the record, I don't feel that you have no credibility because you no longer run a WISP, I just don't agree with you and if 15.201-221 is your basis for the belief that a RB can't be considered under component rules I have to believe that you don't understand what a RB is. It is NOT an intentional radiator which is what 15.201-221 addresses. A RB is simply a single board computer, the same thing as a soekris, gateworks or wrap board as well as most PDA (pre-wifi) and most laptops. The only intentional radiator is the miniPCI or PCMCIA radio that is put into the expansion slot of the SBC, just like in a laptop which has a PCMCIA and miniPCI slot where I can install wireless cards. I am NOT saying that with 100% certainty, the RB can be component certified, the question needs to be asked of the FCC. And this still leaves the fact that as far as I know none of the MT routerboards are even FCC part B certified. This also does not address the fact that you still would have to use certified radio/antenna pairs in the SBC once component certification was verified. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dawn DiPietro wrote: Sam, Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Sam Tetherow wrote: I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB or other SBC. The only people that can clarify this is the FCC. As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major factors that come into play with uncertified gear. There are several that deployed the equipment under the false impression that it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still persist in this belief). The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my knowledge, for using uncertified gear. There have been instances of people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of licensed bands. If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law. As you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an effective deterrent. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt Liotta wrote: This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I wonder how many wisps who would usually discuss their infrastructure and talk about their issues and performance of the equipment they are using, etc, no longer say a word on this list because of the fear mongers who have them running scared? We used to have lots of wisps discussing this stuff in detail, not any longer. Matt Liotta wrote: This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt Brad Belton wrote: How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a resident is more qualified to answer. Certainly the intern is not to be considered a dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world experience and overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced resident. Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless experience is certainly relevant to this discussion. Anyone that has scaled their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients knows the difficulty and complexity is compounded. It is quite a different animal to run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few hundred. No offense is intended Dawn. I enjoy reading your posts and agree with your FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more in many cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly question what you offer here as the gospel. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble George, As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among some on this list. How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- 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: [WISPA] MT Babble
Or fear that their competition is watching... it's bad enough I have my competitors actually climbing my towers to see what equipment I am using... it's hard to give any more info here... :( Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I wonder how many wisps who would usually discuss their infrastructure and talk about their issues and performance of the equipment they are using, etc, no longer say a word on this list because of the fear mongers who have them running scared? We used to have lots of wisps discussing this stuff in detail, not any longer. Matt Liotta wrote: This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of customers (including me) understand and agree with the position presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. -Matt Brad Belton wrote: How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Well, it's a lot like having a medical intern weigh in on what a resident is more qualified to answer. Certainly the intern is not to be considered a dummy, but the intern's general lack of tenure, real world experience and overall knowledge can not be considered equal to an experienced resident. Questioning your ISP experience and specifically your fixed wireless experience is certainly relevant to this discussion. Anyone that has scaled their operation beyond a few dozen or even a few hundred clients knows the difficulty and complexity is compounded. It is quite a different animal to run an ISP with several thousand users behind it as compared to a few hundred. No offense is intended Dawn. I enjoy reading your posts and agree with your FCC Certification Crusade, but until you have walked a mile (or more in many cases) in the shoes of those you are speaking of many will rightly question what you offer here as the gospel. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble George, As I said in my post wireless providers do not get to decide what has to be certified this is up to the FCC and if there are any questions they need to be clarified not argued against which seems to be the norm among some on this list. How would the number of customers I had on my network have any bearing on this discussion? Regards, Dawn DiPietro George Rogato wrote: Dawn, Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp? Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps? Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, I have come to the conclusion that there are some on this list that think FCC certification is up for debate. There may be a need for clarification in some cases but like it or not the FCC has the final say in what can and cannot be certified. Regards, Dawn DiPietro -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Ryan Langseth wrote: I made one comment in this entire thread, which I am already regretting. I hardly consider that vocal. My bad, Ryan, My bad. I did not mean to lump you in with a few vocal people.. My comment was not meant to be sarcastic, I would like to see a ruling on it one way or another, but I am not going to run around trying to get it. Its not worth my time, I don't need to start working 70-hour weeks. this thread /dev/null, Ryan I get as tired of this chatter as you and so many other's do. -m- -- 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
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: [WISPA] MT Babble
Just to be absolutely clear since this topic has generated a lot of 'assumptions'. I have NOT confirmed with the FCC that a routerboard/wrap/gateworks SBC is considered a unintentional radiator I have just made the statement that *I* don't see how it could be considered an intentional radiator since they are sold as SBCs without radios. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Carl A jeptha wrote: Sam, Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear. If a system board is certified then the operating system is certified for FCC and of course your mini-pci was certified by the manufacturer. Now anybody can attach an antenna and have it certified. Total certification. You have a Good Day now, Carl A Jeptha http://www.airnet.ca Office Phone: 905 349-2084 Office Hours: 9:00am - 5:00pm skype cajeptha Sam Tetherow wrote: For the record, I don't feel that you have no credibility because you no longer run a WISP, I just don't agree with you and if 15.201-221 is your basis for the belief that a RB can't be considered under component rules I have to believe that you don't understand what a RB is. It is NOT an intentional radiator which is what 15.201-221 addresses. A RB is simply a single board computer, the same thing as a soekris, gateworks or wrap board as well as most PDA (pre-wifi) and most laptops. The only intentional radiator is the miniPCI or PCMCIA radio that is put into the expansion slot of the SBC, just like in a laptop which has a PCMCIA and miniPCI slot where I can install wireless cards. I am NOT saying that with 100% certainty, the RB can be component certified, the question needs to be asked of the FCC. And this still leaves the fact that as far as I know none of the MT routerboards are even FCC part B certified. This also does not address the fact that you still would have to use certified radio/antenna pairs in the SBC once component certification was verified. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
It works like this Doug. A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on it. You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) you are out of compliance. The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like that is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. No, uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go dark because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your competition that much ammunition against you? I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to get the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take on the hard issues. When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours per DAY and others are working harder than I am) I'll write up a petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified components. Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a road map and some basic language worked out already :-). In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you possibly can. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: Doug Ratcliffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble But the base product, the computer does not start life as an intentional radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an intentional radiator as a whole? When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas? I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after the sale. I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an intentional radiator? At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power supply, which become a Personal Computer. At the end of the day, you add a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then? Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense. Cisco Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Sam, Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Sam Tetherow wrote: I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB or other SBC. The only people that can clarify this is the FCC. As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major factors that come into play with uncertified gear. There are several that deployed the equipment under the false impression that it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still persist in this belief). The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my knowledge, for using uncertified gear. There have been instances of people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of licensed bands. If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I...I give up talking to you. You take what I say and twist it horribly as if I am some renegade pioneer of MT. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, This does not make everyone using a Mikrotik system legal though. It is not just as easy as saying I use the same components in my system as the one certified so I am legal. In case you are unaware, this would also include the enclosure and the power supply even then you still need the documentation from the entity that certified the system. The system must be exactly the same soup to nuts. Again for you to say that an FCC Certified Mikrotik System would make any Mikrotik legality a non issue is an unreasonable statement. Below is a link that might be helpful; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: Well, it will be a non issue because there will be certified option. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Mike, That is a big IF there. As I said before I don't see that every single hardware configuration deployed using Mikrotik will be covered. So to say that Mikrotik FCC System Certification will be a non issue is not a reasonable statement to make. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: IIRC, if everything is the same, you can label it as containing X, Y, Z and be compliant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I have to agree that even if there is a certified system in the works this will not make ALL Mikrotik installations certified. There will most likely be some uncertified gear left in the field as I don't believe that some wireless providers will rip out there existing hardware to comply with system certification. I also don't think it will be a non issue anytime soon. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: I am aware that there was talk of that and maybe even a business in the works around it, but it is too early to say that in any certain time frame it will be a non-issue... Unless you are making an announcement (or someone is). And I highly doubt certification will be retroactive to whatever roo-tenna or tupperware box or whatever that people have been making systems out of prior to then. Don't get me wrong- I will be GLAD to see someone get MT certified. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I think there is a committee gathering information on the most common hardware configurations to get something certified for Mikrotik. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: Why do you say this? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Within a few months the whole MT certified system will be a non-issue. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
I bet Mike meant to say As long as there's a Mikrotik 3.6 GHZ certified system out there that people can buy to use with this band, it's a non-issue. :) I'm willing to bet that will be soon. - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, This does not make everyone using a Mikrotik system legal though. It is not just as easy as saying I use the same components in my system as the one certified so I am legal. In case you are unaware, this would also include the enclosure and the power supply even then you still need the documentation from the entity that certified the system. The system must be exactly the same soup to nuts. Again for you to say that an FCC Certified Mikrotik System would make any Mikrotik legality a non issue is an unreasonable statement. Below is a link that might be helpful; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: Well, it will be a non issue because there will be certified option. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Mike, That is a big IF there. As I said before I don't see that every single hardware configuration deployed using Mikrotik will be covered. So to say that Mikrotik FCC System Certification will be a non issue is not a reasonable statement to make. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: IIRC, if everything is the same, you can label it as containing X, Y, Z and be compliant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I have to agree that even if there is a certified system in the works this will not make ALL Mikrotik installations certified. There will most likely be some uncertified gear left in the field as I don't believe that some wireless providers will rip out there existing hardware to comply with system certification. I also don't think it will be a non issue anytime soon. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: I am aware that there was talk of that and maybe even a business in the works around it, but it is too early to say that in any certain time frame it will be a non-issue... Unless you are making an announcement (or someone is). And I highly doubt certification will be retroactive to whatever roo-tenna or tupperware box or whatever that people have been making systems out of prior to then. Don't get me wrong- I will be GLAD to see someone get MT certified. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I think there is a committee gathering information on the most common hardware configurations to get something certified for Mikrotik. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: Why do you say this? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Within a few months the whole MT certified system will be a non-issue. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I don't really understand this MT thread at all. Why use MT over all the other certified systems available? Further, why spend time and money trying to get MT certified? Why not just use certified gear that is available from vendors that are actually interested in participating in this market? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
Cheaper / Better. Faster would remain to be seen. I like having filtering / queuing / all the mikrotik routing features, etc right behind the radio instead of one hop inside the antenna. And it doesn't matter whether Mikrotik's really interested or not in the market - Ubiquity Networks IS, and they have the card that we'll all be using - SR/XR3 - all built on the existing Atheros implementations in Mikrotik R -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I don't really understand this MT thread at all. Why use MT over all the other certified systems available? Further, why spend time and money trying to get MT certified? Why not just use certified gear that is available from vendors that are actually interested in participating in this market? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Mike, If this is what you think I am trying to do then you are sorely mistaken. I just don't want others to think that if there is any Mikrotik FCC Certified System in the works then all Mikrotik systems are legal in any way shape or form. Which is what I took you to say with your statement. If I am wrong in that interpretation then I apologize. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: I...I give up talking to you. You take what I say and twist it horribly as if I am some renegade pioneer of MT. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, This does not make everyone using a Mikrotik system legal though. It is not just as easy as saying I use the same components in my system as the one certified so I am legal. In case you are unaware, this would also include the enclosure and the power supply even then you still need the documentation from the entity that certified the system. The system must be exactly the same soup to nuts. Again for you to say that an FCC Certified Mikrotik System would make any Mikrotik legality a non issue is an unreasonable statement. Below is a link that might be helpful; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: Well, it will be a non issue because there will be certified option. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Mike, That is a big IF there. As I said before I don't see that every single hardware configuration deployed using Mikrotik will be covered. So to say that Mikrotik FCC System Certification will be a non issue is not a reasonable statement to make. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: IIRC, if everything is the same, you can label it as containing X, Y, Z and be compliant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I have to agree that even if there is a certified system in the works this will not make ALL Mikrotik installations certified. There will most likely be some uncertified gear left in the field as I don't believe that some wireless providers will rip out there existing hardware to comply with system certification. I also don't think it will be a non issue anytime soon. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: I am aware that there was talk of that and maybe even a business in the works around it, but it is too early to say that in any certain time frame it will be a non-issue... Unless you are making an announcement (or someone is). And I highly doubt certification will be retroactive to whatever roo-tenna or tupperware box or whatever that people have been making systems out of prior to then. Don't get me wrong- I will be GLAD to see someone get MT certified. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I think there is a committee gathering information on the most common hardware configurations to get something certified for Mikrotik. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: Why do you say this? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Within a few months the whole MT certified system will be a non-issue. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Smith, Rick wrote: Cheaper / Better. Faster would remain to be seen. I figured that would be the answer, but how does that help people who have no idea why MT might be cheaper or better? I'm not trying to start an argument; I would just like to know what about MT makes it worth risking one's business vs the other solutions out there. I like having filtering / queuing / all the mikrotik routing features, etc right behind the radio instead of one hop inside the antenna. Does that make any technical difference or is it just a preference? And it doesn't matter whether Mikrotik's really interested or not in the market - Ubiquity Networks IS, and they have the card that we'll all be using - SR/XR3 - all built on the existing Atheros implementations in Mikrotik Ubiquity would have to produce the complete the system and certified it, which may be what they want, but seems a good bit away from what they currently do. I know they have a complete system now, but that one system is a long way away from what other certified vendors provide. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
From what I've seen to date; Alvarion / Canopy / Trango backhaul equipment - they are merely (sometimes fancy) bridges. I prefer to route. Everything. Let's not start a war there, either pls. Ubiquity does NOT have to certify the whole system - they have to cert the miniPCI card - which I believe is already done. The whole system is up to whoever wants to certify it and then sell it as a system. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:23 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Smith, Rick wrote: Cheaper / Better. Faster would remain to be seen. I figured that would be the answer, but how does that help people who have no idea why MT might be cheaper or better? I'm not trying to start an argument; I would just like to know what about MT makes it worth risking one's business vs the other solutions out there. I like having filtering / queuing / all the mikrotik routing features, etc right behind the radio instead of one hop inside the antenna. Does that make any technical difference or is it just a preference? And it doesn't matter whether Mikrotik's really interested or not in the market - Ubiquity Networks IS, and they have the card that we'll all be using - SR/XR3 - all built on the existing Atheros implementations in Mikrotik Ubiquity would have to produce the complete the system and certified it, which may be what they want, but seems a good bit away from what they currently do. I know they have a complete system now, but that one system is a long way away from what other certified vendors provide. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Smith, Rick wrote: From what I've seen to date; Alvarion / Canopy / Trango backhaul equipment - they are merely (sometimes fancy) bridges. I don't know about all vendors, but Canopy APs certainly can be configured to route. Additionally, the Deliberant radios I have seen do routing as well. I only bring them up because they make use of miniPCI cards for their radios as well. I prefer to route. Everything. Let's not start a war there, either pls. Not looking for a war; just an answer to my earlier question in regard to choosing an uncertified MT system vs a certified system. Ubiquity does NOT have to certify the whole system - they have to cert the miniPCI card - which I believe is already done. The whole system is up to whoever wants to certify it and then sell it as a system. Alright, but then you are still stuck waiting on someone to certify a system. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Mike, I see no evidence of anyone twisting your words. As I see it, problems of mis-interpretation of your words have come up because your statement that there will be certified option is so general that it omits specific details thereby almost guaranteeing that the unmentioned specific details will be misunderstood and/or mis-interpreted. I respectfully suggest that you consider one of the following three options. 1. Provide specific details about FCC certified Mikrotik-based systems that you know for a fact will soon be offered by one of more vendors. 2. If you are a WISPA member, let's take this discussion over WISPA's Certification email list which is a members-only list. 3. Contact me via phone or email (off-list) and we can discuss more specific details about the process of obtaining FCC 3650 MHz certification. Best Regards, jack Mike Hammett wrote: I...I give up talking to you. You take what I say and twist it horribly as if I am some renegade pioneer of MT. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Mike, This does not make everyone using a Mikrotik system legal though. It is not just as easy as saying I use the same components in my system as the one certified so I am legal. In case you are unaware, this would also include the enclosure and the power supply even then you still need the documentation from the entity that certified the system. The system must be exactly the same soup to nuts. Again for you to say that an FCC Certified Mikrotik System would make any Mikrotik legality a non issue is an unreasonable statement. Below is a link that might be helpful; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: Well, it will be a non issue because there will be certified option. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Mike, That is a big IF there. As I said before I don't see that every single hardware configuration deployed using Mikrotik will be covered. So to say that Mikrotik FCC System Certification will be a non issue is not a reasonable statement to make. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Mike Hammett wrote: IIRC, if everything is the same, you can label it as containing X, Y, Z and be compliant. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I have to agree that even if there is a certified system in the works this will not make ALL Mikrotik installations certified. There will most likely be some uncertified gear left in the field as I don't believe that some wireless providers will rip out there existing hardware to comply with system certification. I also don't think it will be a non issue anytime soon. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: I am aware that there was talk of that and maybe even a business in the works around it, but it is too early to say that in any certain time frame it will be a non-issue... Unless you are making an announcement (or someone is). And I highly doubt certification will be retroactive to whatever roo-tenna or tupperware box or whatever that people have been making systems out of prior to then. Don't get me wrong- I will be GLAD to see someone get MT certified. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 7:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Ralph, I think there is a committee gathering information on the most common hardware configurations to get something certified for Mikrotik. Regards, Dawn DiPietro Ralph wrote: Why do you say this? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today.. Within a few months the whole MT certified system will be a non-issue. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Matt The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it. The future is arriving, there will be lots of new certified Star and MT products to choose from. http://forums.star-os.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=67stc=1d=1180571824 That one is called the Can-O-War. See it looks like a canopy, but is actually a Star War board. hence, can of war! Matt Liotta wrote: Smith, Rick wrote: From what I've seen to date; Alvarion / Canopy / Trango backhaul equipment - they are merely (sometimes fancy) bridges. I don't know about all vendors, but Canopy APs certainly can be configured to route. Additionally, the Deliberant radios I have seen do routing as well. I only bring them up because they make use of miniPCI cards for their radios as well. I prefer to route. Everything. Let's not start a war there, either pls. Not looking for a war; just an answer to my earlier question in regard to choosing an uncertified MT system vs a certified system. Ubiquity does NOT have to certify the whole system - they have to cert the miniPCI card - which I believe is already done. The whole system is up to whoever wants to certify it and then sell it as a system. Alright, but then you are still stuck waiting on someone to certify a system. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
George Rogato wrote: Matt The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it. I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is certified. I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee required to have the a Microtik based system certified. I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik offers. ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS are used because of price. Period. If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they haven't worried about it? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: George Rogato wrote: Matt The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it. I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is certified. I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Ryan, Currently a typical MT AP with wireless card, outdoor case, pigtails, etc. with an RB532 board is going to be about $350ish without antenna. Can you give an example of what this PREMIUM price is that you are willing to pay for the same system certified? Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee required to have the a Microtik based system certified. I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik offers. ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
Ok. I've said this before. On a home PC, I don't need to certify a Dell computer running Win2k and a Netgear wireless card to be FCC legal, so why is Mikrotik any different? Almost everything computerized is ALL modular certified. What makes homebrewed any different? Is a Dell/HP/clone PC running Linux and a Netgear wireless card breaking the law? Does that Netgear need a cert for every OS supported? I remember this FCC modular computer battle in the early 90s. Also, many brands of wireless cards actually ask what governing domain is to be installed, again not unlike Mikrotik. I believe everything Mikrotik is running on as long as the components meet modular FCC cert , would be governed as PCs and not as dedicated electronics like Canopy or Trango. In the case of a laptop running a miniPCI card, if the local Best Buy puts a different brand in on a Linux OS, did they break the law and should be fined for violating Part 15? Is running Linux illegal by the FCC? -Original Message- From: D. Ryan Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 7:17 PM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee required to have the a Microtik based system certified. I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik offers-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
I will pay $500 over the price of an unlicensed Microtik if I can get one with the cute little FCC sticker on it. Did you hear that kids? $500 over the MSRP! I have 8 APs (only one is a Microtik at this time) that I would like to replace. I think I paid $185 for the RB500 with the software pre-installed, $8 for the pigtail and $45 for the small electrical box it is sealed in. So around $250 for the whole thing including shipping and tax. I am offering to pay $750 (300% markup based on MSRP!) for this item with the cute little FCC sticker on the box. I will buy 8 from whomever can present this to me. And I am a SMALL operator! Who wants to sell this to me? My credit card is standing by. ryan - The troll trying to kill this thread. :P -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Ryan, Currently a typical MT AP with wireless card, outdoor case, pigtails, etc. with an RB532 board is going to be about $350ish without antenna. Can you give an example of what this PREMIUM price is that you are willing to pay for the same system certified? Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee required to have the a Microtik based system certified. I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik offers. ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications. If Mikrotik would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their boards and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall under the 1996 FCC order listed below. If we used VIA, or any number of already modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this order. Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power supplies. So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral wireless card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified for use with that wireless card. How is that not FCC legal? It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with: Trade NameModel Number FCC Assembled from Tested Components (Complete System Not Tested) I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 2400 in my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases. Part 15 as of May 4, 2007: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf Listed on these pages: Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, home-build and kit computers. Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators. See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals: Declaration of Conformity. Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized in accordance with one of the following methods And of course, on page 86 the very vague modular transmitter section regarding unique antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I believe Ubiquity has cards like this). I did a search in this document for the following words: operating system 0 results. software 2 results - neither of which have to do with operating systems. Maybe this will be dismissed as a bad interpretation, but Mikrotik looks suspiciously like a PC operating system, much like Windows or Linux. Not a modular transmitter device like an AP. I can put a CD in my home computer and load Mikrotik on it. So how is the device a Mikrotik OS runs on not considered a PC? Just some food for thought; with the information that backs it up right from the FCC site. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
One correction, I had originally specified the 1996 order regarding this, but further research lead me to the full updated part 15. So disregard the 1996 rule amendment reference below, it was a referring to a 1996 order that amended part 15. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 8:58 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications. If Mikrotik would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their boards and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall under the 1996 FCC order listed below. If we used VIA, or any number of already modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this order. Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power supplies. So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral wireless card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified for use with that wireless card. How is that not FCC legal? It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with: Trade NameModel Number FCC Assembled from Tested Components (Complete System Not Tested) I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 2400 in my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases. Part 15 as of May 4, 2007: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf Listed on these pages: Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, home-build and kit computers. Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators. See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals: Declaration of Conformity. Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized in accordance with one of the following methods And of course, on page 86 the very vague modular transmitter section regarding unique antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I believe Ubiquity has cards like this). I did a search in this document for the following words: operating system 0 results. software 2 results - neither of which have to do with operating systems. Maybe this will be dismissed as a bad interpretation, but Mikrotik looks suspiciously like a PC operating system, much like Windows or Linux. Not a modular transmitter device like an AP. I can put a CD in my home computer and load Mikrotik on it. So how is the device a Mikrotik OS runs on not considered a PC? Just some food for thought; with the information that backs it up right from the FCC site. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43 PM -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Doug, You have to certify the system as a whole INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURE and the power supply and you cannot deviate from the configuration that was certified. This cannot be compared to a PC because that is a different certification. PC's are unintentional radiators the systems in question are intentional radiators. Here is the link for more info on Modular Transmitters; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Here is a link to ADI and their certified system; http://www.adiengineering.com/products/data/FCC-Whitepaper-R100.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Doug Ratcliffe wrote: I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications. If Mikrotik would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their boards and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall under the 1996 FCC order listed below. If we used VIA, or any number of already modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this order. Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power supplies. So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral wireless card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified for use with that wireless card. How is that not FCC legal? It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with: Trade NameModel Number FCC Assembled from Tested Components (Complete System Not Tested) I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 2400 in my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases. Part 15 as of May 4, 2007: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf Listed on these pages: Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, home-build and kit computers. Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators. See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals: Declaration of Conformity. Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized in accordance with one of the following methods And of course, on page 86 the very vague modular transmitter section regarding unique antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I believe Ubiquity has cards like this). I did a search in this document for the following words: operating system 0 results. software 2 results - neither of which have to do with operating systems. Maybe this will be dismissed as a bad interpretation, but Mikrotik looks suspiciously like a PC operating system, much like Windows or Linux. Not a modular transmitter device like an AP. I can put a CD in my home computer and load Mikrotik on it. So how is the device a Mikrotik OS runs on not considered a PC? Just some food for thought; with the information that backs it up right from the FCC site. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] MT Babble
Hey Michael, Dawn's right. Don't get into an argument on all this here, again. In order to be a LABELLED CERTIFIED system, you take antennas, jumpers, pigtails, minipci cards (already separately cert'd most likely), RB's, ENCLOSURE, POE device, and anything else that's necessary to that system running, and they throw it in a quiet room and put it through its paces. If all falls within the proper bands for operation as you intended, you get the right to copy that device and slap pretty fcc labels on it and sell it as certified. If not, fix it, resubmit it and try again. Repeat until certified. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Erskine Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Dawn; I think you are reading the letter of the law and not understanding the reality. An RB153 is *NOT* an intentional radiator any more than the PC you mention is an intentional radiator. The cards which are placed in the RB153 are intentional radiators just like the cards you put in that PC you mention. You are trying to make an Apples vs Oranges comparison out of an Apples to Apples situation. In other words you are incorrect in your reading of the rules. -m- Dawn DiPietro wrote: Doug, You have to certify the system as a whole INCLUDING THE ENCLOSURE and the power supply and you cannot deviate from the configuration that was certified. This cannot be compared to a PC because that is a different certification. PC's are unintentional radiators the systems in question are intentional radiators. Here is the link for more info on Modular Transmitters; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf Here is a link to ADI and their certified system; http://www.adiengineering.com/products/data/FCC-Whitepaper-R100.pdf Regards, Dawn DiPietro Doug Ratcliffe wrote: I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications. If Mikrotik would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their boards and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall under the 1996 FCC order listed below. If we used VIA, or any number of already modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this order. Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power supplies. So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral wireless card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified for use with that wireless card. How is that not FCC legal? It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with: Trade Name Model Number FCC Assembled fromTested Components (Complete System Not Tested) I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 2400 in my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases. Part 15 as of May 4, 2007: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf Listed on these pages: Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, home-build and kit computers. Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators. See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals: Declaration of Conformity. Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized in accordance with one of the following methods And of course, on page 86 the very vague modular transmitter section regarding unique antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I believe Ubiquity has cards like this). I did a search in this document for the following words: operating system 0 results. software 2 results - neither of which have to do with operating systems. Maybe this will be dismissed as a bad interpretation, but Mikrotik looks suspiciously like a PC operating system, much like Windows or Linux. Not a modular transmitter device like an AP. I can put a CD in my home computer and load Mikrotik on it. So how is the device a Mikrotik OS runs on not considered a PC? Just some food for thought; with the information that backs it up right from the FCC site. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
The problem is the current RB532 will NEVER pass FCC certifications. It emits too much noise in the 150mHz and 400mHz areas to ever pass any certification. Maybe their new boards are different? Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: I will pay $500 over the price of an unlicensed Microtik if I can get one with the cute little FCC sticker on it. Did you hear that kids? $500 over the MSRP! I have 8 APs (only one is a Microtik at this time) that I would like to replace. I think I paid $185 for the RB500 with the software pre-installed, $8 for the pigtail and $45 for the small electrical box it is sealed in. So around $250 for the whole thing including shipping and tax. I am offering to pay $750 (300% markup based on MSRP!) for this item with the cute little FCC sticker on the box. I will buy 8 from whomever can present this to me. And I am a SMALL operator! Who wants to sell this to me? My credit card is standing by. ryan - The troll trying to kill this thread. :P -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Ryan, Currently a "typical" MT AP with wireless card, outdoor case, pigtails, etc. with an RB532 board is going to be about $350ish without antenna. Can you give an example of what this PREMIUM price is that you are willing to pay for the same system certified? Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee required to have the a Microtik based system certified. I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik offers. ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
George Rogato wrote: Matt there is a tool for every job. Just because someone uses MT or Star does not mean they don't use canopy, trango or alvarion as well. And nobody needs to explain why. I am well aware of that, which is why we use so many different vendors' radios. We first started with Canopy on a recommendation and over time various operators (mostly WISPA members) introduced us to other vendors' radios. Every time we learned about a new vendor from the experiences of others. I respect the experience of my peers and find it quite useful in vendor selection. Why everyone is so defensive about MT I don't know. I personally don't care what equipment anyone uses. I am just curious why people use it in case it would be useful for us. But, no one seems willing to answer that. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Travis Johnson wrote: I said this several months ago and I'll say it again MT and Star-OS are used because of price. Period. Thats right, MT and Star are priced to the point a wisp can make the market happen a whole lot faster than other more expensive solutions. The guys that cherry pick T-1 prices will never understand the pressures the wisp who is trying to bring broadband to the 40.00 market has. -- 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: [WISPA] MT Babble
The issue of certification is a simple one. Certs are only good for the assembler or complete system manufacturer. If you assemble your own, you need to get your own certs. MT and Star do not sell assembled products, yet. hence you can't buy their certified system, you have to make your own. We do have a cert list at wispa, contact Jack Unger if your a paid wispa member. George D. Ryan Spott wrote: I will pay $500 over the price of an unlicensed Microtik if I can get one with the cute little FCC sticker on it. Did you hear that kids? $500 over the MSRP! I have 8 APs (only one is a Microtik at this time) that I would like to replace. I think I paid $185 for the RB500 with the software pre-installed, $8 for the pigtail and $45 for the small electrical box it is sealed in. So around $250 for the whole thing including shipping and tax. I am offering to pay $750 (300% markup based on MSRP!) for this item with the cute little FCC sticker on the box. I will buy 8 from whomever can present this to me. And I am a SMALL operator! Who wants to sell this to me? My credit card is standing by. ryan - The troll trying to kill this thread. :P -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble Ryan, Currently a typical MT AP with wireless card, outdoor case, pigtails, etc. with an RB532 board is going to be about $350ish without antenna. Can you give an example of what this PREMIUM price is that you are willing to pay for the same system certified? Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? In a word, horsepower. I am considering taking a collection for the fee required to have the a Microtik based system certified. I wish one of the bigger players out there would just DO this. I would pay a PREMIUM for an AP with the horsepower and features that the Microtik offers. ryan -- 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: [WISPA] MT Babble
Depends on how much the FCC's Notice Of Apparent Liability (aka fine) is for those of you who are rolling your own. If it is enough, and the word gets around, I'll bet most of you will realize that the certification thing isn't a joke like many treat it. The FCC doesn't play around. I know one operator who was fined $8,000.00 for having his tower light out. His flasher device had been smoked by lightning. I have also seen them circulating at computer shows inspecting custom built PCs and issuing notices for builders using uncertified assemblies (mostly those flip top cases when they first came out). I'm glad to see at least one WISP I know who was rolling his own starting to talk about using certified equipment. Personally, I think MT makes pretty decent router software and it is reasonably priced. We have it at all our hotspots, however it is running on a real, store-bought PC. I wouldn't touch any MT radio with a 10 foot pole. The total cost of building an MT access point or CPE isn't really much less than some of the FCC Certified Deliberant gear that is out now. Ralph -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble If the certified systems come out and are double the price (so $400 for a RB532 type solution compared with $200 now) how many people are going to start using the certified ones? Very few. Even if it's only $50 extra, are people really going to pay that much extra when so far they haven't worried about it? Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: George Rogato wrote: Matt The reason we like stuff MT and Star, it works and we like it. I'm glad it works and that you like it because you like it. That doesn't really help me understand why one would choose MT over something else. I mean there has to be something beyond that you like it if you are willing to use it in favor of something else that is certified. I don't really care for the whole discussion of whether certified gear should be used or not. Every piece of gear has advantages and disadvantages as well as pricing considerations. Regardless of whether someone is willing to use uncertified gear, I am sure that given the choice between uncertified and certified everyone would choose certified every time. Therefore, uncertified gear is at a disadvantage to other gear, so it must make up for this disadvantage some other way or no one would choose it. What is MT's advantage? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
