The objective of the rules is to prohibit (NOT prevent) and thus make illegal modifications and non-certified systems.
A non-standard connector was one way to make it prohibitive (sic) for the consumer to modify the 'system' out of certification. No one said the prohibition was a brick wall 1000 miles long and high.
So - the vendors of certified hardware are not providing the means for users to break the certification and violate the law - 3rd party vendors are - much the same way the RIAA blames Napster for facilitating file sharing and copyright violation (balderdash).
As far as the 'monopoly' argument goes - I do not see evidence that certified equipment vendors and various 3rd party vendors have monopolized anything - seems to be more than enough to go around - it's almost as easy for the public to get ahold of 'reverse' connectors as it is for them to get ahold of industry standard connectors from several different sources (OK - so MAYBE Amp, Molex, Amphenol, etc. have the 'monopoly' on specifically the connector market.)
The POINT is that it is ILLEGAL for users to use uncertified systems. SO - if you attach a homebrew or 3rd party antenna with some unknown bit of coax to an Orinoco card or a LinkSys WAP11 for instance - that is NOT a certified system and you ARE breaking the law. Just as if you ran 1 watt into a + 24 dB antenna. Plain and simple.
I'm not sure what part(s) of the law are vague or arguable here? I'm not sure why there would be a mis-understanding about the clear technicalities of the law versus vendor monopolies, etc.
The simplicity seems to be that many want to ignore the letter and spirit of 802.11 as a convenient replacement for up to 300 meters of CAT5. Experimentation and development are good things - but not within regulated, non-licensed 'space', not when it violates the law and gives the appearance that the public cannot handle and heed the responsibility that goes with the privilege. The FCC very clearly provides for means to experiment - called Special Temporary Authorization.
Think of 802.11 like FRS or CB-radio for data folks. Very restrictive technically to provide a small bit of 'free' radio service for the general public.
If you want to be suspicious of the FCC and vendors, I would speculate that like other commercial radio services (cellular, MMDS, etc.) it will come to the FCC's attention that there is money to be made (for them) through the commercial/paying use of the spectrum.
Be careful how you abuse our collective rights and privileges here. The next step may be a pay-model for more/different spectrum and fewer power/system restrictions above and beyond the free model, forcing commercial use of public services into required licensing (for a fee) and technical qualifications to design, build and operate for-pay services. The costs will go up for T-Mobile and other commercial ventures charging for the use of the spectrum and net access, drive the smaller guys out of business in licensing fees and compliance costs, and ruin it for the general off-the-shelf public this service was designed for.
Once you drive the FCC to a paid-model for spectrum use you also drive them and the system operators into more accountability for the RF. I for one will be VERY pissed off to see that happen to the public - as someone who is licensed to work on RF gear it could be profitable for me. Otherwise there are not enough responsible, qualified RF people operating all the other transmitters on the air now to begin with.
I don't see more than a handful of reasonable to expert qualified RF people in these venues. The level of hacking I've read about in these venues tells me that the RF problem will get a few thousand percent worse for public and paid services if this crap of bastardizing certified gear keeps up without enough RF skillset out there, and mess the whole thing up.
Be careful what you wish for...
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:05:59 -0800 To: "David T. Witkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Todd Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [BAWUG] Rob should be getting a kickback...Let me see if I understand this right. The FCC has issued regulations, presumably conforming to US legislation, that vendors can provide external connectors but only if they are proprietary? Pardon me if I conclude these regulations were written, supported, and enacted by people who have indirect interests in hardware and telecom company profits, and the status quo. I will admit, I cannot establish the accuracy of my view, since the rulemaking process is such an opaque and arbitrary process. However, it will not be possible for anybody to convince me that my view is inaccurate, after the experience of a lifetime under a series of bad-faith rulemaking in telephony, telecom and computing right up to the present day (the Microsoft monopoly continuing, ILECs monopoly continuing, radio spectrum owned in perpetuity by corporations, etc.) TOdd
======================================================== Jim Aspinwall - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "lack of (the right) information is a dangerous thing" B.A.R.F. UHF Repeater - 443.750 - San Jose PL 100 - Vaca PL 127.3 ======================================================== -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
