Have you read 15.23? The FCC already has clear provisions in Part 15 for experimentation. It is not illegal for end users to use uncertified systems, it is illegal to sell uncertified systems.
(From: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/47cfr15_01.html ) Sec. 15.23 Home-built devices. (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities of five or less for personal use. (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions of Sec. 15.5 apply to this equipment. -Jeff wb8wka -- Jeff King, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/28/2002 On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:25:00 -0800, Jim Aspinwall wrote: > >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 -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
