"Professional installers". the definitions and implications sounds an awful lot like the equivalent litmus test for licensing or certification - and I agree that some proficiency and compliance should be able to be demonstrated...if you go beyond the packaged off-the-shelf consumer goods market...
Which I firmly believe 802.11 was intended for - not the "last mile" or the "middle mile" or the source point, but the absolute last 300 meters between end-user system and LAN/Internet connect point. OK - so the manufacturers, marketing folks, etc. took that an extra step or two.
Pre-packaged products and an almost over-simplified mix-and-match chart are about the only way to help ensure a proper system is constructed and could meet compliance rules - at least for the consumer or "non-professional". The vendors sure as hell are not going to stop a web-shopper from going outside any set of pre-determined guidelines - that would put them into the enforcement business, be a trade restriction, and limit their customer base.
The problem is enforcement of any rule - who determines "professional installer" and how? How will a consumer, business/IT 'buyer' or anyone else determine who is professional, qualified, capable, responsible, skilled, trained, compliant, etc. ??
The "anyone who gets paid or does this for a living..." thing just doesn't wash for most of us.
Almost anyway you look at this we have an essentially unenforceable situation with hundreds if not thousands of potential victims - those bounced off the air or otherwise interfered with by any number of possible bad 'system' 'designs' and implementations - especially or mostly from those trying to build large systems with wide coverage beyond 300 meters or point-to-point.
If my neighbor or the business behind me decides to toss up a 1-4 watt system with a +15dB or greater parabolic and point it over my house I've got problems - worse if whoever installed it is a technical bozo who cannot assemble a cable and connector properly or over-drives his amp and sprays crap all over the band - and takes out my 802.11 gear or my legit, licensed 2.4 GHz ham rigs. I'm back to the days of "good-buddy's hacked CB rig is trashing my TV and stereo".
I cannot see ANY ad-hoc WISP model (beyond a coffee shop, etc.) working and making money - the deployment cost options and ROI for a large user-base are just not there. Because this is basically no-fault technology, I cannot see anyone seriously relying on a WISP or NAN arrangement with the neighbors for free or cost sharing - there are too many variables that will make it unreliable and undependable - like me or someone else putting up a higher-powered NAN and wiping yours out. It would only take 3 APs, 3 amps, and 3 2.5-8 db omni-antennas deployed on channels 1, 6 and 11 for anyone to deplete the performance of or render useless someone else's NAN, or wide-area WISP signal coming from 1-5 miles away. AND - such a system could be "professionally installed" without a thing anyone could say about it.
On one hand I think it is VERY cool that we can do this stuff, on the other I think it is best to stick specifically within the intent and practical rather than extended, exaggerated use of this technology - 300 meters and point-to-point only.
But sometimes good-enough and as-intended are just not acceptable to folks who think they deserve more than is given to them, "professionally installed" or not.
Any "professional installer" who does NOT inform the customer and put a disclaimer and caveat about the technology, performance and reliability risks in their customer contracts isn't very professional in my book.
Message: 4 From: Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 13:10:04 -0800 Subject: [BAWUG] a note about FCC future intent re: professional installer...I left out one key point that should be noted (and it should make everyone here happy). As a result of our side of the industry's requests of the SPTF, their recent report specifically makes note that future rules revisions regarding unlicensed should permit professional installers to configure their own combinations of antennas, cables and connectors so long as the power rules are not violated. The FCC recognizes that the certified systems rule may be too restrictive with regard to passive components. Do not expect this, however, to extend to include active devices like amps and frequency convertors. Thank your peers in the commercial side of the business for this expected rules revision. Patrick J. Leary Chief Evangelist, Alvarion, Inc. Executive Committee Member, WCA/LEA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 760.494.4717 Cell: 770.331.5849 Fax: 509.479.2374
======================================================== 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
