As I said before, I agree and that is in no manner inconsistent with my comment. Note the last paragraph where I exclude the hobbyists and experimenters from my comments. I was refering to commercial WISPs. Sorry for not making that clear.
Patrick -----Original Message----- From: Jeff King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [BAWUG] 15.23... Patrick: Talk about covering both sides of the track! 15.23 doesn't need to be discussed, one just needs to actually read it. You can't resell equipment under 15.23 You can't run your WISP under 15.23 You can be a hobbyist and experiment with equipment under 15.23 What reality would you like to discuss? (and you do realize the other day you agree with me on 15.23 now it appears you disagree). I'm simply not worried about it. Thanks -- Jeff King, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/03/2002 On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:23:52 -0800, Patrick Leary wrote: >This is one of this community's urban legends that has been >emphatically >disproven many times personally by multiple FCC OET staffers >(including the >principal writer of the rule) in my presence and in the presence of >several >hundred others. > >If you are looking for a documented case, you have only to contact >Sting >Communications in PA. They were required to change the sector >antennas on >over 30 towers because they used one not certified for use with the >radios >they used. They were not violating power rules. They were not using >amps. > >Refusal to accept reality here is nothing more than wishful thinking >or >simply abject denial. I encourage folks to call your local FCC >enforcement >office -- that is all it will take for individuals to clear it up for >themselves instead of accepting the guessing of some here. > >HOWEVER, if you are making modification (experimenting) for private >use, not >for re-sale, and for the small quanities named, this rule may not >apply. I >do not have a factual answer to this. It has never been asked by me >or >anyone I know directly to an OET staffer. > >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 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:02 PM >To: Jeff King >Cc: Tim Pozar; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [BAWUG] 15.23... > > >I guess I can bring this up on this list as well. 15.203 (not .23, >but >..203), >talks about External Power Amplifiers AND Antennas and subsection >(c) is >what some >people think stops people from mixing and matching antennas on >certified >radios. > >Keyword is "AND". If you read 15.203 sections a-c with the word OR >in the >title, >instead of AND, then it would more closely follow some of the "other" >interpretations out there. > >I respect everything that Tim Pozar discusses and I think I agree >with him >on just >about every issue, except for this one particular issue (swapping of >antennas). I >think its in how you read the rules and the fact of the matter is, >especially after >so much disagreement on what it actually means, that the rules >really need >to be >more explicit so we can put this issue to rest, once and for all. > >My interpretation is that antennas may be swapped, so long as you >are NOT >using an >amp, up/down converter or any other similiar device, just the >antenna and >radio >itself, so long as that radio has already been certified for use by >the >manufacturer, even if its only been certified with a single antenna. >It >basically >means that the radio itself (digital device) conforms to the >equipment >authorization requirements set forth by the FCC. Changing the >length of >coax, or >even a bad connector can cause a device to emit noise. But those >issues are >not >intentional. > >Using an antenna that is "better" or of higher quality, than the >stock >antenna >supplied with the radio, should not be illegal, so long as you are >in good >faith >technical compliance with the rules (ie, not exceeding EIRP limits, >doing >your best >to utilize antennas that will give you directional gain with low >sidelobes >and F/B >ratios in order to keep the transmissions your emitting to the lowest >possible >levels). > >If it is illegal in the eyes of the FCC, in multiple years, I've >seen not >one well >documented case of someone failing to comply with the rules if they >were not >using >an amp. Any case that I have seen, has been a case for some other >reason >(ie, amps >were used, the person was intentionally interfering, or both, or >some other >circumstance). > >If the FCC didn't want someone to swap antennas, they'd save >everyone a >whole lot >of time, if they documented one public message on the subject. Some >kind of >official FCC stance on the issue, other than just the rules >themselves. If >that >means a documented case, great, lets see it. If that means an >official >letter from >the appropriate officials, then why not make it happen? This would >clear up >the >confusion and push people in the direction to conform. But this has >not >happened. >The FCC is almost always hands-off, because, what I sense, is that >they want >to >allow for the technology to advance, grow and for users of the >technology to >be >able to expand and utilitize the spectrum that they've allocated for >"unlicensed >use". The FCC wants to enable, not stifle. > >The FCC gave us something, said, here you go, make something with >it. We'll >be >here, watching, listening, but we want to avoid driving you in any >particular >direction, except where you may interfere with other users of the >same >spectrum, >because we are here to oversee that everyone is able to make "fair >use" of >the >"limited" spectrum available. If tomorrow brings new technologies >with more >efficent ways to utilize that spectrum, they are more than happy to >revise >or >rewrite the rules (UWB is a great example). > >The FCC knows whats happening, they aren't turning a blind eye, nor >are they >going >after WISP's or home operators who are sharing service with their >neighborhood and >the rest of urban or rural america. Unless there is some kind of >bad faith >abuse >of the spectrum, then they comment and/or act. > >Its rare that they have to comment or act, because the huge majority >of >operators >out there, are working in good faith, to build networks and/or >businesses >(which >benefit the economy in so many ways). > >Also, the FCC being the large organization that it is, the >interpretation of >one >person within the FCC may be much different than the interpretation >of >another. >This is why, "if there is an issue" (I don't see an issue, >personally), then >there >needs to be an official stance, by the FCC, on the subject of >swapping >antennas in >2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz or unlicensed spectrum in general. "If this was an >issue", I'd >can see a large number of very creative and intelligent people, put >out of >work and >on the streets, because their businesses would not be meeting >compliance >rules. >This doesn't just mean WISP's or small operator networks, but also >manufacturers >and many employees of those manufacturers as well as many >international >corporations who staff employees who build the radios and antennas >that so >many >people use, every day. > >Anyway, I'll leave it at that. No more FCC discussions from me. > >Jeff King wrote: > >>Would you also need to mine the silicon for the transistor's and >>carbon >for the >>resistor's to be compliant with 15.23? >> >>Until and unless you have a written ruling, it is up in the air. >>The >unnamed >>friend of a friend, or my buddy at the FCC is not a ruling. If your >>not >>marketing the device, 15.23 says your free to experiment with it as >>long >as you >>are in good faith technical compliance with the rules. >> >>Quoting Tim Pozar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>>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 15.5 apply to this equipment. >>> >>>Of course 15.5 refers to "Thou shall not interfere and thou shall >>>accept all interference". >>> >>>It seems to me that this section refers to equipment that is not >>>already certified since any equipment that is "marketed" needs to >>>be certified. Even "kits" need to be certified (15.25). When I >>>have talked to others "knowledgeable" in equipment certification, >>>they seem to have the same interpretation. It sounds as if using >>>an AP that is certified would not be allowed to be mixed and >>>matched >>>outside of its certification. >>> >>>If applied to what we are doing, it would seem that we would have >>>to develop our own SS radios and antennas to take advantage of >>>15.23. >>> >>>Tim >>>-- >>>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 > > > > >-- >general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> >[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >------- >---------------------------------------- >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom >they are addressed. >If you have received this email in error please notify the >originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this >email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. > >Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual >sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, >states them to be the views of Alvarion Inc. > >Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed >by SurfControl SuperScout Email Filter software in conjunction with >virus detection software. >-- >general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> >[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of Alvarion Inc. Scanning of this message and addition of this footer is performed by SurfControl SuperScout Email Filter software in conjunction with virus detection software. -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
