How many people has the FCC forced to take their Linksys Bridge and Hyperlink 15dBi Yagi's offline?
Any of those forced to take their stuff down, had an unamped system? I've heard rumor of one person who had this happen, or claimed that it happend. He was pretty much "warned" but one out of the few million systems out there, I'd say that someone made an error in "warning" him. Maybe it was a new FCC guy, or someone who wasn't familiar with the regulations. I think this guy was also running an amp, so maybe he just violated 15.203(c). I've been asking on the lists for well over a year, for a documented case of someone who was forced to shut down their stuff, when they weren't running amps. I've not found a single one yet. I have heard rumor of a local guy who was causing problems with his neighbors TV's and I heard from one of his customers that he was using D-Link stuff, so I thought that maybe he was using the Atmel power hack which just causes noise and doesn't make efficient use of the spectrum. Supposedly, the police have been to this guys house a few times, because of interference complaints, but I've not heard of the FCC showing up. It might be good to note that something as simple as a bad pigtail or connector connection can cause major noise when txing or rxing. FCC doesn't care what connectors "you" use, they care what connectors the "manufacturer" uses. So, most of the FCC related stuff falls upon a requirement of the "manufacturer" to fulfill. Outside of that, there are a few rules that we must follow, but they aren't that complicated. If you aren't sure, go read the rules. If you can't figure it out from there, maybe its better that you don't use wireless, or cordless phones or anything else that falls under part 15. :-) Judd Enrique LaRoche wrote: > So I am still wondering if I setup my off the shelf Linksys bridge with my > hyperlink technology 15 dbi Yagis and do it for less than $400.00 will The > FCC come and Shut me down. And if I Purchase a vendors Certified link will > the extra $1900 prevent the FCC from yanking it? > Apples to Apples same two points to bridge? > Enrique > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Thompson > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [BAWUG] 802.11 to T1 (Jeff Johnson) > > WOW, someone who has views similar to my own and its not just some random > user, its Jim Thompson! > > What's so special about Jim Thompson? Seems like a clueless newbie to me. > Several of his former friends think he > is a back-stabbing asshole. > > I believe Tim's interpretation of the rules is a "little" different, but > "for the most part", I agree with Tim too. :-) > > Tim's interpretation is a 'strict' reading of the rules, and is highly > applicable in broadcast engineering. > (Several of us can quote chapter and verse.) > > I spent the weekend with several of the heads @ OET (FCC), btw. You might > want to take away that I have > an ... informed opinion. It would seem that the FCC loves Wi-Fi, and will > move to enhance, not detract > from, its success. > > Jim > > -- > 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
