What?!! Requiring a license or certification to work on unlicensed equipment??
Would that be like IT shops requiring A+, MS or Cisco certs for employment?
Sure - as a licensed tech of many years - with considerable practice in the field of lower freq RF systems, I probably feel *about* the same way many with industry certs feel about shops hiring non-certified folks... you can argue that certified people earned a higher right to work than non-certified people, and you can argue that some certified people merely crammed and passed tests and have no practical knowledge or experience while many excellent non-certified people were doing the work instead of sitting in class, then there are the non-certified folks who should not be allowed near a PC much less a router or server, and you have excellent certified and experienced people. Given such a matrix of possibilities...
A proposal:
1. No certification/license = out-of-box unlicensed, unmodified 'appliances' only - NO additional/alternative cabling or antennas - period. i.e. - the general public goes to Fry's and sticks a WAP11 in their kitchen - done.
2. No certification/license = custom-box unlicensed, enhanced 'appliances'/systems only - NO additional/alternative cabling or antennas - period. i.e. - the general public goes to Demarctech or HypertechLink or similar mid- to high-end vendor and buys a pre-designed/fabbed radio, cable and antenna and installs as-is.
3. Certification/license = design and implement from modules/components 'any' radio, cable and antenna for specific jobs. Experienced and capable engineering practices to knowingly create and implement a safe, sound, reliable, legal system from the ground up. That is, precluding the general public from slapping a 4W radio, 200 feet of Radio Shack RG-58 and a 24 dbi antenna or cardboard and wire tube on their urban apartment roof in an attempt to slam a signal to a neighbor or across the Bay, etc.
Case #3 leaves things as they are now - Cases 1 and 2 - and augments it with the flexibility and necessity we are striving for. You want something new, more better, learn it and earn it.
OK - not that #3-level 'hacking' stuff together is not already happening - and who knows if by accident or skill if such hacks have caused grief (but I know of at least two cases in the South Bay where some industrious and obviously unskilled WISP has slammed in poorly engineered systems and wiped out public safety radio gear - VERY bad form!!!)
Given case #3 - rooftop and site owners/landlords will find it in their best interest to require proof of certification of a) a boxed SYSTEM or b) an engineered system by a certified person prior to allowing or maintaining installations. THIS will be the most compelling case going forward (aside from the $1-4M in liability insurance required in many cases.)
Before anyone screams of privilege or elitism... it is NOT that hard to get through a basic electronics and radio-stuff course to the level adequate to put these pieces together. IF you can crimp RJ-45 connectors onto CAT5 you can learn proper coaxial cable terminations, etc. Hundreds of 'kids' do it every year to join the ranks of cellular site and two-way radio careers, just like MSCEs and A+, etc. Maybe add a "wireless endorsement" to these certification programs - since all parties involved (Microsoft, Cisco and IT shops) are intimate with wireless these days.
Further - the FCC *MAY* lighten up the rules, but this will NOT lighten up the burden of preventing or correcting interference issues in practice, or making nice with the landlords who know the value of their space and want to retain happy paying customers. Bad systems can and will be summarily ejected from towers and rooftops - the easy way by cooperative safe removal or tossed over the side.
Given a choice, customers will also decide who they wish to do business with - someone who can and does play by the book and creates a decent system, or a cheap Radio Shack hack. The wise, or soon to be wise by bad example, consumer will vote with their dollars.
It's in our (wireless afficianados') best interest to secure a sane position of responsibility to survive in what may be and could become the "Channel 19 of Internet access."
Learn and prove what you can do and do it right or we cannot play nice with customized systems.
At 12:00 PM 9/14/2003, you wrote:
Message: 5 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:06:28 -0400 From: Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [BAWUG] New Part 15 FCC Rulemaking Notice FCC 03-223 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim:
By and large I think this is a good thing, and kind of a no brainer for the hobbyists.
My concern is the WISP's.... I'd like to see a little accountability, and I feel so much better about it if someone with some sort of license (ham, commercial?) signed off on the install.
Any thoughts?
-- Jeff King, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 09/13/2003
-- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
