For sure. It has nothing to do with how the antenna is sold or sourced. What is clear however is that as operators, you do not have the choice. Such flexibility is ONLY given to the manufacturers. I was in the room where Marlon pressed them on this point hard and they would not bend. For the FCC, they still refused to open what they see as a Pandora's Box in terms of letting operators make their own choices in terms of antennas. We all were a bit surprised by this, though I understand their issue.
Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Patrick, Not exactly. What you said is mostly true, and to the letter of the original text, but there are added flexibilties. It doesn't need to be the antenna that the manufacturer actually sells. For example, if the manufacturer OEMed a MTI antenna for certification, operators can now use the functional MTI antenna bought direct. Also in face to face meetings, even though not the written text, we asked if operators could take responsibilty for determining the functional equivellent. They responded that the reason the Manufacturers were required to be the one, is that there had to be someone to take responsibilty, where it was inforcable to comply. It was a grey area, but FCC staff stated that if the operator took responsibility, it could be feasible that it was allowed for the Operator to make the substitution. The arguement is as integrators we have the abilty to get certifications just like Manufacturers. So really the letter of the law was that who ever got the gear certified originally, would ahve the abilty to make the modifications of whats considered functional equivellent. What this meant was that if an Operator isntalled an uncertifed network, but used gear that could be certified, meaning making qualified decisions, it was within the Operators power to correct the violation, by getting the components certified. Although the politically correct method would be to certify the gear combination a head of time. But my point is its not just the manufacturer that has the master decission. With that said, its rare that a operator would want to go through the cost of certification, when the manufacturer already did, if the manufacturer now also had cost effective ways to make decissions on what gear is acceptable to use under the certification, and manufacturers had fair pricing on antenna gear, to take away the motive for someone to self certify. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > John is 100% accurate. Also, with respect to using your own antenna, even > with that new relaxation of the rules, it ONLY applies to manufacturers, > NOT > operators. What is does is to enable manufacturers to self-certify > additional antennas so long as the power is the same or less as the > originally certified version AND the beam pattern is fundamentally > similar. > > This rule does NOT permit operators to use whatever antennas they like. > > As always, I know from 1st hand direct questioning of those FCC staffers > who > wrote the rule revision. This is not hearsay, my assumption or my > interpretation. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Scrivner > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > > The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a > certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet > the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think > that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost > certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC > enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules > is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you > are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another > common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the > general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and > further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. > > Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see > FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators > to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step > should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used > antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. > Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet > certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not > terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all > manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents > manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good > time to toot your horn. > > I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP > systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable > television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something > tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the > decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would > like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an > unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership > role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do > anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to > follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could > expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the > stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. > Scriv > > > chris cooper wrote: > >> It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off >> the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what >> are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in >> production? Thanks for the education >> >> >> >> Chris >> > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > ******** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses(191). > **************************************************************************** > ******** > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > ******** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses(42). > **************************************************************************** > ******** > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(191). **************************************************************************** ******** **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). **************************************************************************** ******** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
