Patrick,
You are right on target, I agree with everything that you have just said.
I would like to see an
independent body that could provide WISP technician certification that the
FCC could accept
Great Idea.
Let me ask you this: would you willingly warranty and support your end
user's end-to-end experience across your network from the desktops to the
Internet while also permitting the user to implement whatever router,
switch, etc. he/she wanted?
No, which is why I fully understand your view as manufacturer. But you are
making the assumption that it is the manufacturer warranteeing and
supporting the product. Just because Alvarion does a good job at it,
doesn't mean it applies to all. Many WISPs do not rely on the support from
their manufacturers, they instead decide to educate themselves, and take
control of their own destiny, and need to have the abilty and freedom to
support their clientel optimally. If I am the one doing the support, I need
some control. Way to many times a WISP is held back in progress waiting and
waiting on their manufacturers that do not come through or do not act with
the same time table and priority as the WISP has done, and it has to do with
who has the heavy cash invested that is getting wasted. When its the WISP's
money at risk, and not the manufacturers, the manufacturer doesn't seem to
rush. The day my choice of manufacturers outperform my time tables and
beats me to the solution, I'll give in to them and follow suit to the
manufacturer's suggested recommendations. FCC certification is important,
but so is success, and this is a time to market industry. I have nothing
but respect for the FCC, FCC power rules, and the vendors and providers that
follow them, but I do not have a lot of respect for a sticker or for people
that hold back an eager industry or waste my money. That comment was not
directed at any specific manufacturer or regulating body.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:06 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Hi Tom, I remember our nice little seafood feast afterward too (is George on
the WISPA list also?). As I recall, the conversation revolved around
certified gear. The rules change they made did not include or cover
uncertified systems, because I would assume, by definition, they do not
exist as part of the legal process. In other words, the FCC was not trying
to make life of law breakers even easier. They were trying to improve the
flexibility so manufacturers could be more responsive to customer needs by
getting more antenna choices included within the manufacturers master system
certification. Basically, all they did was relax a little the existing
"permissive change" rules.
I believe the FCC was reluctant to give operators carte blanche, because it
would be a strain on resources to track accountability and enforcement.
Reigning in a few manufacturers who have major incentive to follow the rules
is a lot different than trying to keep track of thousands of WISPs, many
already flying under the radar (not filing form 477, etc.) AND many of whom
who have already shown a massive propensity to ignore -- willfully or
ignorantly -- the rules as they are. Use whatever clichés you want --
"asking the fox to guard the hen house," "giving the inmates the keys to the
asylum,"...they all apply. I think you have to acknowledge that the abuse is
rampant and one of the only reasons it is less rampant now is that so many
systems come integrated with antennas, PoE, and high power (internal
integrated amps).
From the vendors standpoint, I understand the FCC position and I also
understand the quality (and legal) WISPs position. I would like to see an
independent body that could provide WISP technician certification that the
FCC could accept (and hold accountable), much like a PE needs to sign off on
certain design documents in many mechanical fields. I envisioned such a
thing a few years ago, using the BICSII RCDD as the model.
Anyway, also a vendor I am relieved too that operators cannot make their own
choices in the sense of the nightmare this would create for both system
performance (e.g. MAJOR tech support costs and head aches) and warranty
issues. You cannot fathom the massive costs we'd incur as every WISP making
its own antenna choice came to us about performance, capacity, and coverage
issues for which the antenna plays such a key role. How could we answer
questions? How could we assert performance specs? How could we predict
coverage and capacity? How could we advise about co-location issues? Etc. ad
nauseum.
Let me ask you this: would you willingly warranty and support your end
user's end-to-end experience across your network from the desktops to the
Internet while also permitting the user to implement whatever router,
switch, etc. he/she wanted?
Patrick Leary
AVP Marketing
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
Vonage: 650.641.1243
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
