As Butch states (in general) each complete system needs to be
individually certified however, the lab that I work with has advised that:
IF the vendor (or WISP) that obtains the original certification Grant
chooses to make their complete system specifications public rather than
asking the FCC to keep some of the system data confidential, then other
WISPs could build EXACT DUPLICATES of the certified system without being
required to run the duplicate system through the lab certification
process again. The EXACT DUPLICATE will still need to have correct
labeling on it saying, in effect, (I need to check to get the exact,
legal FCC verbiage) "this system contains the same components that were
already certified under FCC Grant XXXYYY". Even the software needs to be
the same so that only the authorized channels, channel widths,
modulation modes, etc. are selectable. The company building, labeling,
and deploying the exact duplicate is responsible for the correct legal
operation of the system. If the FCC comes to your door to inspect, the
system better be EXACTLY THE SAME as the system that it claims to be a
legal duplicate of.
In the real world, I think the only way building an EXACT DUPLICATE is
going to be practical is if the original Grantee holder is willing to
cooperate with the companies that want to build the duplicates. For
example, I could see "Acme Wireless" certifying a system, deploying it
and also offering it for sale as a certified system but I don't think
they would welcome other WISPs just making EXACT KNOCKOFFS and deploying
those without having to bear any certification costs. This doesn't mean
there aren't a few organizations that might certify a complete system
and then publish all the details so exact copies could be made by
others, just that there may not be very many such organizations. Another
possibility is for a small group of WISPs to get together and
standardize on one common AP or CPE design, then select one trusted WISP
to officially get the Grant but all of the other WISPs pay for an equal
share of the certification costs.
If Butch (or anyone) has additions, corrections or questions about the
above information, please post it/them and I'll go back to the lab that
I'm working with and request further clarification.
jack
Butch Evans wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
As far as Mikrotik goes, if any one/more/all MT vendor(s) in this
country paid an FCC lab to certify the boards/radios (can't the
radios/antennas can be modular certified by Ubiquiti/Senao?), could
that work as a blanket certification that MT could attach to their
boards/radios, or does each individual unit/vendor need an FCC
certification?
Each particular vendor will need a cert for the complete system they
build. FWIW, I have been pushing MANY vendors to build and certify some
Mikrotik radios. You can help yourself here by going to YOUR vendor and
asking them to do the same.
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
