I'm curious how a Linux with madwifi is binary certified yet MT or StarOS are not? They all use Linux and have drivers traceable to Atheros, just as the madwifi group code is.
Lonnie On 4/25/07, Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, I can see several things in this ruling. It's of course referring to consumer installed PCI/USB/miniPCI(we sell retail boxed laptop wireless cards for consumer install). Well, these cards are certified SEPARATE from the computer itself, so Netgear, Dlink, Linksys can have a wide range of antenna options. So why don't all of the vendors get together to get the SR2/SR5/SR9/CM9/Senao cards certified with say the most popular antenna options (Rootennas, grid dishes, etc) as if they were consumer installed cards for laptops, NOT for WISPs. But that would give our usage of it because nothing stops us from sticking a Linksys ad-hoc wireless card on the rooftop of a building and broadcasting wireless from a PC. EVEN a Linux box - look at MadWIFI - binary drivers to keep FCC certification. And MadWIFI lets your Linux box be a FCC certified AP. Now that leaves the software itself, Mikrotik/StarOS to modular certify their software with those cards. Or switch back to a standardized FCC certified firmware binary. I can see this ruling being out there because Dell / HP / Compaq might be nervous about losing their overall FCC cert on pre-installed wireless cards. As computer system builders we've all been using modular certifications for years: FCC certified case, motherboard, video card, modem, etc. Add FCC certified wireless cards to that mix and guess what - now you've got a computer capable of being an access point, and being FCC certified by default. Use RP-SMA instead of N-Male for the connector rules. Get some certified antennas (and I think there's probably already a list of certified antennas for use with Ubiquiti's cards), and now you've got FCC certified WISP equipment. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval > And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card vendor > is certified with. > > From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions. > If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in > its certification then: > 1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC certified > as a base unit and we could put the card in it? > 2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified if > it is in a box? > > Here is what I am thinking. If we would get an SBC certified bare as a > base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever enclosure > we want to use. The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise being > emitted. I don't think there are very many enclosures that increase the > RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in a box shouldn't > negate the certification. That would be like saying I can't put my > laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on. > > If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of us use in > our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought. And if we > can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the antennae > we use in their certifications, we may be able to legally use a lot more > equipment. > > Jack Unger wrote: > > Scott, > > > > I believe that your comments are substantially correct. > > > > The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that > > very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have > > certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. I > > don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember > > that the software used must limit operation of the complete system > > only to those frequencies and power levels that are legal in the U.S. > > > > jack > > > > > > Scott Reed wrote: > >> I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the > >> referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not about > >> "split modular" to be the part the refers to a PC. And I read it > >> that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the radio card is > >> certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card and antenna can > >> be used. > >> > >> So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track. Jack is > >> right, not any "base," but I would read it that any "certified base" > >> is doable. > >> I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered > >> to find it. This makes sense. Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with > >> a set of antennae. Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card. > >> Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an > >> antenna, using the proper cable, that was certified with the CM9. > >> > >> Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a "base" unit, > >> we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna > >> and be good. The "gotcha" here is those sections of Part 15 I have > >> not yet followed up on. I am not sure what the "professional > >> installer" stuff is about. > >> > >> What am I missing or is this good news? > >> > >> Jack Unger wrote: > >>> Tim, > >>> > >>> I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying > >>> that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any "base" unit. > >>> > >>> I think what the FCC is doing is: > >>> > >>> 1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a > >>> legal modular assembly is. > >>> > >>> 2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data > >>> inputs, and power supply regulation. > >>> > >>> 3. Clarifying the definition of what a "split" modular assembly is. > >>> > >>> 4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a "split" > >>> modular assembly must meet. > >>> > >>> Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating system, I > >>> don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any motherboard meets > >>> the FCC's definition of a "split" modular assembly. I think the FCC > >>> considers a "split" modular assembly to be where circuitry that > >>> today would be contained on a single modular assembly is (now or in > >>> the future) "split" between two different physical assemblies. This > >>> splitting allows more equipment design flexibility because one > >>> "transmitter control element" (the new term that the FCC formerly > >>> called the module "firmware") could theoretically be interfaced with > >>> and control more than one "radio front end" (the amplifier and > >>> antenna-connecting) section. > >>> > >>> Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add > >>> more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and > >>> Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we do > >>> business. > >>> > >>> jack > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Tim Kerns wrote: > >>>> Am I reading this correctly???? Does this mean that if a mfg of a > >>>> mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it > >>>> then can be put into ANY base unit and be certified? > >>>> > >>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been > >>>> asking for? > >>>> > >>>> Tim > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM > >>>> Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of > >>>> the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> All, > >>>>> > >>>>> I just received this document and thought it might be of some > >>>>> interest to the list. > >>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Dawn DiPietro > >>>>> -- > >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>>>> > >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>>> > >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > Scott Reed > Owner > NewWays > Wireless Networking > Network Design, Installation and Administration > www.nwwnet.net > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/2007 5:43 PM > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
