Laptop=Legal FCC Certified Computing Device SBC=not WRAP=not RB=not -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
Right, for the transmitter. That is the mPCI card that goes in the laptop. I am talking about the laptop itself. Laptop = SBC = WRAP = RB = ??? Dawn DiPietro wrote: > Scott, > > In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular > transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what > would you be certifying exactly? > > As quoted from said document; > > The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of > Section 15.203 > and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or > employ a "unique" > antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the > antenna, including the > cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the > module, either at > the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive > change. The > "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be > applied to modules. > > Regards, > Dawn DiPietro > > > Scott Reed wrote: >> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
