But Jack, they don't have to. Anyone can.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval > 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/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > 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 > FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers > 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/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
