----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values.
> Mark, > > I'm going to reply but this will be my last reply on this subject. I > don't want to exceed my "5 posts per day" limit any more than necessary. > :) > > Yes, I understand about receiver selectivity. I've also taught over 2000 > WISP personnel about it since 2001. I also wrote a (vendor-neutral) book > about proper broadband wireless network design and deployment. The book > has a heavy emphasis on explaining how wireless works. One entire > chapter is devoted to evaluating and selecting wireless equipment. > > I do think it's beyond the role and beyond the budget of the FCC to be > able to certify equipment as "good enough", better, best, etc. Agreed. > > It's the job of the intelligent WISP owner/operator to learn how > wireless propagation works and how wireless equipment works. Then the > WISP operator can make their own determination about what equipment is > best to achieve their particular wireless goals in their particular > wireless environment. We can only do this if we can find a way to get the makers to provide us with more information than they do at present. We have power and sensitivity specs, and that's about it. There's a whole lot more to it than that, though. Sadly, without us demanding it, we'll never get it, and too few people have any idea what to ask for, much less evaluate what it means. > > Have a good night, > jack > > > Mark Koskenmaki wrote: > > Then you know and understand the value of selectivity and what clean > > transmitters are. There's "good enough" to get certified, and then there's > > "good" and "better" and "excellent" and I'd like to see us have the > > information and be able to lean on the manufacturers to clean up their acts. > > There is a wide gulf between "certifieable" and "very good". An aweful > > lot of manufacturers are playing the "power" race, which I don't like, I > > wish they were trying to complete on all the RF qualities of their > > equipment. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 11:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. > > > > > >> I am a ham and I have been for 48 years. I've also held an FCC > >> Commercial License for 28 years. Without my ham experience, I doubt that > >> I would have been able to transition into the license-free wireless > >> industry in 1993 - which was before any WISPs even existed. My years of > >> ham experience made the transition relatively easy. I recommend that all > >> WISP operators consider getting their ham licenses which, BTW no longer > >> require any Morse Code tests. > >> > >> jack > >> > >> > >> Mark Koskenmaki wrote: > >>> You a HAM operator, Jack? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:52 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Mark, > >>>> > >>>> Certification verifies that the signals conducted into the power line > >>>> and the signals radiated into the air from a wireless system are clean > >>>> and that they do not exceed the power limits. Minimizing self > >>>> interference is primarily a function of good network design techniques. > >>>> This is outside the scope of FCC certification because, even with > >>>> certified equipment, it is easy for an uninformed person to deploy a > >>>> network that interferes with itself and with other networks. > >>>> > >>>> To motivate manufacturers, let them know you want to buy only certified > >>>> systems from them. > >>>> > >>>> jack > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Mark Koskenmaki wrote: > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > >>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:05 PM > >>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] was School WiFi , about technical values. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> See comment inline, near end of post. > >>>>>> Wrong. Certification DOES test for out of band emissions; it also > > tests > >>>>>> for out of channel emissions. It does not test for receiver > > selectivity > >>>>>> because that is not a characteristic that will mess up the band. Part > >>> 15 > >>>>>> certification deals primarily with dirty transmitted signals, not > > poor > >>>>>> receivers. > >>>>>> jack > >>>>>> > >>>>> Well, I should have been more clear. Yes, there are tests and > > certain > >>>>> limits. Just being "good enough" isn't what I was wanting. I'd like > >>> the > >>>>> best stuff, because doing so means you minimize self interference, > > etc. > > > -- > 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/
