Mark I would have to say the consensus (and common-sense) way is that someone is us (the WISPS that buy FCC certified devices). If a product does not perform as well as another and they have both been put to adhere to the same guidelines as mandated by the FCC, does not then the burden fall to the manufacturers to manufacture products that work well by having an increased sensitivity and adjacent channel rejection? Poor quality - low sales - | Excellent quality - high sales.
If you want a "Consumers Reports" magazine on wireless equipment - well, that might be a good business to get into. ..hmm On 4/30/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think Mark is asking the FCC to specify these quality levels, just stating that someone needs to. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:44 AM 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.
<\snip crap> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
