Mike,
I'll do my best to answer your specific questions; I'll not attempt to
answer your more vaguely-worded general statements because there are too
many assumptions implied that I'm sure you understand but that are not
clear to me.
Certification has EVERYTHING to do with power. The FCC limits AP
transmitter to a maximum of 1 watt. The FCC limits EIRP to a maximum of
four watts. The certification process checks and verifies both
transmitter power and EIRP.
Your Orthogon is likely (I'm speculating here) prompting you for antenna
gain so it can reduce the transmitter power to legal levels given the
antenna that you tell it you are connecting. If you can tell it "3 dBi"
antenna gain and then hook up a 48 dBi antenna then you are
intentionally defeating it's attempt to keep you legal. It can try to
keep the end-user legal but it may not have a perfect ability to force
everyone to be legal or to keep people who just don't have a clue to be
legal. As to how it is designed to work, you can read the manual that
came with your Orthogon or you can research this at the FCC web site by
searching and finding the Orthogon certification and then reading the
manual that Orthogon submitted as part of their certification process. I
don't have the time to do this for you but you can certainly do it
yourself and then come back here and update us with your findings.
jack
Mike Hammett wrote:
The amount of power it can do certainly has nothing to do with
certification. The Orthogon link I have prompts me for the antenna
gain, just like MT. I could theoretically plug a 48 dbi antenna into
either one and type in 3. While probably not legal, the MT would have
no disadvantage to the Orthogon in this case. Is someone going to
tell me Orthogon is not legal?
If that's the case, then the only thing non-compliant about MT is the
RouterBoards haven't been certified as a computing device (if going
the PC route).
If going the traditional route, then all we have to do is mail it off
to a lab.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Marlon K. Schafer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I disagree with you on this one Jack.
I've got plenty of certified products here that give me the ability
to set them for non fcc areas. All the need is a MODE that puts the
device into an FCC compatible format.
laters,
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
Michael,
Just for info -
The question of being required to use a software version that denied
operation on non-US frequencies has been hanging over Mikrotik and
WISPs now for several months. Seems this is the last issue that
needs to be addressed before we will see a potential flood of
Mikrotik-based certified products because a lot of WISPs want to
certify and/or use Mikrotik-based equipment. To clear up any
confusion, I submitted this issue to the FCC via email. Here's my
submission and the FCC response:
_My Submission: _
"For intentional radiators certified under Parts 15.247 and 15.401
must the software allow operation ONLY on FCC permitted frequencies
and at FCC permitted power levels or can an equipment manufacturer
submit a system for certification that includes the ability to
software-select the country of operation as long as U.S. - FCC is
included as one of the selections?"
_FCC Response: _
"The current policy is that the manufacturer must employ some
mechanism on devices marketed in US so that the devices will not
transmit in unauthorized frequencies, and the mechanism must be
outside of control of the users. Therefore the method you mentioned
is not permitted."
Michael, as you suggest, it is not difficult to submit questions to
the FCC. Your questions go a bit beyond mine therefore I welcomed
your offer to submit your questions to the FCC. I don't consider
myself "vocally" pushing anything. I just want to see more WISPs be
able to have access to low-cost certified equipment so 1) They won't
put themselves and their businesses at risk of high monetary fines
and possible shutdowns, and 2) The industry as a whole will benefit
once we shed this "outlaw" image and are seen as responsible
business operators.
Please do *go ahead* and submit your questions to the FCC as you
offered. I'm sure that the answers will be appreciated by a lot of
WISPs.
Respectfully,
jack
Michael Erskine wrote:
Ryan,
A few of you are making a lot of noise.
You seem to want to talk a lot about how MT is not certified and
you say "but if it were"...
Ryan, Why haven't you and those so vocal gone to the FCC with this
question already?
The FCC is but a telephone call away.
http://www.fcc.gov/
It never ceases to amaze me how men and women of obvious
intelligence will debate ad nasuiem
about how some government agency will rule on some topic, but never
will they find the courage
to simply call that agency and ask them. Rather they will wait
till someone suggests it and then
after all the debate and posturing, say, "Yeah, Go ahead! You call
them."
What a joke.
-m-
Ryan Langseth wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 01:09 -0400, Michael Erskine wrote:
Rick;
I think that your opinion is like mine, both informed and
experienced. I am perfectly comfortable with my opinion. And I
did not get into an argument, or even suggest one was somehow a
good idea.
That said, let me also say this. If I don't have to have my
router boards certified without radios because they are not
intentional radiators, then when I add an FCC certified card to
them I still don't have to have them certified because they are
still what they were.
If you tell me that every PC running a pci wireless card has to
be certified then I'll go with suggesting that a single board
computer, which is designed to be a router, should also be
certified like all those PC's otherwise, Rick, I think that both
you and Dawn are incorrect.
1) drivers for the wireless card do not allow you to adjust power.
2) comes with a small rubber ducky ant, not a 15db sector.
This discussion has come up on this list at probably least a dozen
times
since I have joined (less than a year ago). MT is not certified,
end of
chapter. Ask MT they will, most likely, tell you the same thing.
Like I said, I think your opinion is like mine, both informed and
experienced. I don't think you, or I, or Dawn, have the last
word in this matter and I'd be happy to take the issue up with
the FCC to get a reading from them.
Do this, I would like to read the next chapter, if they can get
certified though the PC method, I would take a look at their
product. Ryan
--
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 for Manufacturers and 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/
--
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 for Manufacturers and 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/