Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had
set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have? The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.
So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the
end user
was able to make these changes?
Best,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
This "FCC country-code-lock-down" question is interesting.
Doing a quick "google" I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were
in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
"Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power
level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
the
country in which you use the access point."
Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their
frequencies.
And
"Note Government regulations define the highest allowable power
level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for
the
country in which you use the access point. "
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.
Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.
I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the
device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific
software
version that I can see. Again, the software says on the config
screen "It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio
for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to
turn on
the radio."
So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices
(Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules. These devices appear not to have a
"locked" country ID. Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more
Regards
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June
2007 16:25
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
I have no means of testing that. However, if the hardware can't do
it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified
device have
the option of setting non-FCC?
I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that
would
change what I said. That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't
remember
it. :-p
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to
test and see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the
U.S. band. So far, I've received no confirmation that
outside-the-band transmissions were actually taking place. If you
have equipment that you believe will transmit outside the US band,
please test it yourself and report back. Also, to increase your
understanding and make this discussion more accurate and valuable,
please read my recent posts that provide my more technical opinions
of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC frequencies".
jack
Mike Hammett wrote:
Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard
PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc? Picking a
different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.
Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of
FCC permission?
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
