The FCC is speaking with a forked tongue. I have a stack of routers
from Netgear, WITH FCC cert #'s, and one of the first things it asks
is what country I am in. Now Why can Netgear get away with it and not
MT? Jack, Who exactly did you get a response from? I want to pose this
question directly to the same individual.
Jeromie
On 6/11/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are correct on the 5150-5250 sub-band. The article that was posted
implied that it was intentional, but I don't remember any quote that
stated the ISP confessed to intentional illegal use. I seem to remember
they are using it outdoors with significantly higher EIRP.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Jack Unger wrote:
> Brad,
>
> IIRC, the Puerto Rico case involved using the 5150-5250 MHz sub-band
> outdoors. Only indoor operation is allowed in the U.S. in this
> sub-band. The gear they used likely got FCC certified because that
> frequency sub-band IS LEGAL but ONLY INDOORS and only at a very low
> power level. The law-breaking WISP either intentionally broke the law
> or else broke it out of simple ignorance.
>
> jack
>
>
> Brad Belton wrote:
>> 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" <wireless@wispa.org>
>> 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" <wireless@wispa.org>
>>>> 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: 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/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
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/
