OK. Which non-legal channel did you confirm that it transmitted on?
Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> Already looked into that and it does use non legal channels if you
> tell it to. I only "shoot from the hip" when I have a target, and I
> plainly do in this case. "Seek first to understand, and then to be
> understood" is >exactly< why I asked for your contact instead of
> running to the one I have used before. I wanted to be sure to follow
> the topic with the person who said it and get a understanding of the
> issue.
>
>
>
> On 6/11/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jeromie,
>>
>> Before we go accusing the FCC of anything, I'd suggest we test one of
>> your routers and to see if it really transmits outside of the US
>> frequency band.
>>
>> Also, out of respect for eveyone else on this list, please read my
>> previous posts today regarding what "non-US" appears to mean so I
don't
>> have to keep repeating the same explanation over and over every time
>> someone posts the same comment you just posted (I've already
explained
>> this on-list twice today).
>>
>> Now to the testing - please configure one of your routers for "Japan'
>> and then try to transmit on channel 14. Confirm that there is RF
power
>> output centered on 2484 MHz and then please report back with your
>> findings. Once you can confirm that your Netgear is actually
>> transmitting on 2484 MHz, we can proceed to go into the details of
who
>> at the FCC said what.
>>
>> Nothing personal (this issue is bigger than just you or me) but
It's so
>> darn easy to accuse and "shoot from the hip" these days but it's a
lot
>> harder to get factual information and then to try to understand
what's
>> really going on and then figure out a wise and constructive path to
>> follow. As often as I can remember it, I remind myself to "Seek
first to
>> understand, and then to be understood".
>>
>> I look forward to hearing your test results.
>>
>> jack
>>
>>
>> Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>> > 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/
>> >>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
