So we are now going to start thinking that a do-it-yourself access point on a tower is the same as a wireless laptop computer on a desk? If people are now going to start believing things like this, then it clearly is obvious that many WISPS are just interpreting the rules the way that they want to. I have an idea for a precedent-setting test that may put them more at ease with their decision to self-regulate.
How about this: One of you who is using build it yourself stuff please call the FCC and invite them to inspect your company. Tell them that you have assembled your own access points and CPEs from modular components and that none of the devices are type accepted as a system. Make sure you have an SBC in there somewhere (make/model is not important). After the inspection, you'll have the exclusive opportunity to find out whether or not you are correct in your own interpretation. Publish the findings here and we'll know for sure who is right- you, or the FCC. In order to close the loop, the volunteer needs to be one of you who has adamantly admitted to creating his own "systems". Since you are willing to post about your own special interpretation of what is allowed by the FCC in this archived, searchable public forum, then you should have no problem eating your own dog food and becoming the poster child. I'm telling you: In 30 years of licensed radio (Commercial 2-way as well as Amateur), I have learned at least one thing. NEVER ask the FCC for an interpretation, because you will not like the answer you get. They will always interpret in the most conservative way they can- usually telling you that you can't do what you wanted to do. I'd really love to see what the end result is and how much you do or don't get fined! Who's the volunteer? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble I understood that was the way it was until perhaps yesterday when someone brought up the issue of PC's with add in wireless cards being in no way different than what we do. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble > Mike, > > What Marlon said IS NOT OPINION. The only way you can be legal is to > certify a system as a whole. You might want to take a look at the ADI link > I posted and maybe this will help you understand what is required to > become certified. You must have all the components certified together. > > Is it that I keep misunderstanding what you are trying to say? But I > feel > like this has been discussed before in no uncertain terms. > > Regards, > Dawn DiPietro > > Mike Hammett wrote: >> So you're saying (in your opinion, not necessarily any bearing on >> what >> the FCC actually requires) when we have certified SBCs, we'd be able to >> go that route? Those that are running a certified radio with no amp (who >> uses that garbage anymore) into an antenna with equal or lower gain on a >> PC based system run a good chance of being legal? >> >> >> ----- >> 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: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:39 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >> >> >>> It works like this Doug. >>> >>> A radio card is an intentional radiator. Under part 15 rules it can >>> only be sold as a part of a certified system. That means if you put the >>> radio card in a computer and it's designed to be used in a computer >>> either with it's own built in antenna or the antenna build into the >>> computer that's ok. As long as it's CERTIFIED that way. >>> >>> If you take that same card, hook a pigtail to it and put an amp on >>> it. >>> You are out of compliance. If you put an antenna larger than the one >>> certified, you are out of compliance. If you put a different type of >>> antenna than it was certified with (yagi to grid or panel to omni etc.) >>> you are out of compliance. >>> >>> The thing that's screwing us all up with MT, StarOS and others like >>> that >>> is that they don't have ANY certified systems available to us. >>> >>> And, if you look on LEGAL computer boards, even though they are >>> UN-intentional radiators, they will have an FCC certification on them. >>> Many of the war board type devices don't have that FCC logo on them. >>> >>> Yes the rule is silly. Yes it's widely ignored, even by the FCC. >>> No, >>> uncertified systems don't seem to be a problem in the real world. >>> >>> However, do YOU want to take a chance on having YOUR customers go >>> dark >>> because you want to ignore the rules? Do you really want to give your >>> competition that much ammunition against you? >>> >>> I have the contacts, forms to fill out etc. just waiting for me to >>> get >>> the time to take this issue on as part of the FCC committee's job. We >>> have basically no FCC committee though. The principal membership >>> doesn't seem to be all that interested in anything other than whining >>> about the work that other people do. No one wants to step up and take >>> on the hard issues. >>> >>> When I get done with the CALEA work (that's costing me 2 to 4 hours >>> per >>> DAY and others are working harder than I am!!!!) I'll write up a >>> petition to get this certified system rule changed. Ideally I'd like to >>> get a real pro installer mechanism in place so that joe q public still >>> has to buy certified systems, but we could just buy certified >>> components. >>> >>> Or, if anyone would like to take this issue on, I've got a bit of a >>> road >>> map and some basic language worked out already :-). >>> >>> In the mean time, run an honest legal business as much as you >>> possibly >>> can. >>> >>> laters, >>> marlon >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Ratcliffe" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:27 PM >>> Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble >>> >>> >>>> But the base product, the "computer" does not start life as an >>>> intentional >>>> radiator. So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an >>>> intentional radiator as a whole? >>>> >>>> When you add a wireless card? That would land Dell, HP and Compaq >>>> in a >>>> load >>>> of trouble. But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different >>>> than >>>> an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas? >>>> >>>> I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm >>>> talking >>>> about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them >>>> after the >>>> sale. >>>> >>>> I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an >>>> intentional >>>> radiator? At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and >>>> power >>>> supply, which become a "Personal Computer". At the end of the day, you >>>> add >>>> a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then? >>>> >>>> Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense. >>>> Cisco Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro >>>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble >>>> >>>> Sam, >>>> >>>> Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run >>>> a WISP I will let you decide from this information provided. >>>> >>>> Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the >>>> wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers. >>>> http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dawn DiPietro >>>> >>>> >>>> Sam Tetherow wrote: >>>>> I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB >>>>> can be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna >>>>> combo as is allowed with a PC/laptop. And you are right that then >>>>> FCC makes the rules. What is not clear is that Dawn's (and >>>>> others) position that the component rules can not apply to an RB >>>>> or other SBC. The only people that can clarify this is the FCC. >>>>> >>>>> As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major >>>>> factors that come into play with uncertified gear. There are >>>>> several that deployed the equipment under the false impression >>>>> that it was legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and >>>>> many still persist in this belief). The other is the simple fact >>>>> that no one has been fined, to my knowledge, for using uncertified >>>>> gear. There have been instances of people that have been fined >>>>> for using over EIRP and unauthorized use of licensed bands. >>>>> >>>>> If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made >>>>> unofficial statements to the effect that they are more worried >>>>> about EIRP and 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not >>>>> follow the law. As you pointed out most people regularly break >>>>> the speed limit, which is a law with an associated fine but they >>>>> continue to do so because the fine is not large enough or incurred >>>>> often enough to make it an effective deterrent. >>>>> >>>>> Sam Tetherow >>>>> Sandhills Wireless >>>>> >>>>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>>>>> This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience >>>>>> is irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of >>>>>> customers (including me) understand and agree with the position >>>>>> presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not >>>>>> Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate >>>>>> statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is >>>>>> required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, >>>>>> but that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive >>>>>> over the speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Matt >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/836 - Release Date: >>>> 6/6/2007 >>>> 1:10 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/ > -- 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/
