What the FCC could do to help.
Please, can someone at the FCC provide us with some clarification?
Over the last few months I have sat down, written about and promptly discarded perhaps a dozen different attempts at trying to deal with an exceptionally difficult issue. Having tried several different approaches including humor I just can’t seem to present this issue in a way I feel comfortable with, while at the same time realizing this is something that needs to be said.
Let’s talk FCC.
If you stop to think about it, I am convinced that any sane person given the authority to oversee the responsibility the FCC is charged with would quite conceivably lose their mind. While this statement could very easily apply to the politics, I am limiting my comments to the technical aspects of the job as it applies to the WISP and consumer wireless LAN industry.
The first time anyone reads the Part-15 regulations you can be sure they undoubtedly walked away with a few questions. Thankfully, the FCC regularly issues clarifications to help continue this process. Last year the FCC decided to make some changes to the Part-15 regulations assumably prompted by the WISP industry and the manufacturers of our equipment.
Among the many other topics under consideration was the “on-the-fly” substitution of antennas in the field by professional installers, the unique connector restriction and some kind of uniformity for the level of allowable output power. When the new changes were announced many of us had difficulty interpreting what had actually been mandated.
Let’s start with the easiest one of the three I have singled out, the unique connector rule. Basically (as I understand it) the purpose of this regulation is to keep the average consumer from attaching different combinations of wireless LAN hardware together at their discretion – a scary thought if you stop to contemplate the potential there.
Unfortunately, as best I can see, the intention has largely failed and I would suggest needs to be abandoned. Let me offer some evidence to highlight this point. Right now, anyone can go to Buy.com and purchase this antenna for $9.99 after rebate. This antenna comes with an adapter to connect it to both Reverse-SMA and TNC connectors so you can use it with most of the popular wireless LAN devices. While I don’t know for sure, I would speculate that Hawking didn’t certify this antenna with most of the popular brands and even if they did, how would the consumer know (assuming they actually cared) which brands were acceptable for this antenna to be used with.
Perhaps I am being a little picky choosing a 6db antenna to single out. How about a 500mw amp? Hawking has you covered and at a price the consumer can easily afford.
In the description, we are told, “The Hawking Signal Booster is the only range boosting product on the market with support for all major wireless brands and networks.” Well, I am not sure where I would find a list of approved “major wireless brands and networks” but if it’s written on the Internet, it must be true, right? To ensure compatibility this unit comes with a SMA adapter. Here’s what PC Universe has to say about this unit. “The Hawking Wireless Signal Booster connects to the antenna connector (SMA default; connector adapters are available for multiple brand support) of your wireless access point or wireless adapter.”
As you can see, the unique connector rule and the system certification regulations concerning which antennas may be used with what radios is being completely ignored by not only the major manufacturers but largely by consumers also. For a better understanding of this Ebay drives this point home at any given moment.
This search returns over 100 items ranging from antennas to cables any of which can be purchased by anyone to connect to just about anything they might want.
My fear is that as long as the FCC turns a blind eye to this insanity many people will continue to use whatever they wish while professional WISPs will be caught trying to comply with laws that are largely ignored.
This brings up a side issue that is brought up from time to time. Why don’t WISPs have more interaction with the FCC? I believe the answer is that many WISPs have concerns as to their compliance status and announcing themselves to the FCC might not be in their best interest. It is exactly this point, which I believe speaks volumes as to how the FCC needs to move forward. Most WISPs I am familiar with want to follow the regulations and are not looking forward to incurring the wrath of the FCC. At the same time, as long as the consumer is able to openly purchase these parts at will many WISPs will continue to do the same.
Maybe it’s time for the FCC to consider rewriting the regulations once again doing away with the unique connector law along with the allowance of antenna substitution at will by anyone with the understanding that should anyone break the EIRP limits they will come under scrutiny.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of output power. If there was ever anything that has caused more confusion in our industry this has got to be the one thing that drives many of us crazy.
Recently, at WISPNOG, (by all accounts a fantastic event) the question was asked if a CPE was considered a PtP (Point to Point) device or a PtMP (Point to Multi Point) device. This question is critical as the allowable power is significantly different for a PtP device than a PtMP device. At this time, most WISPs I know use the PtMP power limits for their CPE as we have been repeatedly told that this is how the FCC views CPE radios. Apparently, a representative from the FCC publicly stated that CPE are now considered a PtP link, which does qualify them for the higher output power levels. This would make sense as the CPE only talks to one device hence making it a PtP link.
Now, if that is the case, what about an access point? Reduced to its most basic access points only talk to one device at a time, right? Why doesn’t this qualify as a PtP device? There is no doubt that we are not using these devices as a multicast device (at least, not that I am aware of) and since each AP only talks to one CPE at a time there needs to be some clarification as to why this isn’t allowed the higher output power.
In the last round of rule changes I believe the FCC was attempting to address this issue. There is language included in this rule revision suggesting that sector antennas could be used but as yet I don’t believe anyone is completely sure exactly what is detailed in that section so most (if not all) WISPs are steering clear of the change.
Clouding the issue even further is Vivato, who somehow managed to convince the FCC that their system was somehow better or perhaps more efficient than the run-of-the-mill equipment. This brings up an interesting point that certainly needs to be explored. If it can be clearly demonstrated that steerable beam antennas are more efficient, should they be allowed a higher output power? If that is the case, should this device from Netgear be allowed to hit these higher EIRP levels? The RangeMax line that is “soon-to-be-released” by Netgear utilizes seven radios and antennas to create a steerable beam antenna system.
In closing, I do understand that I am asking for some kind of uniformity in the rules that regulate our industry approaches the complexity of the unified field theory but this is something I believe is holding our industry back. The time has come for the FCC to take a hard look at how the Part-15 regulations have evolved, consider how they can be simplified and rewrite the entire set of regulations to allow for some kind of easily understandable compliance. Without doubt, this will be a complicated task - full of discourse and argument - but the rewards (in my opinion) will be more than worth it.
Over the last few months I have sat down, written about and promptly discarded perhaps a dozen different attempts at trying to deal with an exceptionally difficult issue. Having tried several different approaches including humor I just can’t seem to present this issue in a way I feel comfortable with, while at the same time realizing this is something that needs to be said.
Let’s talk FCC.
If you stop to think about it, I am convinced that any sane person given the authority to oversee the responsibility the FCC is charged with would quite conceivably lose their mind. While this statement could very easily apply to the politics, I am limiting my comments to the technical aspects of the job as it applies to the WISP and consumer wireless LAN industry.
The first time anyone reads the Part-15 regulations you can be sure they undoubtedly walked away with a few questions. Thankfully, the FCC regularly issues clarifications to help continue this process. Last year the FCC decided to make some changes to the Part-15 regulations assumably prompted by the WISP industry and the manufacturers of our equipment.
Among the many other topics under consideration was the “on-the-fly” substitution of antennas in the field by professional installers, the unique connector restriction and some kind of uniformity for the level of allowable output power. When the new changes were announced many of us had difficulty interpreting what had actually been mandated.
Let’s start with the easiest one of the three I have singled out, the unique connector rule. Basically (as I understand it) the purpose of this regulation is to keep the average consumer from attaching different combinations of wireless LAN hardware together at their discretion – a scary thought if you stop to contemplate the potential there.
Unfortunately, as best I can see, the intention has largely failed and I would suggest needs to be abandoned. Let me offer some evidence to highlight this point. Right now, anyone can go to Buy.com and purchase this antenna for $9.99 after rebate. This antenna comes with an adapter to connect it to both Reverse-SMA and TNC connectors so you can use it with most of the popular wireless LAN devices. While I don’t know for sure, I would speculate that Hawking didn’t certify this antenna with most of the popular brands and even if they did, how would the consumer know (assuming they actually cared) which brands were acceptable for this antenna to be used with.
Perhaps I am being a little picky choosing a 6db antenna to single out. How about a 500mw amp? Hawking has you covered and at a price the consumer can easily afford.
In the description, we are told, “The Hawking Signal Booster is the only range boosting product on the market with support for all major wireless brands and networks.” Well, I am not sure where I would find a list of approved “major wireless brands and networks” but if it’s written on the Internet, it must be true, right? To ensure compatibility this unit comes with a SMA adapter. Here’s what PC Universe has to say about this unit. “The Hawking Wireless Signal Booster connects to the antenna connector (SMA default; connector adapters are available for multiple brand support) of your wireless access point or wireless adapter.”
As you can see, the unique connector rule and the system certification regulations concerning which antennas may be used with what radios is being completely ignored by not only the major manufacturers but largely by consumers also. For a better understanding of this Ebay drives this point home at any given moment.
This search returns over 100 items ranging from antennas to cables any of which can be purchased by anyone to connect to just about anything they might want.
My fear is that as long as the FCC turns a blind eye to this insanity many people will continue to use whatever they wish while professional WISPs will be caught trying to comply with laws that are largely ignored.
This brings up a side issue that is brought up from time to time. Why don’t WISPs have more interaction with the FCC? I believe the answer is that many WISPs have concerns as to their compliance status and announcing themselves to the FCC might not be in their best interest. It is exactly this point, which I believe speaks volumes as to how the FCC needs to move forward. Most WISPs I am familiar with want to follow the regulations and are not looking forward to incurring the wrath of the FCC. At the same time, as long as the consumer is able to openly purchase these parts at will many WISPs will continue to do the same.
Maybe it’s time for the FCC to consider rewriting the regulations once again doing away with the unique connector law along with the allowance of antenna substitution at will by anyone with the understanding that should anyone break the EIRP limits they will come under scrutiny.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of output power. If there was ever anything that has caused more confusion in our industry this has got to be the one thing that drives many of us crazy.
Recently, at WISPNOG, (by all accounts a fantastic event) the question was asked if a CPE was considered a PtP (Point to Point) device or a PtMP (Point to Multi Point) device. This question is critical as the allowable power is significantly different for a PtP device than a PtMP device. At this time, most WISPs I know use the PtMP power limits for their CPE as we have been repeatedly told that this is how the FCC views CPE radios. Apparently, a representative from the FCC publicly stated that CPE are now considered a PtP link, which does qualify them for the higher output power levels. This would make sense as the CPE only talks to one device hence making it a PtP link.
Now, if that is the case, what about an access point? Reduced to its most basic access points only talk to one device at a time, right? Why doesn’t this qualify as a PtP device? There is no doubt that we are not using these devices as a multicast device (at least, not that I am aware of) and since each AP only talks to one CPE at a time there needs to be some clarification as to why this isn’t allowed the higher output power.
In the last round of rule changes I believe the FCC was attempting to address this issue. There is language included in this rule revision suggesting that sector antennas could be used but as yet I don’t believe anyone is completely sure exactly what is detailed in that section so most (if not all) WISPs are steering clear of the change.
Clouding the issue even further is Vivato, who somehow managed to convince the FCC that their system was somehow better or perhaps more efficient than the run-of-the-mill equipment. This brings up an interesting point that certainly needs to be explored. If it can be clearly demonstrated that steerable beam antennas are more efficient, should they be allowed a higher output power? If that is the case, should this device from Netgear be allowed to hit these higher EIRP levels? The RangeMax line that is “soon-to-be-released” by Netgear utilizes seven radios and antennas to create a steerable beam antenna system.
In closing, I do understand that I am asking for some kind of uniformity in the rules that regulate our industry approaches the complexity of the unified field theory but this is something I believe is holding our industry back. The time has come for the FCC to take a hard look at how the Part-15 regulations have evolved, consider how they can be simplified and rewrite the entire set of regulations to allow for some kind of easily understandable compliance. Without doubt, this will be a complicated task - full of discourse and argument - but the rewards (in my opinion) will be more than worth it.
posted by Next Generation Communications at
7:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home