Be careful what you wish for. Ever have to work with EU standards? CE compliance? They do things differently in the EU. Everything is spelled out in excruciating detail in the regulations. Absolutely everything. Have a use case that doesn’t match? Tough shit, you can’t do it. Don’t have the specific manufacturer and part numbers? Sorry son, you are out of luck.
I’ll take our ’spirit of the rule’ manner of regulation any day of the week. Mark > On Jul 6, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Matt Hoppes <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote: > > See this is the part I have an issue with with the rules. > > It states I can use higher power for a point to point link but doesn’t state > what kind of antenna I have to use. I could literally use a sector on both > sides of the link and it would be point-to-point. > > Give me that makes the rules pointless. > >> On Jul 6, 2020, at 8:51 AM, Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: >> >> This was something WISPA fought hard for due to the huge impact it would >> have had on full power operation in UNI-III. The original rules would have >> resulted in severe power restrictions on much of the lower half of 5.8. >> The final rule that the FCC accepted was a proposal by Ubiquiti that had >> minimal impact on the UNI-III band. The entire rule change was prompted by >> continued interference by WISP’s and others to the Terminal Doppler Weather >> Radar systems. >> >> There is a current proposal by Radwin that the FCC has been sitting on for >> some time to treat systems like Radwin JET and Cambium’s 450m with MIMO beam >> steering as PTP for purposes of calculating power limits. WISPA and others >> have supported this proposal but so far it has not moved at the FCC. I >> think Radwin also requested action on this as part of a Covid-19 emergency >> response. I did not hear if it was granted. >> >> Mark >> >>> On Jul 5, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com >>> <mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Doing a Google search, I think this is the most recent revision of the 5 >>> GHz rules. It modified a previous order that would move from 15.247 to >>> 15.407 for the entire band, which would have been very bad for us. >>> Basically the use of antenna gain for PTP links would have been outlawed >>> unless you employed expensive filtering. Out of band emissions would have >>> been limited based on radiated power including antenna gain, not conducted >>> power. >>> >>> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/04/06/2016-07847/unlicensed-national-information-infrastructure-order-on-reconsideration >>> >>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/04/06/2016-07847/unlicensed-national-information-infrastructure-order-on-reconsideration> >>> >>> I believe the revised order still causes some equipment to impose lower xmt >>> power on channels near the band edge, for example the last channel next to >>> a DFS sub band. >>> >>> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On >>> Behalf Of Matt Hoppes >>> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 11:56 AM >>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com >>> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Part 15 >>> >>> Ok. Then I’m confused or looking at something wrong. Thanks. >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 5, 2020, at 12:17 PM, Mathew Howard <mhoward...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't know about 450, but ePMP most certainly does allow PTP power >>>> levels on SMs >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 9:55 AM Matt Hoppes >>>> <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net >>>> <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote: >>>>> Epmp. But as far as I know also 450m 5GHz. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 5, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net >>>>>> <mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which ones? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>>>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>>>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >>>>>> From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net >>>>>> <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> >>>>>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com >>>>>> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 9:19:50 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Part 15 >>>>>> >>>>>> So then why don’t cambium subscriber units allow higher power uplink >>>>>> powers from the subscriber? They appear locked as if they were an AP. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2020, at 10:07 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe this was asked of the OET years ago and they agreed with you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Matt Hoppes >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 7:59 AM >>>>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> Subject: [AFMUG] Part 15 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Was looking over the Part 15 rules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is it that would cause a subscriber unit in a PtMP system to not >>>>>>> be considered PtP when returning to the tower? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> “ However, fixed point-to-point U-NII devices >>>>>>> <https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=47929188def4f157fff3cd584f3ba7e3&term_occur=999&term_src=Title:47:Chapter:I:Subchapter:A:Part:15:Subpart:E:15.407> >>>>>>> operating in this band may employ transmitting antennas with >>>>>>> directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction >>>>>>> in transmitter conducted power.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A subscriber unit, unless it’s some kind of relay, is a PtP device. >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>>>> -- >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>-- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
