Any opinions on this article out there?
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-warns-that-use-of-authorized-equipment-must-comply-with-all-laws-and-rules
http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-warns-that-use-of-authorized-equipment-must-comply-with-all-laws-and-rules
This really really doesn't mean much for HAMS. The trick is that this really has been the same it's always been. You can't take a wifi router or any other device that is licensed to a set of frequencies and use it outside of its licensed use under Part 15. You can't use a HAM radio in GMRS or FRS or Busniess Band.
This applies equally to hams as well. A little realized fact is that there is no such thing as a Part 97 radio. Take a look at the back of any radio you have that was sold for HAM only use, aka your 2m/440 handheld or base station mobile. They all hold part 15 certifications and only part 15 certifications. The only common exception to this is the Boufang and Woxun radios were type certified to Part 90 so they could be imported in bulk to the USA. Ironically these inexpensive radios hold a higher certification (the test transmitter was actually required to meet specs) than most HAM radio gear.
So for those of us installing AREDN and operating on channel -2 or similar we had self certified the deployment once we put our callsign in the "radio" and it becomes an immediate non issue.
Absolutely no negative effect on AREDN.
Every HAM that operates a radio "self certifies" the radio as meeting Part 97 guidelines. We often out a lot of faith in these "untested" radios when the ultimate liability is on us.
you are thinking rationally and logically.
But sadly, in this 21st century... logic is now disregarded, and laws/edics written by executive order. I've worked in commercial 2-way for 25+ years; I've seen the FCC go from having -at its heart- radio guys........ to now having 3 piece suits, no RF expertise, and political party allegiance.
What the FCC is wanting is to require these devices be incapable of being modified for ham (or other uses). If reflashing of Ubiquiti devices is to be made impossible... then it will affect hams.
Oh, I hear ya loud & clear.
But the reality I've had to deal within the past decade (with this newer "FCC") is that it's the worse-case-scenario that eventually happens. And once these type regulations are passed, it almost never gets repealed - or watered-down later on. That's why some show concern early on. It's at these earliest stages where it's our only chance to try and thwart - or re-direct the probable outcome towards a better solution.
From the above linked bulletin:
"hams involved in broadband WiFi networking activities have been modifying commonplace routers for use on Amateur Radio frequencies — and this remains a legal activity,"
That looks like a statement by the FCC saying our activity is legal... Just like a ham modifying a CB radio for use on 10m.
The problem isn't the FCC, it's the WiFi manufacturers who are responding to the FCC's mandate to lock down certain aspects of operation on the 5 GHz NII band by locking down the entire device, including the router. This obviously interferes with our ability to run our own routing code on them.
Unfortunately they have little incentive not to do this. Not only is it the path of least resistance, the cynic in me says that they'd prefer to force users to buy entirely new hardware instead of sending out free software updates to fix bugs in existing units.
Even if the locking was limited to the radio section to satisfy the FCC, it would still keep us from legitimately modifying the radio parameters for operation under amateur rules.
It might ultimately become necessary to change frequencies and powers of commercial units through the use of transverters, and that will be expensive. It's my understanding (Andre, correct me if I'm wrong) that the 3.3 GHz Ubiquitis are actually WiFi units for another band (2.4 GHz?) plus transverters to put them on 3.3 GHz.
3Ghz ubiquiti = 5Ghz device - 2Ghz
900Mhz ubiquiti = 2.4Ghz device - xGhz
Joe AE6XE