On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:12:45AM -0800, cory novak wrote: >> (sorry if this is a duplicate, got a 'we don't accept html mails' error back) >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: cory novak <cory.novak at gmail.com> >> Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:07 AM >> Subject: possible mismatch Canadian regulatory info >> To: wireless-regdb at lists.infradead.org >> >> >> I really tried to use alternate mediums before bothering this list >> with info that appears to me to be mismatched, but, could easily >> simply be a result of my lack of knowledge. Here's my info: >> >> >> Canada values from this source: >> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/sforshee/wireless-regdb.git/tree/db.txt?id=HEAD >> >> For Canada (5170 - 5250 is where I'm focusing): >> >> country CA: DFS-FCC >> (2402 - 2472 @ 40), (30) >> (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW >> (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW >> (5490 - 5600 @ 80), (24), DFS >> (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (24), DFS >> (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30) >> >> *SEEM* to differ to my completely amateur eye vs industry canada >> section 6.2 here: >> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf10971.html#s6.2 >> >> This is the applicable text for that band: >> >> "The maximum e.i.r.p. shall not exceed 200 mW or 10 + 10 log10B, dBm, >> whichever power is less. B is the 99% emission bandwidth in megahertz. >> The e.i.r.p. spectral density shall not exceed 10 dBm in any 1.0 MHz >> band." >> >> An easier source to parse for the IC data : >> http://www.semfionetworks.com/blog/industry-canada-new-5ghz-band-regulations >> >> This is the output from my Archer C2600: * 5180 MHz [36] (17.0 dBm) >> * 5200 MHz [40] (17.0 dBm) >> * 5220 MHz [44] (17.0 dBm) >> * 5240 MHz [48] (17.0 dBm) >> >> >> It appears that the 5170-5250 band is way under spec at 17dbm instead of 23dbm. > > It looks to me like you are correct. Would you like to send a patch? Or > if you aren't familiar with patching the regulatory db I can generate > one. > > Thanks, > Seth > Hi Seth Just a dumb user here, I'd appreciate it if you'd go ahead. thanks :) Cory
