Based on the current resolution on the use of wireless networks available at: https://www.mincom.gob.cu/sites/default/files/marcoregulatorio/r_98-19_reglamento_redes_inalambricas.pdf Signed-off-by: Jose Daniel Rodriguez <josedanielr@xxxxxxxxxx> --- db.txt | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt index 32d71f5..b0d6689 100644 --- a/db.txt +++ b/db.txt @@ -372,11 +372,12 @@ country CR: DFS-FCC (5735 - 5835 @ 20), (30) # Source: -# https://www.mincom.gob.cu/es/marco-legal -# - Redes Informáticas -# Resolución 127- 2011 Reglamento de Banda de frecuencias de 2,4 GHz. +# https://www.mincom.gob.cu/sites/default/files/marcoregulatorio/r_98-19_reglamento_redes_inalambricas.pdf country CU: DFS-FCC (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (200 mW) + (5150 - 5350 @ 80), (200 mW), NO-IR, NO-OUTDOOR + (5470 - 5725 @ 80), (250 mW), NO-IR + (5725 - 5850 @ 80), (200 mW) country CX: DFS-FCC (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (20) -- 2.26.0.windows.1 Here is the updated patch. Best, Jose D. > -----Mensaje original----- > De: 'Seth Forshee' <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Enviado el: viernes, 19 de marzo de 2021 10:39 am > Para: Jose Daniel Rodriguez <josedanielr@xxxxxxxxxx> > CC: wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Asunto: Re: wireless-regdb: Update regulatory rules for > Cuba (CU) on 5GHz > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:49:58AM -0400, Jose Daniel Rodriguez wrote: > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > > De: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Enviado el: miércoles, 17 de marzo de 2021 11:18 am > > > Para: Jose Daniel Rodriguez <josedanielr@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > CC: wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Asunto: Re: wireless-regdb: Update regulatory rules for > > > Cuba (CU) on 5GHz > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 10:12:45PM -0500, Jose Daniel Rodriguez wrote: > > > > Hello > > > > > > > > I'm sending this patch to update wireless regulations of Cuba based on > > > > the linked resolution of the Ministry of Communications from 2019. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jose D. > > > > > > > > > > > > PS: The linux-wireless mailing list rejects my messages, it says: > > > > "Your address is not liked source for email". > > > > > > Thanks for the patch. Please remember to include a Signed-off-by tag in > > > patches as indicated in the CONTRIBUTING file. > > > > > > Also note that there is some line wrapping in the email, which makes the > > > patch fail to apply. It's easy to fix up in this case, but something to watch > out > > > for in the future. > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing it out, I already changed my email client settings. I hope > it works as it should. > > > > First, I would like to clarify that the resolution makes a clear differentiation > between legal persons (institutions, organization, companies, etc.) and > natural persons (normal people) and when they refer to private networks it > can be of either type. > > > > I'm not an expert on these topics, so please excuse me if I make any > mistakes. I hope that with your help we can find the right configuration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > db.txt | 7 ++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt > > > > index 32d71f5..e6e26ce 100644 > > > > --- a/db.txt > > > > +++ b/db.txt > > > > @@ -372,11 +372,12 @@ country CR: DFS-FCC > > > > (5735 - 5835 @ 20), (30) > > > > > > > > # Source: > > > > -# https://www.mincom.gob.cu/es/marco-legal > > > > -# - Redes Informáticas > > > > -# Resolución 127- 2011 Reglamento de Banda de frecuencias de 2,4 > GHz. > > > > +# > > > > > https://www.mincom.gob.cu/sites/default/files/marcoregulatorio/r_98-19 > > > > _regla > > > > mento_redes_inalambricas.pdf > > > > country CU: DFS-FCC > > > > (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (200 mW) > > > > + (5150 - 5350 @ 80), (200 mW), NO-IR, NO-OUTDOOR > > > > > > I'm reading a machine translation of the document, which isn't a great > > > translation. There I see power limits for "Internet Service Providers to > public" > > > and for "Public service operators of telecommunications." Does this mean > > > that private networks are not allowed in this range? If so, this range > should > > > probably be omitted. > > > > > > > My interpretation was that if "Internet Service Providers to public" are > allowed to use this range then the "public" should be allowed to use it too, > but they don't define what is the public, so you are probably right about > omitting this range. > > > > > What provision necessitates the NO-IR flag, both here and for 5470-5725 > > > MHz? > > > > > > > As this range and the previous are allowed for legal persons to provide > service to the public but they don't explicitly allow natural person, I set the > NO-IR flag, so it's the former who irradiate first and the natural person be > able to associate. Notice that by the resolution these two ranges are only > allowed to legal persons. > > That makes sense to an extent. I think the way NO-IR is implemented > would prevent active scan, ibss, etc, but it would not stop setting up > an AP in this range. But omitting it could prevent clients from > connecting to legitimate APs. There's not really a perfect answer here, > but what you've done is probably the best compromise available. So I > guess this is okay. > > > > > > > + (5470 - 5725 @ 80), (200 mW), NO-IR > > > > > > I don't see any EIRP limit below 250 mW for this range, so why 200 mW? > > > > As they don't explicitly allow natural persons, and therefore, they don't > mention its power limits in these ranges, I (maybe wrongly) took the same > limits as in the range where they do allow natural persons. > > I see no reason this cannot be 250 mW. > > Could you send an update with this limit rasied, and with a > Signed-off-by tag? > > Thanks, > Seth > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Seth > > > > > > > + (5725 - 5850 @ 80), (200 mW) > > > > > > > > country CX: DFS-FCC > > > > (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (20) > > > > -- > > > > 2.26.0.windows.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > wireless-regdb mailing list > > > > wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb > > > > As you see, these three issues have the same cause, which is whether we > should allow the ranges 5150 - 5350 and 5470-5725. I would like to leave the > decision to you, I will be fine with whatever you recommend. > > > > Should I send a new patch with the fixes after you reply? > > > > Thank you, > > Jose D. > > > > _______________________________________________ wireless-regdb mailing list wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb
