Response to ATCB Comments

FCC ID: LDK102040

Cover Letter(s)

Download: PDF
FCCID_154357

American Telecommunications Certification Body Inc. 6731 Whittier Ave, McLean, VA 22101 June 1, 2001 RE: Cisco Systems FCC ID: LDK102040 Before I get too far into this report, please be advised there is a big glaring error on the emissions reporting and band edge measurements. 1.) Please refer to the radiated emissions measurements of 7.1.1, 7.1.2, and 7.1.3. On channel one a difference between peak and average is shown to be ~50 dB; on channel 6 this difference is shown to be ~33 dB; on channel 11 it is also shown to be ~33 db. It is impossible for there to be this much variance between peak and average on any direct sequence spread spectrum system not only between low and high channels but anywhere between peak and average. The test was performed with a bridge so that the EUT can communicate with it. During the test the EUT was transmitting and receiving with a duty cycle of 50 percent. This is the reason that there was a substantial difference between the average measurement and the peak measurement. The EUT was set to transmit continuously during the test, with a duty cycle of 100 percent. Please review the updated report. 2.) Please refer to the band edge plots of section 10. The difference between peak and average values indeed is shown to be 30 – 50 db. However the sweep time for all these settings is (assuming I can read the annotation) 20 seconds. It is an impossibility for the same sweep speed to be used on the 1M RBW/ 1M VBW plots as the 1M RBW / 1M VBW plots. The test was performed with a bridge so that the EUT can communicate with it. During the test the EUT was transmitting and receiving with a duty cycle of 50 percent. This is the reason that there was a substantial difference between the average measurement and the peak measurement. The EUT was set to transmit continuously during the test, with a duty cycle of 100 percent. Please review the updated report. Please address. Bill William H. Graff Examining Engineer President and Director of Engineering mailto:whgraff@AmericanTCB.com The items indicated above must be submitted before processing can continue on the above referenced application. Failure to provide the requested information may result in application termination. Correspondence should be considered part of the permanent submission and may be viewed from the Internet after a Grant of Equipment Authorization is issued.

l Page 2 June 5, 2001 Please do not respond to this correspondence using the email reply button. In order for your response to be processed expeditiously, you must submit your documents through the AmericanTCB.com website. Also, please note that partial responses increase processing time and should not be submitted. Any questions about the content of this correspondence should be directed to the sender.


Document Created: 2019-11-15 14:09:33
Document Modified: 2019-11-15 14:09:33
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC