Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:
I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how interference is to be mitigated. That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air because of same. The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in the mid 1980s....... It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15 devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground to preserve aesthetic standards. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NPRM and VEC | General | |||
BPL NPRM Approved | Policy | |||
BPL NPRM | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse coderequirement. | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |