<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rss version="2.0" xmlns:blogChannel="http://backend.userland.com/blogChannelModule">

<channel>
<title>Lots of controversy? in </title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r11356375</link>
<description></description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:53:14 EDT</pubDate>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:53:14 EDT</lastBuildDate>

<item>
<title>Lots of controversy?</title>
<link>http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11356375</link>
<description><![CDATA[<A HREF="/useremail/u/123385"><b>korym</b></A> : Seems like a lot of posts here reflect the same type of controversy on the hotspots discussion list, archived at:<br><br>&raquo;<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/hotspots%40wispdirectory.com/msg00016.html" >www.mail-archive.com/hotspots%40&middot;&middot;&middot;016.html</A><br><br>Did the University have the right to try to control a federally-mandated ruling, i.e. the FCC's Part 15?  On the other hand, if the University owns the apartments, could they enforce rules that do not utilize Part 15, i.e. outside OTARD's jurisdiction?<br><br>Interesting.  :)<br><br>Regards,<br>Kory<br><SMALL>--<br><A HREF="http://www.wispdirectory.com/index.php/component/option,com_wrapper/wrap,blog/">WISP & Wi-Fi Hotspot Industry News</SMALL>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11356375</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:43:48 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
