http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20165649 en Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:42:13 EDT Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:42:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20166108 PDXPLT : Oops, left off these: ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20166108 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:35:16 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20165781 RadioDoc : The difference, and you know it, is that Shure's equipment is type accepted. There are no rules which specify that you have to produce a license to buy them. That argument is void.

Those other Part 15 devices you like to use as examples are similarly certified.

These devices can't even get past the type acceptance stage.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20165781 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:32:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20165649 PDXPLT : ... is just start shipping them. Who cares if, "technically", they're not legal? That hasn't stopped Shure and the other wireless microphones companies from shipping their wireless microphones: about 90% of which are used without the Part 74 license that broadcasters and video producers are eligible for, that permits the license holder to legally operate them. So 90% of them are used illegally; the FCC doesn't seem to care. To be fair, the FCC should adopt the same attitude about other types of unlicensed devices operating in the TV white space.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20165649 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:00:02 EDT