N0JCG
join:2003-07-18
Minneapolis, MN | reply to ctceo
Re: See... I don't understand why you included Comm Abernathy's comments. Her office has already apologized for the overly enthusiastic tone and confirmed that interference prevention is a bedrock issue for the FCC.
RF Engineer is right, BPL will live and die on Part 15.
Let the complaints begin in Manassas! |
|
|
|
| said by N0JCG:
... Comm Abernathy's comments. Her office has already apologized for the overly enthusiastic tone and confirmed that interference prevention is a bedrock issue for the FCC.
That's also reflected in the changes that were made when Commissioner Abernathy subsequently gave this speech to other audiences »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···85A1.doc |
|
| said by Ad astra:
said by N0JCG:
... Comm Abernathy's comments. Her office has already apologized for the overly enthusiastic tone and confirmed that interference prevention is a bedrock issue for the FCC.
That's also reflected in the changes that were made when Commissioner Abernathy subsequently gave this speech to other audiences »hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···85A1.doc
Excerpts from the Kathleen Abernathy speech;
“Regardless of what one thinks about the appropriateness of common carrier regulations or related rules to BPL providers, there should be no doubt that regulators cannot permit new technologies to disrupt the operators of spectrum licensees in adjacent bands.”
“While the FCC has a duty to prevent harmful interference, I believe we should be circumspect about applying other types of regulation to nascent technologies such as BPL.“
We have come a long way from the original misguided statements inspired by the BPL lobbyists. |
|
