Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: FCC on ARRL Part 15 - "overly conservative"


From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 15:29:10 -0500

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>

[Note: This item comes from reader Benn Kobb. The ARRL has been trying to get the FCC to rule on this issue for some time. Now they have, but the key statement is buried in a R&O that one would not normally associate with the matter. My kudos to Benn for digging this one up! DLH]

At 7:01 -0800 12/15/01, Bennett Kobb wrote:
From: Bennett Kobb <bkobb () newsignals com>
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: FCC on ARRL Part 15 - "overly conservative"
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 07:01:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0

This excerpt is from the FCC 24 GHz order released on Dec. 14 (FCC 01-357)
:

"ARRL asserts that the Commission must at some point acknowledge that Part 15 devices, "[A]re allowed under the Communications Act only where they have no interference potential to licensed services." We do not agree with this viewpoint. The Communications Act of 1934 as amended provides that, " [T]he Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations (1) governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications...."

"ARRL's interpretation of this authority is overly conservative. The operating requirements of Part 15 appropriately provide a means for allowing unlicensed devices to share spectrum with licensed services with little risk of interference to licensed services. If interference does occur, these rules provide adequate protection to licensed services by requiring the unlicensed device to cease operation until the problem is corrected. The rules permit the creation and advancement of new and innovative unlicensed low power products and services."

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


Current thread: