Amateur Radio v. Part 15

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Personally  the we are the greatest attitude of ARRL annoys me. djf


Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:49:11 -0800
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Amateur Radio v. Part 15
Sender: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
X-Sender: dewayne () warpspeed com@mail.warpspeed.com
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>


[Note:  This in from friend Michael Calabrese.  I've known that this has 
been in the works for some time now.  I'll have more to say later about my 
view on all this.  For now, I'm just posting this item and will post more 
items that inform on the issue as I see them.  DLH]

At 16:44 -0500 11/2/03, Michael Calabrese wrote:
> Subject: FW: Amateur Radio v. Part 15
> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:44:13 -0500
> From: "Michael Calabrese" <Calabrese () newamerica net>
> To: "Open Spectrum Group (E-mail)" <openspectrum () media mit edu>
> Cc: "Dewayne Hendricks (E-mail)" <dewayne () warpspeed com>
>
> I thought this list would be interested in ARRL's legal challenge to the 
> FCC's authority to allow unlicensed band sharing under Part 15 Rules (fyi, 
> Stanford and Northeastern University advanced this argument in their 
> ITFS/MDS comments; it had previously been made by Cingular).  The summary 
> below is from an attorney organizing a coalition of companies to defend 
> Part 15 (name at bottom).  / Michael
>
>
> ARRL, an association of amateur radio interests, yesterday filed an action 
> in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that challenges the 
> FCC's authority to permit operation of unlicensed devices under Part 15 of 
> its rules.
>
> The action seeks review of an FCC rulemaking that increased the permitted 
> field strength from unlicensed devices using highly directional antennas 
> in the 24.05-24.25 GHz band.  But an adverse decision in the case could 
> potentially affect unlicensed operation not just in that band, but in any 
> band shared with licensed users. Those include, among others, 902-928, 
> 2400-2483.5, and 5725-5825 MHz, as well as 5150-5250 MHz (U-NII) and 
> 5470-5725 MHz (proposed U-NII).
>
> ARRL argues the Communications Act does not permit the FCC to authorize 
> unlicensed operation of transmitters that have "substantial interference 
> potential" to interfere with licensed operations.  The FCC did not 
> squarely address this question, but instead found the 24 GHz devices were 
> non-interfering.  The issue ARRL raises thus may not be ripe for review by 
> the courts.
>
> I hope to pull together a coalition of companies interested in Part 15 
> issues to assist the FCC in opposing this action.  Please let me know if 
> you are interested in principle.  There is no commitment at this 
> stage.  IMPORTANT EXCEPTION:  Those receiving this email having 
> telecommunications counsel other myself are requested to forward this 
> email to their counsel, with a request that he or she contact me.  This is 
> not a solicitation of companies that are presently represented.
>
> Mitchell Lazarus
> Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
> 703-812-0440 (voice)
> 703-812-0486 (fax)
> 301-537-7278 (mobile)
> MLazarus () alum MIT edu
> www.fhhlaw.com

Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net>
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/