-----Original Message-----
From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
Sent: Fri 10/15/2004 11:00 AM
To: arrl-odv
Cc:
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11429] Re: Chilling!

We'll have to see what the actual rules say, but they can't legally alter the obligation of the unlicensed device operator not to cause harmful interference.

 

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota)
Sent: Fri 10/15/2004 6:47 AM
To: arrl-odv
Cc:
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11427] Re: Chilling!

I read that sentence to place the obligation on the unlicensed BPL providers
not to create interference with licensed services.

Jay

-----Original Message-----
From: Wade Walstrom [mailto:walstrom@mchsi.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:34 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11425] Chilling!

Recall earlier I expressed concern about BPL susceptibility to
interference from licensed users and that the FCC had addressed this
issue.  They did today!  This sentence was in the second paragraph of
the FCC press release.

"The rule changes in the Order establish specific technical and
administrative requirements for Access BPL equipment and operators to
ensure that interference does not occur and, should it occur, to provide
for a timely resolution of that harmful interference without disruption
of service to Access BPL subscribers."

This is the most chilling sentence for Amateur Radio of all that were
released.

73,

Wade  W0EJ