I noticed an interesting typo in the letter:
"... must be submitted to us within thirty (20) calendar days of the
date of this letter."
I imagine, like financial documents, that the spelled out quantity
prevails.
-- Andy Oppel, N6AJO
At 12:51 PM 5/23/2007, w3kd@aol.com wrote:
Greetings.
One small toss of a bone to us is attached. I received today two copies,
one certified and one not, of the attached, somewhat confusing request
from FCC's Enforcement Bureau to Ambient Corporation. Ambient operates a
dirty BPL system in Briarcliff Manor, NY that Ed Hare has measured
numerous times in the BPLmobile.
This is little more than a request for measurement data, if any exists
which has not yet been shredded by Ambient. This BPL facility is
operating pursuant to a Part 5Â experimental license but has not filed a
complete response to the conditions of the authorization. Nor has it
responded to an FCC March 16, 2007Â letter requesting compliance
information. It had 30 days to respond to that, but failed.Â
Ambient is a trash operator, and this letter is a good thing. But let's
put it in perspective. FCC says they are investigating our complaint
dated March 29, 2006, well more than a year ago. And the investigation is
just beginning. Why so long? Perhaps FCC wanted to make sure that no BPL
installations were deterred by unnecessary interference
enforcement.
Still, one hopes that there is presently some interference left up there,
since no other complaints of BPL interference are active at the moment.
It would be unfortunate if nothing was left of the interference we have
barked about for so long now.
73, Chris W3KD
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at
AOL.com
.
Andy Oppel
andy@andyoppel.com
andy_oppel@alamedanet.net