On 7/5/22 15:27, Glenn Kelley wrote:
I fully expect this to come down to someone needing to be an "engineer."
From an FCC standpoint, at one time an FCC-issued operator license was
required to maintain licensed radio equipment. First Class for radio and
television broadcasting, Second Class
On 7/5/22 18:27, Glenn Kelley wrote:
I fully expect this to come down to someone needing to be an "engineer."
The term "Professional Engineer" is a protected term in all 50 US states
to my knowledge. It requires the qualifications and licensure you'd
expect with the typical path being ABET
I fully expect this to come down to someone needing to be an "engineer."
I went through some hell using the name Connectivity Engineer in Virginia.
So much so that I tend not to take jobs there if I can help it.
Other states - not a problem.
I have a ton of certifications with the name engineer
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 11:52 AM Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 7/5/22 1:58 PM, Andrew Latham wrote:
> > I read https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-543A1.pdf and a PE
> is
> > not required.
>
> I'd agree.
>
> 47 CFR § 1.7004(d)
> "All providers also shall submit a certification of the
As of last week our discussions with the FCC have still not determined the
official ruling. Again, my personal opinion is that it will not require a
PE stamp but rather depend on an individual to be a professional engineer.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 3:39 PM Andrew Latham wrote:
> Josh, you are
Josh, you are correct, I linked to the wrong document.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 1:36 PM Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Where does it say that it is or is not required? This is a request for
> clarification filed by the CCA.
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 1:59 PM Andrew Latham wrote:
>
>> I read
Andrew,
Where does it say that it is or is not required? This is a request for
clarification filed by the CCA.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 1:59 PM Andrew Latham wrote:
> I read https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-543A1.pdf and a PE
> is not required.
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 9:47 AM
On 7/5/22 1:58 PM, Andrew Latham wrote:
> I read https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-543A1.pdf and a PE is
> not required.
I'd agree.
47 CFR § 1.7004(d)
"All providers also shall submit a certification of the accuracy of its
submissions by a qualified engineer. The engineering
Yeah the big thing I’ve seen is that companies have historically over claimed
on their 477 reports in weird and interesting ways. I understand why and how
it happens, for example, if we do a HH meet for service at location X in census
tract 2020-01 and I have a 2 mile loop to location Y in
I read https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-543A1.pdf and a PE is
not required.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 9:47 AM KCI Dave Logan via NANOG
wrote:
> Hi all. We operate a small regional ISP in Colorado, but no size is too
> small to ignore the FCC, as you all know.
>
> We're really
Brian Webster (of wirelessmapping.com) has partnered with Carmeron Crum to
address BDC reporting here: https://www.regulatorysolutions.us/index.html
And if you are a member of WISPA, there's been discussions and some good
webinars there.
Thanks,
Brough
Brough Turner
netBlazr Inc. – Free your
Reach out to the folks at IP Architechs (https://iparchitechs.com/),
Readitech (https://engr.readitech.com/) or any of the good PE firms and
they can help.
-- Tom
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:44 AM KCI Dave Logan via NANOG
wrote:
> Hi all. We operate a small regional ISP in Colorado, but no size
There still is no clarification on the requirement of an official PE stamp.
My personal feeling is that if it's not decided by now, the week after
filing opens, it would be an unreasonable burden for filers. I believe
it's more "professional engineer" like a CPNI for CBRS.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022
Hi all. We operate a small regional ISP in Colorado, but no size is too small
to ignore the FCC, as you all know.
We're really struggling to find the required engineer for the filing, and we're
small enough that we don't have an officer with engineering credentials.
Any pointers in the
14 matches
Mail list logo
