On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:52:53PM -0600, Jeff King wrote: > You should have just left it at: > > I agree that having a policy statement or ruling from the FCC would > > be helpful. In that case, your interpretation may be just as valid > > as mine. I just disagree with your take on 15.23. > > As to the rest, it is just idle speculation on both our parts.
Yup. > Can I suggest your time is better spent writing the FCC and asking for a > clarification if what you are looking for is to make a point on the mailing > list? That is all I was asking for... facts, not armchair lawyering. I'll > happily fall on my sword at that point if I am mistaken. I think I am doing something even better, by commenting to the FCC to see if we can get rid of some of these silly certification restrictions. > Otherwise, it is back to the soldering iron hacking that SS WLAN gear. :-) > P.S. What TAPR tried to do was done under part 97, not part 15. Your question was what would qualify for under 15.23. I pointed at TAPR's attempt to build a radio as such an example of what could. The point was, they were designing a building a SS radio that the plans could be given out without "marketing or selling" and could be built by folks going out and getting the right parts and software. Hence it could be used under 97 or 15.23 (assuming it met the spectral and power requirements of 15.247, and other sections as required by 15.23). Tim -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
