----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval
> Mark, > > I agree with you on many of the points that you've been making recently > regarding who should pay (or not pay) for CALEA compliance but with > regard to the meaning of these FCC rules modifications, I disagree with > virtually all of your opinions. There's nothing wrong with that; we are > each entitled to our own opinions. > > Further, I'm not going to keep debating these points with you. I've > stated by beliefs and you've stated yours. Feel free to build and > certify your equipment any way that you see fit and believe is legal. > The discussion that really counts is the one that you have with the FCC. > > Please see my comments inline and good luck. > > jack Well, Jack, I guess we'll ultimately find out what they really mean when when they have to answer questions in plain english. While I"m sure you have more experience reading between the lines than I have... or at least desciphering the legalese they put out, I get what I say from reading the document. Then again, don't forget... there's the law of unintended consequences... that they say stuff without realizing how it can be interpreted. Ultimately, who's going to be the one asking them for clarity here? -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
