The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (17017)	10/2/2006 9:37:53 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine	Read Replies (1) of 46821

Hi Frank, Regarding 'Open Spectrum', the real question is of interference correction and enforcement, rather than what the rules are. When the radios do not move, coordination can be required or indicated, like in Part 101. Where radios do move, the base station operators can be held accountable, like in Part 23 or 90.1323 wireless.fcc.gov [which is not available this morning] 47CFR 15.3(c) says Part 15 'operators' will respond to complaints from the FCC or their designees. 47CFR 90.1301 says Part 90 'operators' will repond to complaints from other licensees. In Part 15, noone needs licenses, in the 3650 MHz band, everyone can have a ten year license good anywhere. To date, the Open Spectrum advocates failed to define how to mediate interference without mandating receiver performance specifications [one can imagine that poor receiver designs are more easily interfered with]. First question is whose complaints must be responded to [imagine a similar situation in subways or on the highways]. Second becomes what Spectrum rules should apply at the State or local level [is Bluetooth use a State Department concern? a Homeland Security concern?]. petere

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next