[Lowfer] Re: Group Part-5 license for LF???

[Mike Staines]

Bill said...

> I think your examples below have more to do with theft of services and
> eavesdropping on private conversations than questionable receiving of a
> permitted frequencies that carry, basically, public domain information. I
> can't speak for all Pt 5  transmissions, but there's no way that anyone
> could get in trouble by listening to the type of experimental
> transmissions
> that we are planning to send (except for the possibility of someone going
> insane after copying a typical Friday night session :)). Perhaps some
> details covering the types of planned information content could
> be placed in
> the application, if this is a concern.

If you could tell me the difference between listening to a cell phone and
listening to a cordless phone then I might agree with you. I was responding
to Alberto's question rather than commenting directly on the Part 5 license
issue.

My points, probably poorly articulated, were that (a) the FCC generally does
not want services to "communicate" and (2) we could be doing the cause great
harm in trying to communicate where we regulation says we shouldn't. I also
wanted to point out that it is not simple to say to the FCC "we know there
is a regulation against this but please give us license to do this anyway."
It doesn't work like that.

Mike
wa1ptc