[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: New FCC proposed rule may exempt Part 15 'Damped Wave'

Hi Will,
          Interesting....

> Original Poster: "Payne, Will E" <will.e.payne-at-lmco-dot-com> 
> 
> The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) with an exception
> to the longstanding prohibition against 'Damped Wave Emissions' as part of a
> new class of "Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems" (UWB) operating at
> bandwidths exceeding 1 GHz or even 10 GHz.  The FCC may allow these
> "DC-to-Blue-Light" emitters under a modified Part 15, or it may open a new
> Rule part to deal with UWB systems.
> 
> The closing date for comments is 07 DEC 98.  
> Complete text and FCC NPRM contact info is at www.altair-dot-org and excerpts
> below.
> 
> makin lil bitty sparks in Georgia
> Will
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 47 CFR Part 15
> > (ET Docket No. 98-153; FCC 98-208)
> > Revision of the Rules Regarding Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems
> > 
> <snip> 
> 
> > SUMMARY:  By  this  Notice  of  Inquiry,  the  Commission  is  initiating
> > a
> > proceeding  to  investigate  the possibility of permitting the operation
> > of
> > ultra-wideband  (UWB) radio systems on an unlicensed basis under its
> > rules.
> > Comments  are  requested  on  the standards and operating requirements
> > that
> > should  be  applied  to  UWB systems to prevent interference to other
> > radio
> > services.
> >  
> <snip>
> 
> >  9. Other matters. There is a prohibition in the rules against the use of
> > a
> > Class  B,  damped  wave  emission.  This  prohibition  stems from a
> > similar
> > International  Telecommunication Union regulation and is a throwback to
> > the
> > days  when spark gap transmitters were employed. There is no longer a
> > clear
> > definition  of  a  Class  B,  damped  wave emission. Should the
> > prohibition
> > against  Class  B,  damped  wave  emissions  apply to UWB systems or is
> > the
> > prohibition  irrelevant,  especially  in  light of the relatively low
> > power
> > levels  employed  by UWB devices? Comments are invited on any other
> > matters
> > or issues that may be pertinent to the operation of UWB systems.
> > 
> <snip>

If it was my country that was considering such a change, I would be 
tempted to bury them in paper on current UWB systems and tell them 
that the prohibition is irrelevant since no-one uses such a mode of 
message transmission any more. Governments like to think they have 
earned their money by simplifying rules (after hours of debate).

:)
Malcolm