|
From: Alexander C. <ale...@gm...> - 2013-03-18 17:23:46
|
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Andrew Back <an...@ca...> wrote: > On 18 March 2013 16:08, Alexander Chemeris <ale...@gm...> wrote: >> Ralph, >> >> Thank you for sharing this. It would be a great help for other people >> if you document this at the wiki with all relevant files attached >> (like application, etc). > > I may be being paranoid about this, but I worry that if regulatory > bodies start receiving "cut and paste applications" they may review > their policies and become a lot more strict. Not forgetting that, in > the UK at least, network operator consent is required before such a > licence is granted. I believe that regulatory bodies should be made aware of the fact how many people want to use this technology. And from interference perspective there is no difference between operating without even trying to apply for a license and operating when you've been denied. So the level of interference won't increase. OTOH, if you're granted a license with the limited set of ARFCNs, the level of interference will decrease. And hopefully regulatory body will learn how to allocate test licenses quickly and efficiently. Thus I don't see how situation could become worse. -- Regards, Alexander Chemeris. CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио http://fairwaves.ru |