osewalrus (osewalrus) wrote,
osewalrus
osewalrus

I'm still worried I'm missing something . . . .

Can it really be that the FCC failed to notice a major problem with its license allocation?

What is odd is that the FCC held a proceeding in 2003, and amended the rules to make some services -- notably large TV translators and other more powerful auxiliary services regulated under 74.600 et seq. -- secondary to any new users. But they appear to have forgotten the low power mobile systems under Section 74.800 et seq. Such things do happen, and in 2003 no one knew Congress would impose a hard deadline in 2005. But I keep thinking I'm missing something important.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments