Sean Breheny wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the FCC is using some mighty "fuzzy" (in the pejorative
> sense!) logic in their arguments in this document!

I'll say. I had a pretty good laugh with the contradictions.
Unfortunately when you're the government you can be completely
wrong, but YOU have the power, and infinite money with which to
cover your ass.

>
> For one thing, they never seem to address why Rocky Mountain's assertion
> that the device doesn't radiate RF between 9kHz and 3GHz is wrong, they
> just say that it is wrong.

Exactly. The regs they cite don't cover the frequency where
the jammer operates.

> Also, They seem to turn the consultant's words upsidedown. Rocky Mountain
> says that their device doesn't generate or radiate any energy. The
> consultant seems to agree,by saying that the only RF component is a mixer
> diode, so it can't radiate any energy on its own, it needs an external
> source. The FCC then says that the consultant's statement actually agrees
> with them and contradicts Rocky Mountain, with no logical statement saying
> why!!!!

We're the FCC. We don't have to make sense. We never HAVE!
We make big bucks selling spectrum to private companies.
Resistance is futile. Your spectrum (hams) will be assimilated.

>
> Sean
>
> At 10:19 PM 3/16/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >The FCC doesn't like radar jammers either.  See
> >
> >http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Compliance/Orders/1997/fcc97404.txt
> >
> >
> >Harold
> >
> >
> |
> | Sean Breheny
> | Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
> | Electrical Engineering Student
> \--------------=----------------
> Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
> Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
> mailto:shb7@cornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174