🚀 go-pugleaf

Thanks for the clarification!

Steve


In article <3cd8277b.26074232@news-server.neo.rr.com>,
 elroy@impaler.com (Elroy the Seedy Impaler) wrote:

> This is how:
> 
> "DA  00- 2225
> September 28, 2000         
> 
> OET Extends Effective Date of Antenna Connector Requirement
> Indefinitely
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2000, the Office of Engineering and Technology, OET, issued
> a Public Notice, DA 00-1087, clarifying 47 CFR 15.203.  This rule
> requires transmitters authorized under Part 15 to be designed in such
> a way as to ensure that no antenna, other than that furnished by the
> responsible party, can be used with the device.  Typically, a
> manufacturer will either design a unique antenna connector or modify a
> commonly available connector to satisfy this requirement.  In the
> Public Notice, we noted several antenna connectors, that were once
> considered unique, have since become common place and no longer
> satisfy the requirement of this rule section.  Hence, effective 30
> days after the date of the Public Notice, these antenna connectors
> would no longer be acceptable for satisfying the requirement in
> Section 15.203.
> 
> On June 22, 2000 we extended the effective date of the antenna
> connector requirement in the Public Notice to October 1, 2000.
> However, a Petition for Reconsideration has been filed and, in order
> to consider the merits of the Petition, we are extending the effective
> date of the Public Notice indefinitely.  After a decision on the
> merits of the Petition has been made, we will address the need for a
> new effective date regarding DA 00-1087.
> 
> Thus, we are extending the effective date of Public Notice, DA
> 00-1087, indefinitely.  
> 
> For further information concerning this Public Notice, contact Joe
> Dichoso at the FCC Laboratory, 7435 Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, Md.
> 21046, (301) 362-3024, or e-mail: jdichoso@fcc.gov."
> 
> I was in the approval process when this happened...you should have
> seen management flip out!!  HAHA!! LOL!!
> 
> Elroy
> 
> 
> 
> On 05 May 2002 06:57:31 GMT, Steve Fenwick
> <no-return-address@see-below.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >In article <5ch2duo9ims5jdvombhb577rpnvlbated9@4ax.com>,
> > Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 1 May 2002 14:40:21 -0700, "Gary Funck" <gary@intrepid.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >What is a TNC-R connector?
> >> 
> >> The FCC had this great idea that if they forced the manufactories to
> >> use non-standard connectors, people would be less tempted to add power
> >> amplifiers and external antennas.  Fat chance.  The TNC-R is a
> >> standard TNC connector, with the center pin as the opposite sex.
> >>     http://www.hyperlinktech.com/web/connectors.html
> >
> >So, how do you think they (and other OEMs) avoid running afoul of the 
> >FCC Public Notice, DA 00-1087, dated May 22, 2000, that essentially 
> >makes RP-TNC (among others) illegal for Section 15.203 transmitters? Are 
> >they really using RP-TNC, or perhaps reverse thread TNC?
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >-- 
> >Steve Fenwick     Anti-spammed address: steve (at) stevefenwick (dot) com
>

-- 
Steve Fenwick     Anti-spammed address: steve (at) stevefenwick (dot) com