On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:53:32PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > Hello Mr. Forshee, > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:16:57PM -0400, Seth Forshee wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 04:49:42PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > I can't read the document you reference above, and my own searches don't > > seem to turn up anything authoritative. I consider the source of the > > original 20 dBm limit reliable, but it was added in 2013 so it's > > possible things have changed since then. > > Yes, my own Internet research didn't turn up much either. > > > > I'll give a few days for any other comments, and if there are none I > > will apply the change. > > From my POV this is a very appreciable policy. > > So: > - we've got a hard cert requirement > - provided specs are not nearly as hard (ahem) > - so, have it applied after some suitable complaint period > - then, this limit will be globally in effect in certain "less decipherable" countries ;-), > and if there happens to be a problem, the properly country-prolific users there > will then be able to > provide much more precise/direct input as to > whether or not currently chosen regulation settings are appropriate, *and why* Applied, thanks!
