Another intriguing post at HB today regarding something we haven't considered in relation to 15.219: https://www.hobbybroadcaster.net/community/index.php?topic=20128
Curiosity strikes again, but all I really wanted to point out is something particular Bill says in that post:
"...Could this be the very reason why many NOUOs of the past were heavily redacted? .."
There has never been a single NOUO having any redactions applied to it.
Show me even one NOUO having even mild redactions. They're are none, there never have been.
Not that I don't say stupid things myself sometimes too.
More click bait.
I seriously doubt that there's anything an FCC lawyer can say about Part 15 installations that hasn't been at least considered, if not attempted, in the past decades.
I have to say that I'm not even curious about what is hidden behind closed doors over there. Quite frankly, their track record of inaccurate and potentially biased information speaks for itself.
Once again, the Dunning - Kruger Effect comes to mind.
@artisan-radio Oh I agree it's click bait, still intriguing. But the only thing that made me even post about it was Bill's comment about how so many past NOUOs had been heavily redacted... What made him say that? It's not just inaccurate, it has no basis of truth at all. At first I figured he must have meant the field agents guide, except he said it was "so many" of them, and there was only 1 redacted field agents guide, so it wasn't just a mixup of terms.