In article <q3uqe3lk3ig1doiq9k1o6002aaserlsn4a@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
> >In article <oshqe3lir22rbevflkbnu507siqjblaha9@4ax.com>,
> > Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >> [1] The FCC is somewhat involved by demanding that local regulatory
> >> agencies and CC&R contracts not ban satellite dishes. It also
> >> provides a recommended structure, but not a ruling, that regulatory
> >> groups not obstruct ham radio antennas (PRB1). There is also a rule
> >> that prevents regulators from totally banning commercial radio towers,
> >> and cell sites.
>
> > It also has hand in general regulations of cable and teleco, some of
> >which would spill over into methods getting internet to the sidewalk.
>
> Sure, but we're getting way off the topic of FCC *requiring*
> structured wiring. I'll resist the temptation to rant endlessly on
> FCC over-regulation, hair-splitting, bureaucracy, and creative
> enforcement. Given the opportunity, I'm sure the FCC wouldn't mind
> expanding their authority to include home wiring, but since there's no
> licenses to be sold, errr... auctioned, it's unlikely to happen.

As I should have mentioned in the last sentence I should have
included so you would not have to read what little mind I have, that
their domain over the wires leading to the house and to a certain extent
(modems for instance) inside could have lead to the confusion. (g). I
also think they have a standard as to what constitutes broadband.