Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!Shasta!kaufman From: kaufman@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU (Marc Kaufman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: What is Max speed possible on phone lines? Message-ID: <2173@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU> Date: Thu, 29-Oct-87 11:47:47 EST Article-I.D.: Shasta.2173 Posted: Thu Oct 29 11:47:47 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Nov-87 04:19:15 EST References: <16064@topaz.rutgers.edu> <2174@kitty.UUCP> Reply-To: kaufman@Shasta.stanford.edu (Marc Kaufman) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 20 In article <2174@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: .In article <16064@topaz.rutgers.edu>, ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: .> Foo. Note that twisted pair Ethernet is a kludge. This high-speed .> (Radio Frequency) unshielded twisted pair stuff is going to be put .> to an end as this stuff is not going to comply with FCC regulations .> on emissions. . . Actually, I don't believe that the FCC can do much about it. The .Ethernet transceivers certainly meet FCC emission requirements when used .in a proper manner with coaxial cable (as intended). If you can demonstrate interference to some other service, the FCC will write a letter to the interferer requiring them to take action to stop the interference. This may include turning the interfering source off. (I had a neighbor who refused to turn off a 'Decimate' bug repeller that wiped out the local public service radio band). The letter is sufficiently threatening that it will probably work. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Shasta.stanford.edu)