In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , JJ

writes:

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I hate to agree with Len. But he is right on this one.

Dan/W4NTI

Gotta admit too Dan, and give Len credit here, he makes a very good
point.

He's just repeating what ARRL and many of us have been saying for about a
year
now - get the facts and comment to FCC in the appropriate places.

He's setting the stage for making rant fodder out of anybody around
here who doesn't submit a set of commnents to the FCC.

That too! As proved elsewhere, you hit that one dead-on.

The deadline for comments is May 3. Today is March 18.

You HAVE the Federal Register to "prove" that, do you?

Yesterday, 17 March, there were already 29 comments on
the ECFS.

Some of us are already working on comments.

Mostly for the newsgroup? :-)

Such serious stuff should not be rushed, though, and need
to be thoroughly proofread and spellchecked.

Oh my, Miccolis was one the early birds on 03-104. Did he
"thoroughly proofread and spellcheck" his comment on the
NOI?

And the comments need to go two
places since two sets of regs are changing.

WHICH "two sets of regs?"

The NPRM 04-29 specifically states Part 15 of Title 47 C.F.R.

It concerns incidental radiation, the only thing the FCC can
regulate (with the possible exception of a power line crossing
state boundaries with Access BPL serving more than one state).

WHICH docket is the "correct" one, mighty seer?

ARRL has been beating this drum from the first.

From the "first" what?

Nobody so far has "beat" the National Antenna Consortium and
The Amhearst Alliance on NPRM 04-29 with a 19 Feb 04 filing!
:-)

As of 17 Mar 04, there were 5,731 documents in the ECFS on
NOI 03-104. Did the ARRL file all of those? A "large part" of
those? Are they the "only one" with any sort of "technical
dissertation" about Access BPL and incidental radiation?

Full details at

http://www.arrl.org

NOT EVEN CLOSE TO "FULL DETAILS!"

ARRL is still mentioning NOI 03-104 as if it were a current docket.
Why? It is toast. That NOI is just a digital wastebasket for citizens
getting their complain jollies over with...so they will learn to accept
Access BPL as a given in the future and not complain then.

ARRL can't even (yet) explain why there are TWO dockets on ONE
NPRM. [04-37 and 04-29 for NPRM 04-29]

ARRL hasn't (yet) posted any deadline date on filing for Access
BPL. Why not? Isn't that "important" or something?

LHA / WMD