In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:05:55 -0400, Dave Holford wrote:

Maybe, but IIRC the FCC, along with the FAA, FEMA etc. etc. operate
extensive HF communications systems. It seems unlikely that a source of
such serious potential interference to their own communications would be
authorized?

But the top execs of the companies that want to do BPL are telling
the top execs of the agencies "we checked, there is no problem".

"The Fix Is In."

So what's the answer, Phil?

I see one possiblity that may kill the whole idea. Will the service be
competitive with DSL or cable modems? Around here, those two are at each
other's throats price-wise, yet a lot of us still use dialup because it's
cheaper. If BPL costs as much or more than DSL or cable, it's not gonna fly for
long.

Remember Iridium?

Sometimes I think that if it wasn't for the active hams who work at
those agencies and the input that they make, the brass wouldn't
have a clue about what happens in real life communications.

And even with that input....

I know - I spent 28 years at the FCC....

mygawd...

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Phil
Kane"
writes:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:05:55 -0400, Dave Holford wrote:

Maybe, but IIRC the FCC, along with the FAA, FEMA etc. etc. operate
extensive HF communications systems. It seems unlikely that a source of
such serious potential interference to their own communications would be
authorized?

But the top execs of the companies that want to do BPL are telling
the top execs of the agencies "we checked, there is no problem".

"The Fix Is In."

So what's the answer, Phil?

I see one possiblity that may kill the whole idea. Will the service be
competitive with DSL or cable modems? Around here, those two are at each
other's throats price-wise, yet a lot of us still use dialup because it's
cheaper. If BPL costs as much or more than DSL or cable, it's not gonna
fly for
long.

Remember Iridium?

Sometimes I think that if it wasn't for the active hams who work at
those agencies and the input that they make, the brass wouldn't
have a clue about what happens in real life communications.

And even with that input....

I know - I spent 28 years at the FCC....

mygawd...

73 de Jim, N2EY


What do you expect? Its a political office. From top to bottom. Only
Technical requirement is in the monitoring section. And damn few of them
left.

Dan/W4NTI

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:49:50 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

What do you expect? Its a political office. From top to bottom. Only
Technical requirement is in the monitoring section. And damn few of them
left.

But fortunately some who are left in the field offices are damn
good, like the two former field engineers who worked for me in the
San Francisco office.

A good and close friend and colleague, Jim Dailey, was just
appointed Director of the FCC's Office of Homeland Security which
was placed within the FCC's Enforcement Bureau with the mandate to
carry out the homeland security and emergency communication
functions of the Commission and its licensees. That office will
also be responsib;le for the "monitoring and interdiction functions"
as we liked to call it....

Jim is an engineer through and through. I'm glad he got the job
rather than someone else w/o engineering skills.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon