"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote:

You know very well, or you should, that the ARRL send
it a very comprehensive report on that subject. Both the
initial comments and the latest round.


And I applaud them for that effort (that's why I'm a member). However, it
is one report in a pile of reports submitted by various companies, all
showing exactly the opposite conclusion.

And they're all demonstrably lying thru their teeth. Ya can drive a
Kenworth thru the holes in their explanations of how BPL "won't hurt
nobody".


The ARRL didn't give the FCC a
thing to hang their hat on (a single "ah-ha" that proves those other reports
wrong). Instead, it simply contradicts them.

The ARRL submission is the *only* by-the-numbers engineering study on
record so far and it has the BPL proponents in a royal snit. They're
*not* brushing it off by any means, they're vigorously attacking it,
they know they have a battle on their hands so don't underestimate the
ARRL's ability to be a spoiler far out of proportion to it's political
and/or financial clout. David did take out Goliath, etc. Technical
submissions are not over either, the NTIA is gonna weigh in eventually
which could very well be the slam dunk BPL killer.


If you want to change the thinking at the FCC. Then writting
your congressman is the ONLY way to do it. Since the
congress controls their purse strings.


Oh, I just wish it was that simple.


The only other alternative would be to take it to court. Make
use of the green peace bunch to sue for the destruction of a
natural resource, the HF spectrum. etc.. Any port in a storm.


A resource controlled by the federal government, which means very few
courts would likely to step in.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

w3rv

"Brian Kelly" wrote:

The ARRL submission is the *only* by-the-numbers
engineering study on record so far and it has the BPL
proponents in a royal snit. They're *not* brushing it
off by any means, they're vigorously attacking it, they
know they have a battle on their hands so don't
underestimate the ARRL's ability to be a spoiler far
out of proportion to it's political and/or financial clout.
David did take out Goliath, etc. (snip)


I truly hope you're right, Brian. I really do.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

The ARRL submission is the *only* by-the-numbers engineering study on
record so far and it has the BPL proponents in a royal snit.

Incorrect. See the Comments of Dr. Michael Keane, Michael Tope,
Alfred Lorona, and Leo McVey. Individuals who took the time and
trouble to make their own critical technical comments.

If you had actually examined a few hundred of the Comments from
groups and organizations NOT in line with the BPL advocates, you
would have seen more "by the numbers" refutation of the BPL
advocates' claims.

They're
*not* brushing it off by any means, they're vigorously attacking it,
they know they have a battle on their hands so don't underestimate the
ARRL's ability to be a spoiler far out of proportion to it's political
and/or financial clout. David did take out Goliath, etc.

A catalytic reaction does not require the catalyst to be big or powerful
and the ARRL membership is NOT the sole victim of future RF
pollution from BPL if it is implemented.

From almost 5000 Comments so far (as of Tuesday evening), there are
a number of Comments from already-established broadband Internet
providers using telephone and/or cable service means. Those are the
Goliaths who are up against the Davids of the BPL...and the only
"slingshot" the BPL advocates have is in doing a sales/marketing
effort on the Commission back in early Spring.

Had you looked at the listing of documents on Docket 03-104 you
would have seen a number of Comments from non-amateur-radio
groups, including a long one from the Academy of Model Aeronautics
(175,000 membership).

Technical
submissions are not over either, the NTIA is gonna weigh in eventually
which could very well be the slam dunk BPL killer.

Docket 03-104 was published first at the FCC on 28 April 2003 and was
a Notice of Inquiry regarding information the FCC could use for the
purposes of establishing regulations for Part 15, Title 47 CFR.

03-104 was never any establishment that BPL would be in the future
or ever get beyond the test stage, regardless of the Hue and Cry and
the General Hysteria exhibited by so many...who have not made any
intellectual commentary on it of public record.

LHA