You're forgetting that the head of the FCC is Michael Powell -- son of
Colin you-know-who which in turn works for you-know-who.
Do you really think that a fundamental thing like ****ing up the entire HF
spectrum will stand in the way of corporate profits????
N4GL

tommyknocker wrote:

GeorgeF wrote:



recalcitrant ham op wrote:

Did you *REALLY THINK* that a couple hundred
aging HF operating tightwad ham radio operators
are going to stop an emerging technology that will
conceivably network home appliances to the internet
and be worth $BILLIONS$ in potential revenue ??

Hams are the least of the problems. There are many other users of the
HF range who will be effected other than hams. Here's just a few:

US Coast Guard makes high use of HF
All branches of the military
Many long distance marine comms are still on HF
TransAtlantic and Pacific Air Traffic Control Comms are HF
(Imagine if the ATC ground station can't hear an Aircraft call is
position).


And that's just a few services who are heavy uses of HF.

So why is the FCC going through with it? I would think that the heavy
military use of HF (I'm including the Coast Guard as part of the armed
forces) would keep BPL from happening. Mil HF comms pop up on unexpected
freqs at odd times (probably to keep other people from listening) and
interference from 2-30 Mhz would be a big problem, especially at bases
in urban areas like Camp Pendleton and Travis AFB.

George
http://www.MilAirComms.com
With DSL who needs BPL?

Cable modems are faster than DSL yet don't have the interference and
reliability problems of BPL.