Thanks for the heads up. I just sent my "reply" to them as follows--others
may like to do so as well:

In response to the Press Release BPL
I commented to the FCC that I was opposed to BPL in its current state
because it has always, to the best of my research, generated some level of
interference in the high frequency (HF) spectrum in the numerous actual
deployment tests. Any interference to HF reception has always been
unacceptable.

I have heard the interference from some actual BPL deployments, and the
interference would make most of the communications in the HF spectrum
difficult, especially to the SW Broadcast industry.

The "press release" statement that "UPLC also commented on amateur radio
opposition to the technology, urging the Commission to ignore "armchair
amateurs that still use vacuum tube transmitters" and listen to the
reputable companies and entrepreneurs who are the real experts on BPL" is
simply not true, is insulting, and misses the whole point.

Whether tubes, transistors, ICs, or the new computer-driven radios are used,
the interference from BPL still makes HF use impractical for most current HF
users and listeners. This is unacceptable.

To have the FCC redefine the "no interference" standard to a "fixed limit of
level of interference" is also unacceptable.

With satellite, dial-up modem, cable modem, and DSL all providing adequate
connectivity today, there is no legitimate need justifying BPL with its
interference to legitimate HF broadcaster, military, and amateur
communications.

Sincerely,

Gregory J. Knapp, J.D.



73,

Greg, N6GK

Jeff Maass" wrote in message
...
Go and read this BPL related press release:


http://www.uplc.org/?cbr_v=dcb&nt=tr...nten tbrowser


Pay particular attention to paragraph three!

Several people I've heard from are also emailing their comments on this
release to the
email contact address included in this press release. We expect that she
should have
a pretty full email box come Monday morning!

73,

Jeff Maass K8ND