"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 11 Jul 2003 07:56:06 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

I can visualize this phase being a real nit-picking and repositioning
exercise, perhaps a source of fodder for appeals.

Yup. Maybe that's why there are some 3000 communication attornies
in the Washington DC area (and one in Beaverton).

Takes 3,000 of you guys in D.C. alone to "handle" the FCC huh?
Something is not just wrong with this picture, something is *really*
GOOFY. As far as BPL is concerned I'm wondering about how many hassles
will develop if the FCC abandons it's current rules in Part 15 in
order to accomodate BPL and/or related types of creative legal hassles
guys like you might be able to dredge up to stymie BPL, Tie it up in
the courts or wherever until the proponents give it up, etc.

What's the relationship between an NOI and an NPRM?
Only if they decide to do it by a "publicly debated" rule change.

If they want to be sneaky (assuming that they have this much
imagination - Hey, Bill, pay attention - they can issue an Order and
Further Notice of Inquiry, dropping Element 1 and asking for further
input on Novice HF Refarming. (AKA "The SmokeScreen")

I think ya slipped a thread. The BPL thing is currently the subject of
an NOI. Doesn't the FCC eventually have to publish an NPRM and go thru
the whole comments and rebuttals drill again for BPL before they can
authorize it?