Fractenna wrote:

Dear OM,

I am sorry that you take personal offense; I will be happy to state why
this
was posted:

1) it has been an ongoing topic on this NG for a long time, and now we have
final resolution;

Final resolution? Not even close. Part 15 still needs to be rewritten.

2) I did not expect nor require anyone to respond, ergo the 'troll factor'
is
not an issue;
3) The FCC has taken careful and measured steps to assure that US amateurs
remain with the enjoyment of the HF bands, given the sharing of spectrum
with
BPL.
4)It is the very best scenario for all involved. That is definitely worth
gloating over.

It isn't all about the amateurs.

There is money to be made. Equipment to build, systems to map out and
fiber to run. And in the end, when BPL fails, there will be class action
lawsuits. But in the interim, there was money to be made.

We don't have to worry about gloating, or Hams or whatever. Too much of

the existing infrastructure will interfere with BPL. The power companies
will have to repair this infrastructure, which many are loathe to do
(see F.C.C. enforcement actions) Too many places that will support BPL
at a profit are already served by faster and more reliable systems. And
the rural areas, which BPL was supposed to service admirably, don't have
the population density to run that fiber to.

It isn't the Hams, it is poor technology coupled with a bad business
model.

Now if someone wanted to run fiber past my house, and allow me access
to it at what I'm paying now for cable.... *then* I'd be interested!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hi Mike,

Although I disagree with you, it's nice to see thoughtful arguments, as opposed
to 'let's kill the technology' diatribes.

73,
Chip N1IR