"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...


This is, in my opinion, a gimme by the FCC to the power distribution
companies who
want into an industry far above the old technologies they're in now.

I suspect politics are behind it. Not the political differences between
liberals and conservatives or the presumed differences between Demorcrats
and Republicans. It's the politics of opportunism. Anyone who acts to
restrict BPL on technical grounds will be called a "thief of broadband
rights" and "a pawn of the telecommunications establishment".

The FCC commissioners put themselves into a no lose situation by allowing
BPL. If it works, they take the credit. If it fails, they don't get the
blame.


The fundamental problems still exist,

Thank you for making sense.

[snip]

I'd stay away from this, if an investment opportunity were to come around.

[snip]

One of the major BPL suppliers has publicly traded stock. They've gone
through a big decline, and are a penny stock now. A terrific buying
opportunity for those who are certain BPL is the next big thing!!

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

One of the major BPL suppliers has publicly traded stock. They've gone
through a big decline, and are a penny stock now. A terrific buying
opportunity for those who are certain BPL is the next big thing!!

Even if it isn't the Next Big Thing, it will take time for that to be
evident.

There be a period during which they can still sell people their dreams.

Frank Dresser wrote:

The FCC commissioners put themselves into a no lose situation by allowing
BPL. If it works, they take the credit. If it fails, they don't get the
blame.

What has happened to the FCC interference protection standards, though?
I am regularly seeing appliances for sale which can't even come close to
meeting the Part 15 requirements for emission. Now we've got BPL coming
down the pike, on top of all the touch lamps and noisy TV sets. Is there
anyone at the FCC that cares about MW and HF use at all?

One of the major BPL suppliers has publicly traded stock. They've gone
through a big decline, and are a penny stock now. A terrific buying
opportunity for those who are certain BPL is the next big thing!!

I think BPL is a terrible idea, and I say that as someone who holds stock
in several power companies. But then, I thought VOIP was a terrible idea
also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

What has happened to the FCC interference protection standards, though?

Scott, Scott, Scott. Haven't you learned yet? The FCC can rewrite the laws of
physics!!!! If you don't believe it, just ask them!

:
: What has happened to the FCC interference protection standards, though?
: I am regularly seeing appliances for sale which can't even come close to
: meeting the Part 15 requirements for emission. Now we've got BPL coming
: down the pike, on top of all the touch lamps and noisy TV sets. Is there
: anyone at the FCC that cares about MW and HF use at all?


a bigger question should be what has happened to the FCC period (hint:
michael powell is no help). AM and FM interference "standards" went out
with the fairness doctrine. both bands have been totally ghettoized. fits
in nicely with the crud channel corporate sound of slop. no standards on
the technical side and no standards on the programming side. no wonder
listenership is down....

"Fuller Wrath" wrote in message
...

:


a bigger question should be what has happened to the FCC period (hint:
michael powell is no help). AM and FM interference "standards" went out
with the fairness doctrine. both bands have been totally ghettoized. fits
in nicely with the crud channel corporate sound of slop. no standards on
the technical side and no standards on the programming side. no wonder
listenership is down....



The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks and
newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.

Is that really what you want?

There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the Hun.

Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness doctrine.
Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or the
audience?

Frank Dresser

But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

Want to try that again?

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

Maybe so, but your statement...

2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

....is quite incorrect. Quoting
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/...rnessdoct.htm: The FCC
fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of /Red
Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc/. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania,
licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author,
Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the
fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission
declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its
obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and
eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the
fairness doctrine.

Point being that the Fairness Doctrine had been in place for quite some time...at
least long enough that the challenge to it (which, as the article notes, failed)
culminated in 1969. Another article (http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html)
asserts that the policy was in place in 1947 (and enforced since 1949) when the
"Mayflower Doctrine", which prohibited all editorialising by broadcasters, was
abandoned.

Want to try that again?

Indeed.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was first used in the Kennedy
administration.

1) Kennedy was killed in 1963.

Yep.


2) There was no Fairness Doctrine until 1969.

What are you refering to?


Want to try that again?


Cite?

Frank Dresser

:
: The fairness doctrine is interference. It was used as a political club.
: Richard Nixon and the Republican party were using the so-called fairness
: doctrine to go after the licenses of radio and TV properties of networks
and
: newspapers they didn't like. But Nixon didn't invent the tactic. It was
: first used in the Kennedy administration. Given today's political
: climate,I'm sure both parties would enthusiastically hammer the media
: companies whenever embarrassing stories got out.
:
: Is that really what you want?
:
: There's a mistaken belief that dropping the fairness doctrine made right
: wing political talk radio possible. That's not true. In Chicago, Howard
: Miller had a greatly entertaining political talk show back in the early
: seventies. Miller was to the right of Limbaugh, Hannity and Atilla the
Hun.
:
: Let's also consider who else gets treated shabbily by the fairness
doctrine.
: Who should determine what the audience should hear -- the government or
the
: audience?

1. The Fairness Doctrine could be resurrected and rewritten to assure a
balance of voices/opinions are heard on the public airwaves.
2. The audience has absolutely no input over what is heard on the airwaves
(with very limited exceptions). If you try to argue that broadcasters are
responding to market demands then the I.Q. factor in this country has
indeed fallen to the low double or even single digit range.
3. No, what I would really like to see is an ownership cap of seven to a
dozen stations per entity with no cross ownership. Then there might
actually be some creative programming and diversity - you know, like there
was for the first 75 years or so.... Imagine! stations with different
studios, different personnel, maybe even different program directors! Then
they wouldn't sell for over inflated amounts and we wouldn't get stripped
down, dumbed down voice-tracked generic dog-vomit programming!
4. Radio listenership is down by 15-20%. There's a reason for that