"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:29:27 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote:

(Actually, I wrote the next two sentences):

Trying to "go over the FCC's head" is a last-ditch
nothing-left-to-lose desperation move, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil.

You are so right.

Wish I wasn't.

Remember, the ARRL *did* sue the FCC some years ago, seems like it
was in the 80's, and IIRC the issue was the 220 mhz reallocation,
though I'm not certain of that. Sure seemed a poor idea to me.

It was a good idea - it showed the FCC management (which is no
longer there) that the ARRL can do what the broadcasters do every
week - take an adverse decision into the Court of Appeals.

But only AFTER that adverse decision had actually been made, right? In
the BPL case, it seems to me, such a move would only be advisable if
FCC decided to authorize uncontrolled BPL in ways that were sure to
cause massive interference, AND turned down petitions for
recosideration.

The problem was, it was done by an outside law firm which didn't do
a very good job because they didn't understand what was at stake as
precedent. Hence, the Amateur Spectrum Protection Bill which, at
long last, has a chnace to be passed during this session.

Yup.

Tnx for all the info, Phil.

73 de Jim, N2EY