"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 10 Jul 2003 08:38:07 -0700, Rob Kemp wrote:

Phil,

As an expert in dealing with the FCC, what is your recommendation on
the issues to bring to the FCC's attention? And how should our
comments be phrased?

The ARRL took the lead and emphasised the interference with
essential communications. That is the only thing that will be of
any value.

In any event, the Comment phase is closed, and only Reply Comments -
support or opposition/rebuttals to the comments already filed - can
be accepted at this stage.

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

What's the relationship between an NOI and an NPRM? Doesn't the FCC
eventually have to publish an NPRM and go thru the whole comments and
rebuttals drill again?


Is preventing reception of shortwave broadcasts a first amendment
issue?

Not at all - the SCOTUS has been very clear in First Amendment cases
that the free speech right is that of the speaker to speak, and does
not guarantee an audience to to hear/receive what is being spoken.

w3rv

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).

What's the relationship between an NOI and an NPRM? Doesn't the FCC
eventually have to publish an NPRM and go thru the whole comments and
rebuttals drill again?

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")

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"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?