Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment
period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003.

Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address
by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS
have until midnight at the end of the deadline day.

FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame"
the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's
comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare
are full of them ...).

Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us.

Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Why bother, Ham Radio as it was know is dead anyway.


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment
period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003.

Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address
by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS
have until midnight at the end of the deadline day.

FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame"
the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's
comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare
are full of them ...).

Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us.

Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
Today the Ed Thomas, Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology, issued an order extending the Reply Comment
period in ET Docket No. 03-104 (BPL) until August 20, 2003.

Remember, paper filed comments are due at the correct address
by COB on the deadline day, electronic comments via the ECFS
have until midnight at the end of the deadline day.

FOLKS ... if you are going to comment, PLEASE don't "flame"
the FCC or the proponents of BPL ... just cite facts (the ARRL's
comments and the excellent technical analysis done by Ed Hare
are full of them ...).

Flaming will hurt us more than it will help us.

Keep it calm, rational, and polite, please, for all of our sakes.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Well done Carl. Time to cut the usual RRAP crap and get series here,
screw the unending code test flames, we have a REAL policy problem
this time.

Do you think it is likely that the FCC will pay much if any attention
to the rather offhand electronically filed comments by individual
hams?

We asked for access to 60M. Looked like a done deal until the NTIA
jumped in late in the game and for all practical purposes NTIA pared
our access back considerably from what we expected. Reason: The events
of 9/11/01 caused a top-to-bottom review of all government comms
assets and the gummint itself decided to limit ham interference
potential on 60M for it's own "rediscovered" critical HF comms, etc.,
etc., you don't need the rest. So now we have a potential interference
source for those comms which makes any ham comms on 60M look like
peanuts in comparison, etc., etc. again. Where the hell is NTIA on
THIS one??!

Where are the HF aeronautical users? How 'bout all the emergency
services ops in the 30-50 Mhz range? BPL will not degrade their comms
because the FM they use "rejects noise"? Not hardly. How many
additional non-recreational HF users will be seriously affected by BPL
and where are their "comments"?

The Japanese goverment disallowed BPL because of the obvious threats
it poses to the HF/low vhf spectrum in Japan. How do hams, civilly,
strive to make sure the FCC becomes aware of (tongue in cheek) and
factors in that precedent? Are there any English language sources
available for copies of the Japanese telecomms authorities rationales
for rejecting BPL? Might be useful . .

I'm not a fatalist by nature but unfortunately I think this one is
100% out of our hands. But I think we still have to put up the good
fight.

w3rv