In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

The ARRL submission is the *only* by-the-numbers engineering study on
record so far and it has the BPL proponents in a royal snit.

Incorrect. See the Comments of Dr. Michael Keane, Michael Tope,
Alfred Lorona, and Leo McVey. Individuals who took the time and
trouble to make their own critical technical comments.

If you had actually examined a few hundred of the Comments from
groups and organizations NOT in line with the BPL advocates, you
would have seen more "by the numbers" refutation of the BPL
advocates' claims.

They're
*not* brushing it off by any means, they're vigorously attacking it,
they know they have a battle on their hands so don't underestimate the
ARRL's ability to be a spoiler far out of proportion to it's political
and/or financial clout. David did take out Goliath, etc.

A catalytic reaction does not require the catalyst to be big or powerful
and the ARRL membership is NOT the sole victim of future RF
pollution from BPL if it is implemented.

From almost 5000 Comments so far (as of Tuesday evening), there are
a number of Comments from already-established broadband Internet
providers using telephone and/or cable service means. Those are the
Goliaths who are up against the Davids of the BPL...and the only
"slingshot" the BPL advocates have is in doing a sales/marketing
effort on the Commission back in early Spring.

Had you looked at the listing of documents on Docket 03-104 you
would have seen a number of Comments from non-amateur-radio
groups, including a long one from the Academy of Model Aeronautics
(175,000 membership).

Technical
submissions are not over either, the NTIA is gonna weigh in eventually
which could very well be the slam dunk BPL killer.

Docket 03-104 was published first at the FCC on 28 April 2003 and was
a Notice of Inquiry regarding information the FCC could use for the
purposes of establishing regulations for Part 15, Title 47 CFR.

03-104 was never any establishment that BPL would be in the future
or ever get beyond the test stage, regardless of the Hue and Cry and
the General Hysteria exhibited by so many...who have not made any
intellectual commentary on it of public record.

LHA

OH, there are some code test-o-philes that will forever HATE you for
saying that.

Clint

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yeah... and PCTA could also stand for Post Code Testing Agenda as well!



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
one of the two factions fighting over the code testing issue.

PCTA = Pro Code Testing Agenda ...
NCTA = No Code Test Agenda

The former wants to continue testing mores code
profeciency as a means of judging whether or not
you can recieve a ham radio license.

The latter want to remove the last vestiges of
morse code testing, the 5 wmp code test.

Anything past that is debatable, as to what they
really want or believe, but those are the basics.

Clint
KB5ZHT


--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--
"William Warren" wrote in message
linux.org...
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

And the PCTA crowd wonders why they aren't
being met with a warmer reception from the
newbies wanting to enter the hobby.

Please tell me what "PCTA" means. TIA.

Bill

(Filter the qrm for direct replies.)

They'll get over it!

Ryan KC8PMX
PCTA member

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
OH, there are some code test-o-philes that will forever HATE you for
saying that.

Clint

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yeah... and PCTA could also stand for Post Code Testing Agenda as well!