In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 25 Mar 2004 09:13:23 -0800, N2EY wrote:

I hope that's true. Note how vague the NPRM language is about how
interference is to be mitigated.

That's because there are less and less "old timers" on the staff who
know how to chase down and evaluate such interference and a general
reluctance of the non-field people to shut someone off the air
because of same.

Uh-oh...

The long slippery slope started when the agency started privatizing
things such as frequency coordination and interference resolution in
the mid 1980s.......

"Getting the government off our backs"...

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the old standard of Part 15
devices having to tolerate interception of lawful signals gets
thrown in the trashcan. That's what having policy set on
less-than-technically-knowlegeable grounds can result in. It's the
equivalent of ordering that all antennas be installed underground
to preserve aesthetic standards.

And even if BPL is not deployed on a wide scale, setting that precedent makes
the *next* battle that much less winnable.

73 de Jim, N2EY