For those who lost my original post:

http://www.tr.com/online/trd/2004/td....htm#TopOfPage

The original post was copied from a Yahoo group.

This is the source data.
-------

Table of Contents
AMATEUR RADIO ENTHUSIASTS COME OUT SWINGING IN OPPOSITION TO NPRM ON BPL IN=
TERFERENCE ISSUES

Amateur radio enthusiasts are submitting copious comments that are flooding=
the docket for the=20
FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking on broadband-over-powerline technologie=
s. The comments are=20
coming well in advance of a May 3 due date.

"From what I've seen, BPL will wipe out the [high frequency] and some [very=
high frequency]=20
bands," said one typical filing. "It's been rejected in other places and sh=
ould not be allowed=20
in the United States. In an emergency, government and communities are loose=
ly held together by=20
using these bands with emergency communications. Don't let Big Money outwei=
gh the good of our=20
country."

Sources say the FCC has been respectful of amateur radio concerns but also =
has recognized that=20
they may not reflect real problems. "The FCC has determined that the end-of=
-the-world=20
interference scenarios put forward by some in the amateur community are unr=
ealistic," said=20
Mitchell Lazarus, a lawyer who represents BPL service provider Current Tech=
nologies. "The NPRM=20
is a good beginning of the process of finding a fair balance between the ne=
eds of broadband=20
users and users of the radio spectrum."

Last month when the FCC approved the NPRM, Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelste=
in said, "While we=20
must be mindful of harmful interference, we cannot let unsupported claims s=
tand in the way of=20
such an innovation as BPL systems."

The FCC approved the NPRM on Feb. 12 and released it 11 days later, but it =
was not published=20
in the Federal Register until today, starting a 45-day clock for comments. =
Reply comments are=20
due 30 days later. - Howard Buskirk,

TR Daily, March 17, 2004

Copyright =A9 2004, Telecommunications Reports International, Inc.

=20
=09