"Jeff B." wrote in message
...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:


At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you
think
the FCC is finally seeing the light?

Dan/W4NTI




Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the
commercial interests of the Bush administration.


It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton
administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were
auctioned off to commercial interests?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Jeff B." wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:



At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you

think

the FCC is finally seeing the light?

Dan/W4NTI




Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the
commercial interests of the Bush administration.



It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton
administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were
auctioned off to commercial interests?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Agreed.

Doesn't mater if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the
commercial interests of the Bush^h^h^h^hsitting administration.

Happy?

"Jeff B." wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Jeff B." wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:



At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you

think

the FCC is finally seeing the light?

Dan/W4NTI




Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the
commercial interests of the Bush administration.



It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the Clinton
administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were
auctioned off to commercial interests?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Agreed.

Doesn't mater if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the
commercial interests of the Bush^h^h^h^hsitting administration.

Happy?

You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose administration
it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore
administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial
interests of that administration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jeff B." wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Jeff B." wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:



At least it isnt about Broadband over Power Lines. Gee ... do you

think

the FCC is finally seeing the light?

Dan/W4NTI




Doesn't matter if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the
commercial interests of the Bush administration.



It really wouldn't matter who was in power. Wasn't it under the
Clinton
administration, for example, when significant chunks of spectrum were
auctioned off to commercial interests?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Agreed.

Doesn't mater if they see the light, the FCC is a sock-puppet to the
commercial interests of the Bush^h^h^h^hsitting administration.

Happy?

You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose
administration
it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore
administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial
interests of that administration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone
engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL.
Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what
they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let
this get out of the first meeting.

As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is
some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good'
thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez.

Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against
it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and
simple.

It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against
this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it.

Dan/W4NTI

I think it's characteristic of our modern society: if top-level
management has any understanding of the things they are supposed to be
managing, that's purely fortuitous. They tend to be specialists in
*management*, not in managing anything specific. E.g., a former
Coca-Cola big wheel became the CEO of IBM; if he knew anything about
computers, that was a pure coincidence; for that matter, if he knew
anything about cola it was likely a pure coincidence too.

I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz
merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers,
whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers.

What happened to the practice of having people destined for management
positions spend time working in every department of the company so they
know exactly what the company does and how?

Driving home from Detroit yesterday, we stopped for dinner at a truck
stop, where we overheard a waitress telling another customer that she
was busier than usual because the cook had called in sick so the
managers were having to do the cooking and were not able to help with
serving. But in this case the managers were able to cook. What would
they have done if the managers could not fill in for the cook?

Alan AB2OS


On 07/10/04 04:14 pm Dan/W4NTI put fingers to keyboard and launched the
following message into cyberspace:

You missed my point. It would be just as bad no matter whose

administration

it was and no matter to what party they belonged. If it were a Gore
administration, they'd be just as much a sock puppet to the commercial
interests of that administration.

All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone
engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL.
Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what
they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let
this get out of the first meeting.

As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is
some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good'
thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez.

Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against
it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and
simple.

It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against
this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:44:17 -0400, Minnie Bannister wrote:

I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz
merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers,
whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers.

A family friend who retired from Chrysler shortly after the merger
was very adamant that Daimler-Benz was run by folks whose ability in
any field was totally outshone by their complete and utter arrogance
(don't want to invoke the N**i word).

Driving home from Detroit yesterday, we stopped for dinner at a truck
stop, where we overheard a waitress telling another customer that she
was busier than usual because the cook had called in sick so the
managers were having to do the cooking and were not able to help with
serving. But in this case the managers were able to cook. What would
they have done if the managers could not fill in for the cook?

Call the union hall and get temp cooks off the waiting-to-be-employed
roster.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:44:17 -0400, Minnie Bannister wrote:

I heard this issue raised in a discussion of the Chrysler/Daimler-Benz
merger on the eve of its consummation. Chrysler was run by managers,
whereas Daimler-Benz was run by engineers.

A family friend who retired from Chrysler shortly after the merger
was very adamant that Daimler-Benz was run by folks whose ability in
any field was totally outshone by their complete and utter arrogance
(don't want to invoke the N**i word).

Yeh, yeh, yeh. I heard the same crap about A/B in St Louis.

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
k.net...

[snip]
It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack
against
this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it.

Dan/W4NTI


The more I read about BPL, the more I'm convinced that the market place will
manage to kill it. There are already at least five technologies (dialup,
DSL, cable, WIFI, and fiber optics) that do or could do the job. For BPL to
compete, it will need to have the reliability of cable and be as cheap as
dialup. That combo isn't going to happen plus the DSL, cable, and WIFI
companies are slowly dropping their prices since price is the key factor
that keeps people on dialup. The upgrades needed for our powerlines plus
the additional boosters, etc is going to mean that BPL will cost a fortune
to implement. This cost must be picked up by the customers. So BPL will
approach the cost of other, better services yet be subject to all kinds of
natural and manmade interruptions (unshielded wires just don't cut it).

The thing is, it sounds cheap and simple because we have power lines
everywhere. So it's not too hard for proponents to do a snow job on
investors and politicians.

I even saw an article somewhere that said BPL would reduce powerline noise.
But the reality of the situation is that the BPL companies will have to
reduce the powerline noise to get BPL to work well.

Of course this does not mean that we shouldn't fight it. There are "pie in
the sky" investors who will try to make it work so for some areas and some
period of time, it will be interfering with various radio services before it
is abandoned. Since stopping it before it starts will prevent that period
of interference, we need to keep fighting.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article t, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone
engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL.

I disagree slightly, Dan.

I think there are folks at FCC who know darn well how bad an idea BPL really
is. The problem is that those folks are not in charge.

Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what
they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have let
this get out of the first meeting.

Only if they had a basic grasp of the physical principles involved. But the
folks at the top are not engineers or scientists. They're "regulators".

As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation is
some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good'
thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez.

Possibly. Look at all the 'next big thing' companies that have come and gone in
the past decade or two, and how many trillion dollarss were pumped into them.
The Bush administration is still sitting on a jobs deficit and a lackluster
economy. *Any* new thing that promises big gains and jobs without massive
investment is going to get a lot of attention from an administration desperate
to be reelected.

Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against
it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and
simple.

BINGO! The guy in the Oval Office sez tone it down, and they did.

Do you remember how we got saddled with code test waivers? A King asked Papa
Bush for a favor. Papa Bush told FCC to find a way to make it happen. Treaty
prevented merely dumping the code test so we got the whole waiver mess.
Gee thanks George.

It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack against
this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it.

Agreed. And look carefully at how it was done in Iowa. Including the ARRL's
important role.

73 de Jim, N2EY

There is a interesting article on QRZ from a young ham. He wrote a very
good comment on BPL to the FCC. Makes for a good read.

Dan/W4NTI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

All true...unfortunatly the REAL problem is the lack of basic, let alone
engineer level, knowledge to even understand what is going on with BPL.

I disagree slightly, Dan.

I think there are folks at FCC who know darn well how bad an idea BPL
really
is. The problem is that those folks are not in charge.

Politics aside.....ain't it a real pity that the FCC has no concept what
they are doing with this BPL crap? No one in the right mind would have
let
this get out of the first meeting.

Only if they had a basic grasp of the physical principles involved. But
the
folks at the top are not engineers or scientists. They're "regulators".

As for the Bush administration pushing this. I think the real situation
is
some low level gofer with his computer knowledge decided this is a 'good'
thing. Then he got someones ear to push it at the Prez.

Possibly. Look at all the 'next big thing' companies that have come and
gone in
the past decade or two, and how many trillion dollarss were pumped into
them.
The Bush administration is still sitting on a jobs deficit and a
lackluster
economy. *Any* new thing that promises big gains and jobs without massive
investment is going to get a lot of attention from an administration
desperate
to be reelected.

Look at the way the NTIA back peddled.....they came on strong against
it...then all of a sudden they are going backwards. Politics...pure and
simple.

BINGO! The guy in the Oval Office sez tone it down, and they did.

Do you remember how we got saddled with code test waivers? A King asked
Papa
Bush for a favor. Papa Bush told FCC to find a way to make it happen.
Treaty
prevented merely dumping the code test so we got the whole waiver mess.
Gee thanks George.

It is up to us and ALL THOSE it trashes to put on a sustained attack
against
this BPL. If we don't we are stuck with it.

Agreed. And look carefully at how it was done in Iowa. Including the
ARRL's
important role.

73 de Jim, N2EY