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

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

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.

Yep, that was a really good one. He writes better than I do, and he's just out
of high school.

But he's not a newcomer, Dan. He's been licensed since age 10. At least one
nonamateur here would have denied him a license for four years, based solely on
age.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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.

Yep, that was a really good one. He writes better than I do, and he's just
out
of high school.

But he's not a newcomer, Dan. He's been licensed since age 10. At least
one
nonamateur here would have denied him a license for four years, based
solely on
age.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Rgr that...hi.

Dan/W4NTI

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

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.

Yep, that was a really good one. He writes better than I do, and he's just out
of high school.

But he's not a newcomer, Dan. He's been licensed since age 10. At least one
nonamateur here would have denied him a license for four years, based solely on
age.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Maybe you should buy him a beer and a shot on his way to Selective
Service registration.

There's all kind of rules that we don't necessarily like.