In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Our President says BPL is a good thing and is needed for
techno-economic
prosperity. He and his appointees at FCC and NTIA say that any
interference can
be managed.

Are you saying Our President and his advisors and regulators are
wrong?

Leading question noted. Sorry, Jim, but 7th grade debating tactics
don't cut it in the grownup world.

I've said nothing about the president, his advisors, or his regulators.

They support at least the concept of BPL. That's abundantly clear. There was a
time when FCC would have laughed the whole BPL concept out the door - not
because it interfered with hams but because it was just not a good idea
technically. Ask K2ASP.

To refresh your memory and to save you the effort of Goggling is up,
HERE is what I said:

"Rather than (ARRL) spending hundreds of thousands of our dollars
chasing a POLITICAL resolution to this issue where they have gained no
traction and which they can't possibly win, why don't we take the money
we spend on Sumner and Imlay and hire a bunch of Ed Hare's and do the
SCIENCE necessary to discredit BPL. Haynie/Sumner/Imlay are political
lightweights giving Amateur Radio the image of a bunch of obstructionist
amateurs (lower case amateur)."

The SCIENCE has already been done. By W1RFI, NTIA, and others.

73 de Jim, N2EY