well stveie hacks a post apart
K4YZ wrote:
an old friend wrote:

Excellent question

Excellent question

Trifle touchy arent we

Excellent question

Well that was a meaningful exchange.

Gee even when a guy agrees with you, you flame him

Steve, K4YZ

From: "Dee Flint" on Wed 17 Aug 2005 18:13


"John Smith" wrote in message

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

It "won't do it?!?" Oh, my, but you've been saying it WOULD!

Okay, the ARRL has been in existance since 1914 and they've
been a PUBLISHING BUSINESS as well since the mid-1920s. So,
the ARRL has had a bit over 80 years to publish its little
maxims (pun not quite intended) for all "good" hams to follow
for four generations now.

Note that INCOME from the publishing business supports more of
the ARRL activities than any amount of "membership dues" can
do. A few years ago the ARRL declared on their federal income
tax forms that their total income was $12.5 MILLION that year.
Note also that legal representation is NOT inexpensive...Chris
Imlay's law firm going to do all its ARRL legal work pro bono?
[inconceivable in American law practice! :-) ]

Do the math. The League would have to get EVERY licensed U.S.
radio amateur to join up at the current dues rates in order to
come CLOSE to that sort of income. All those ARRL Life Members
paid a one-shot fee and are no longer required to pay anything
more so their dues won't show up on the annual League budget
now.

Can ANY *new* amateur radio membership organization come close
to the ARRL's penetration of U.S. ham radio? Not at the grass-
roots level, not after the League has had an existance of four
generations just as a publishing business (91 years as an
incorporated membership entity). This *new* membership
organization MUST have some significant monetary support at
the START in order to survive. That's very, very difficult
today. There have been several tries in the past three decades
(give or take) and none have been successful in coming close
to the League establishment.

Can one join the League and "effect change from within" (that's
your repeated mantra stated several times before) ? I doubt
that from the simple reason of reading all those ARRL BoD
minutes, seeing all those same names showing up for so many
years. The public does NOT see EVERYTHING going on in Newington
nor at those aperiodic gatherings of wheeler-dealer junkets at
various cities. What we do see are nice, formal gatherings of
Good Old Boys discussing very, very little new that will affect
a majority of American radio amateurs (remember that the ARRL
says it "represents all amateurs"...ahem, koff koff).

ARRL membership figures show that only one out of five U.S.
radio amateurs are members. 20%. They've almost had 25% at
one point in their 91 years. The League keeps asking for
more money...such as the "Spectrum Defense Fund." Ahem, it
didn't get a whole BAND at 60 meters, did it? Guess they
"didn't SPEND enough" lobbying for one? The IARU managed to
press home a sort-of future solution for 40 meters that has
been lingering since WARC-79 (that's now shown up in the
Federal Register as the big WRC-03 Omnibus action that is an
Order). The League keeps supporting all those olde-tymers
of their core membership...the Lifers, the Belivers...and
ignores the 48% of all U.S. amateur licensees who are
Technician class.

Of course, you will trumpet "join the League, start changing
from the 'inside'"...which means PAYING to get in...which
means all joiners will be on Address Lists they can sell for
more INCOME. Lovely legal scam-equiivalent. shrug

No problem, Dee. You aren't reading this anyway. Others do.
Others have already known about it for years. That may be
one reason the membership doesn't reflect a greater percentage
of the total licensees...

now pay

From: "K4YZ" on Wed, Aug 17 2005 4:01 pm

wrote:
From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06


The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel.

Poor Lennie.

I'm not "poor," little Stebie, rather reasonably well-off,
NO liens at all, wife and I just bought a new car, we both
have income other than Social Security. We own two houses,
one in Los Angeles, the other in Kitsap County, WA...no
mortgages on either.


Can't stand it that there ARE other avenues "where ideas for
change, restructuring and progress" may be "introduced".

Incorrect. There are MANY avenues for change, restructuring
and progress. For civilian radio there is ONLY ONE and that
ONE is the Federal Communications Commission for U.S.
citizens.

In recent amateur radio history, FCC 99-412 was the Report
and Order that ordered the latest "Restructuring" of U.S.
amateur radio regulations. That was commented on by over
2300 documents from citizens under WT Docket 98-143. More
recent were the EIGHTEEN Petitions for Rulemaking, some of
which were DENIED in FCC 05-143 and the International Morse
Code test element 1 elimination being THE singular topic of
WT Docket 05-235. As of midnight EDT 16 August 2005 there
were no less than 1646 documents filed in WT Docket 05-235.

Amateur radio regulations were NOT a topic of discussions
at a neighborhood meeting of our City Councilwoman two
weeks ago at the All-Saints Church parish hall. They
won't be at Congressman Brad Sherman's Town Meeting next
week in Northridge, CA. Do you think amateur radio regs
SHOULD be discussed there? If so, state WHY.

Means he can't remind us of how impotent he is.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to worry, LITTLE Stebie, in a real discussion of real
issues affecting the community, I can "get it up" (so to
speak) on DISCUSSIONS with relevant facts and figures to
support my views. I'm used to it, can do it effectively.

One thing I do NOT do is - like your sexual innuendo
misdirection - try to divert the discussion into some
mean-spirited self-frustrated ATTACK on other personalities.
While that serves to temporarily HIDE YOU on your lack of
facts and logic on the SUBJECT under discussion, it is by
no means any sort of positive attribute for yourself. It is
rather a negative attribute that shows how shallow and
ignorant you are with all that emotional instability of
hatred manifesting itself at every opportunity.

Putz.

Giving it back to you in your own style - 4 Q :-)

own imp

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell... after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Wed, Aug 17 2005 4:01 pm

wrote:
From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06


The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel.

Poor Lennie.

I'm not "poor," little Stebie, rather reasonably well-off,
NO liens at all, wife and I just bought a new car, we both
have income other than Social Security. We own two houses,
one in Los Angeles, the other in Kitsap County, WA...no
mortgages on either.

Sure you are.

Oh, I am sure you have the material things you claim, but that's
ALL you have.

You're a proven liar, a miscreant who's word is worthless.

So congratulations on your wise financial investments. Because
your "word" wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee in a free soup kitchen.

Can't stand it that there ARE other avenues "where ideas for
change, restructuring and progress" may be "introduced".

Incorrect. There are MANY avenues for change, restructuring
and progress. For civilian radio there is ONLY ONE and that
ONE is the Federal Communications Commission for U.S.
citizens.

Your "incorrect" is untrue.

That there are discussions in THIS forum for those very issues
disproves your assertion.

SNIP

Amateur radio regulations were NOT a topic of discussions
at a neighborhood meeting of our City Councilwoman two
weeks ago at the All-Saints Church parish hall.

Why shoud they be? Why COULDN'T they be?

But does that make "untrue" my claim that there ARE other avenues
for change of Amateur regulations?

That it eventually winds up in the FCC's lap is a certainty, but
is it your contention that the FCC's NPRM/R&O is the ONLY forum for
those changes?

They won't be at Congressman Brad Sherman's Town Meeting next
week in Northridge, CA. Do you think amateur radio regs
SHOULD be discussed there? If so, state WHY.

Why not?

Is Congressman Sherman NOT elected for the purpose of representing
your issues and concerns to the government? Is there some list of
topics somewhere that says you can't discuss federal regulations with
your elected representitive in a public forum?

Means he can't remind us of how impotent he is.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to worry, LITTLE Stebie, in a real discussion of real
issues affecting the community, I can "get it up" (so to
speak) on DISCUSSIONS with relevant facts and figures to
support my views. I'm used to it, can do it effectively.

Some of the worlds most destructive powers got to be that way with
the spoken word, not a gun.

That you can "baffle 'em with BS" doesn't make it true...It just
means you baffle well.

One thing I do NOT do is - like your sexual innuendo
misdirection - try to divert the discussion into some
mean-spirited self-frustrated ATTACK on other personalities.

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!

THAT'S ONE OF YOUR MOST OUTRAGEOUS, ABSOLUTLEY IDIOTIC AND
TRANSPARENT LIES E V E R LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !

While that serves to temporarily HIDE YOU on your lack of
facts and logic on the SUBJECT under discussion, it is by
no means any sort of positive attribute for yourself.

READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE THEN TRY TO LIVE IT, LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! !


It is
rather a negative attribute that shows how shallow and
ignorant you are with all that emotional instability of
hatred manifesting itself at every opportunity.

Well, THERE YOU GO! Ya just diagnosed yourself!

Putz.

Giving it back to you in your own style - 4 Q

Hardly!

Putz!



Steve, K4YZ

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news
AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and
progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in
the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were
able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell...
after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two
choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and
dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is
large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their
own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


It was large enough and organized enough for its issue. And being a single
issue organization, the membership was in agreement about its issue.

Dee D. Flint,

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

cuting
Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


It was large enough and organized enough for its issue. And being a single
issue organization, the membership was in agreement about its issue.

membership in the sates was a few thousand(Bill, or Carl any numbers)
was more or less organized here on RRAP, much smaller than the ARRL

Indeed NCI makes a good case that any wel organized group with a clear
and convincing idea can effect change, and with far smaller numbers
than ARRL

Dee D. Flint,

From: "K4YZ" on Thurs 18 Aug 2005 03:01


wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Wed, Aug 17 2005 4:01 pm
wrote:
From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel.

Poor Lennie.

I'm not "poor," little Stebie, rather reasonably well-off,
NO liens at all, wife and I just bought a new car, we both
have income other than Social Security. We own two houses,
one in Los Angeles, the other in Kitsap County, WA...no
mortgages on either.

Sure you are.

Agreement is always agreeable... :-)

Oh, I am sure you have the material things you claim, but that's
ALL you have.

Considerably MORE, but then, as usual, you are turning this
thread into your own Personal Attack forum, away from the
subject.

You're a proven liar, a miscreant who's word is worthless.

It's quite obvious to all that your sentence quoted above, taken
in context, shows your personal hatred of any opponent.

So congratulations on your wise financial investments. Because
your "word" wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee in a free soup kitchen.

More of your personal hatred coming to a boil.

Get some ashes and sackcloth to complete the picture, Job.

Can't stand it that there ARE other avenues "where ideas for
change, restructuring and progress" may be "introduced".

Incorrect. There are MANY avenues for change, restructuring
and progress. For civilian radio there is ONLY ONE and that
ONE is the Federal Communications Commission for U.S.
citizens.

Your "incorrect" is untrue.

The Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 is LAW and establishes the Federal Communications
Commission as the ONLY civil radio regulating agency in the
United States of America. What I wrote is TRUE.

That there are discussions in THIS forum for those very issues
disproves your assertion.

NOTHING in this forum carries any weight of LAW. Try to keep
a sense of reality however unstable that seems to YOU.

The LAW of the United States of America is established. It is
ALSO law that the same Constitution that established the laws
of this nation carries with it the mechanism for changing
those laws at the will of the people of the United States of
America.


But does that make "untrue" my claim that there ARE other avenues
for change of Amateur regulations?

The ONLY OTHER "avenues for change" are revolt, insurrection,
and an overthrow of the government of the United States of
America. Are you advocating such revolt, insurrection, and
overthrow of the government of the United States of America?

That it eventually winds up in the FCC's lap is a certainty, but
is it your contention that the FCC's NPRM/R&O is the ONLY forum for
those changes?

In regards to a change of regulations as ordered by the Federal
Communications Commission under a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
of that very same Federal Communications Commission, YES.

If you would take the time to read Parts 0 and 1 of Title
47, Code of Federal Regulations, you would understand the
organization and the methods of change of regulations that
makes it possible and lawful to effect a change in those
same regulations.

They won't be at Congressman Brad Sherman's Town Meeting next
week in Northridge, CA. Do you think amateur radio regs
SHOULD be discussed there? If so, state WHY.

Why not?

You did not state any "why."

Is Congressman Sherman NOT elected for the purpose of representing
your issues and concerns to the government? Is there some list of
topics somewhere that says you can't discuss federal regulations with
your elected representitive in a public forum?

Sigh...one has to repeat very basic Civics to those who only
wish to argue...

Hello? The Communications Act of 1934 was passed by the Congress
of the United States of America. That Congress is composed of
two "houses," the Senate and the House of Representatives. A
Congressman is a member of the House of Representatives. That
Communications Act of 1934 (and as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996) made the Federal Communications
Commission an independent federal agency with the capability
to establish rules and regulations pertaining to all civil
radio and certain other communications means...and to have them
enforced by the federal government. The Congress of the United
States does NOT NORMALLY micro-manage the duties it granted to
the Federal Communications Commission by the Laws it passed to
create that Commission and that Commission's sphere of authority.

Try, TRY to understand that NPRM 05-143 and WT Docket 05-235
is NOT a concern for the general public nor is it a topic for
banner headlines in major newspapers. Yes, it could be, but
then amateur radio is NOT a major public topic for citizens
such as the "deregulation" of the telephone infrastructure
that began about four decades ago.

TRY to understand that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking put
forth by the Federal Communications Commission is FOR such
rulemaking as established by the same Federal Communications
Commission. The mechanism of such changes has been established
by law of the United States of America through the Congress of
the United States. Congress has, through a law, granted the
Federal Communications Commission certain powers of regulation
of civil radio services in the United States. Congress did
NOT grant any such powers to the ARRL or any other private
organization nor did the Telecommunications Act of 1996 grant
any powers to Internet discussion groups to change any Law.

The Federal Communications Commission has created, by
regulation, the mechanism by which the citizens of the
United States of America may discuss, seek changes to,
amend, or propose regulations established by the Federal
Communications Commission. That same Commission also
has established the report of any Report and Order which
formally establishes any change in its own regulations.


Means he can't remind us of how impotent he is.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to worry, LITTLE Stebie, in a real discussion of real
issues affecting the community, I can "get it up" (so to
speak) on DISCUSSIONS with relevant facts and figures to
support my views. I'm used to it, can do it effectively.

Some of the worlds most destructive powers got to be that way with
the spoken word, not a gun.

Tsk, little Stebie trying to sound like Tom Paine and winding
up a Paine in the ass...

That you can "baffle 'em with BS" doesn't make it true...It just
means you baffle well.

I understand the LAW of the United States of America enough
to work within it, using those means lawfully available to
me to support or seek changes to laws of the United States
of America. That is NOT any sort of "bafflement" and
certainly no "lie." The basics of that are guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States of America and
maintained by the Congress of the United States, overseen
by the Supreme Court of the United States.

One thing I do NOT do is - like your sexual innuendo
misdirection - try to divert the discussion into some
mean-spirited self-frustrated ATTACK on other personalities.

THAT'S ONE OF YOUR MOST OUTRAGEOUS, ABSOLUTLEY IDIOTIC AND
TRANSPARENT LIES E V E R LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !

This thread began on "issues" of concern over the policies
in regard to amateur radio. As usual, little Stebie has
turned it into his own "battleground" wherein he is only
concerned with his hatred and frustrations against his
"opponents" on anything.

While that serves to temporarily HIDE YOU on your lack of
facts and logic on the SUBJECT under discussion, it is by
no means any sort of positive attribute for yourself.

READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE THEN TRY TO LIVE IT, LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! !

You have been reminded of the structure of laws of the
United States of America. That may be reviewed by yourself
from documents established by the government of the United
States of America.

The common problem with the egocentric opinions of some,
such as evident of yourself, is that they cannot abide in
ANY opinion contrary to their own personal fanciful
interpretation. They, like yourself, become frustrated,
angry, and seek to denigrate, humiliate, and insult the
persons who do not agree with them. That is NOT debate,
NOT discussion, NOT even any civil argument. It is
simply the puerile schoolyard-bully tactics of the
sociopath, the maladjusted, those frustrated by everyday
life who take out their aggressions on others for purely
personal reasons.

It is clearly evident to any reader of this newsgroup that
YOU exist solely to heap abuse on all those you hate,
all those who do not agree with you. The SUBJECT is
just something you use as a springboard to begin more
personal attacks on others. You cannot discuss anything
civilly without launching into yet-another-attack on the
persons who do not agree with you.

you hat

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
news AOF:

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and
progress
can be introduced.

In the past, the ARRL seems to quickly leap to the forefront of this
process, claim they represent all amateurs and lobby for the issues in
the
way they would them implemented... a vast influx of new people may be
able to knock that strangle hold which a few at the bottle-neck were
able
to achieve--loose... change appears on the way, time will tell...
after
decades of decline and stagnation, cures are not to had over-night.

John



It will take an organized group to do this though. People have two
choices.
One is to join the ARRL and change it to pursue the policies near and
dear
to their own hearts. The second choice is to form a new group that is
large
enough and organized enough to lobby for what is near and dear to their
own
hearts. Just saying the ARRL should change won't do it.

Well We NoCoders did exactly that and NCI was never all that large


It was large enough and organized enough for its issue. And being a single
issue organization, the membership was in agreement about its issue.

Heck, agreement was/is a condition of membership!

It's interesting that NCI was and is so secretive about its numbers.
Last
I heard, it amounted to less than 7000 members worldwide.

--

I think that crediting NCI for the code test reduction/elimination is
a bit like crediting the rooster for the dawn. Look at the history:

1975: FCC first proposes a nocodetest ham license in USA.

1983: FCC again proposes nocodetest ham license in USA.

Early 1980s: FCC "waives" (eliminates) code sending test, allows
multiple
choice and fill-in-the-blank code tests as well as 1-minute-solid-copy
test.

1990: FCC creates medical waivers at White House
request, to do a favor for a foreign head of state.

1991: FCC creates a nocodetest ham license in USA by simply
eliminating code test from Technician.

1996: NCI formed

2000: FCC reduces code testing to 5 wpm for all classes requiring
a code test despite majority of comments supporting 2 or 3
code test speeds. States that treaty requirement is only
reason 5 wpm was kept. Also reduces written testing.

2003: WRC-2003 eliminates treaty requirement for code test.

2005: FCC proposes complete elimination of code testing, as proposed
by several petitions.


The trend to nocodetest, and to less testing overall, was clear long
before NCI appeared on the scene.

73 de Jim, N2EY

John Smith wrote:
Phil:

At the core of the "Radio Act of 1912", and grossly paraphrased here by
me, seems the statement, "Here you guys sign up and get registered, then
take this range of freqs and see what you can do with them. See if you can
come up with ideas which advance the use of radio and we can use in the
benefit of america and its' citizens."

Except for "Here you guys sign up and get registered", that's not what
it was about at all.

What the 1912 act did was to organize what had been a haphazard system.
While the Titanic disaster gave them the impetus to act, the
legislation had been
developed and discussed for years before.

Amateurs (meaning stations that were not commercial, government or
maritime) were pushed to 200 meters and beyond, because those
wavelengths were
considered to be relatively useless by the professionals. Licenses were
made
mandatory to keep tabs on all transmitting stations.

But the "200 Meters And Down" spectrum was not limited to amateurs. Any
radio service could use it - all they needed was a station license. Few
except amateurs even tried.

Amateurs did not have free reign, either. Back then a station's
wavelength
was specified on the station license. If a ham wanted to try, say, 110
meters,
s/he needed a license specifying 110 meters.

Somehow, along the way, things got bogged down and an abundance of people
came to the hobby who wanted a set of rules which they could religiously
worship and practice and invoke for disciplinary actions to be taken on
others not holding a religious reverence for such, this has been
detrimental to the original purpose and goals...

That's just nonsense.

What happened was that the regulations evolved over time, driven by a
number of forces.

This now lays at the extreme end where you must be careful what
experiments you undertake, how you undertake them and why you can't
undertake them...

How?

What experiments are you kept from undertaking, and by whom?

in someways there are "guards" on the bands as exist in
prisons, and you are "allowed out in the yard" if you obey all the
rules...

FCC makes the rules. Are you advocating ignoring those rules?

strange for a hobby first created as a means to try new ideas
which could possibly lead somewhere...

So what's your proposal?

BPL is perhaps a very good example, where arrl and other "status quo"
forces banded together and ended up having the effect of saying, "We
already know that won't work! Don't attempt any experiments, don't do any
testing, don't gather any data, don't lay any plans. Don't plan on being
able to change and redesign hardware/software to attempt to make it
work! Cease and desist immediately, we so command you!"

The interference provided by BPL systems has been observed and
demonstrated.
It's a fact. One doesn't have to be a radio genius to see that power
lines
with HF on them will radiate like mad and interfere with licensed radio
stations.

Would you rather that nobody opposed BPL?