"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
m...
Interesting! In my opinion, "Blatant, misguided economics" seems to be
about as close as you can come to saying "The fix is in" and "Payola"
without actually saying it.

Welcome to the return of the "Whorehouse Years" at the FCC...

Well, he said "blatant, misguided partisan economics". Money need not
be
the only consideration. Votes are the ulitmate currency in the partisan
economy.

Money or votes-NOT the point. Possibly being on the take (for whatever
type of compensation)and thus wrecking the SWL bands IS the point.

OK, why would anybody have to be on the take? Is there any evidence of FCC
corruption, or is this all speculation? After all, they can justify all
thier actions with the "Greatest good for the greatest number" arguement,
that is -- BPL brings broadband access to otherwise inaccessable areas, BPL
brings increased competition with the existing broadband providers, etc.

All the FCCs recent actions prove is that they no longer care much about
long distance radio reception.


And, if BPL works, it will be a hell of alot more popular than Ham Radio
with the general public.

...and it will wipe out a hell of a lot of the short wave listening bands.

Why should the FCC care? You care and I care but I think we'd have a hard
time finding enough other people who'd get a congressman's attention.


P.S.

The "newer" BPL systems notch out the ham bands and may not even be an
issue at all for the hams; however, the SWL bands -won't- be notched
out. Ultimately, it will hurt the SWLs way more than the hams.

Don't kid yourself. In the unlikely event that BPL somehow becomes
workable, the FCC will happily give the spectrum to the BPL providers,
either by cowardly non-enforcement or by rewriting their interference
regulations.

Remember, the FCC DOES NOT CARE MUCH ABOUT LONG DISTANCE RADIO RECEPTION.

And there might not be enough of us to make them care.

Frank Dresser