Jim Weaver, the ARRL Director for the Great Lakes Division, made the
following comment about BPL in his newsletter:

wrote:

A confession: We [the ARRL] failed to recognize the FCC position on BPL had
nothing to do with science and technology. We did not recognize
initially the FCC position was a simple example of blatant, misguided
partisan economics (I don't mean political party partisanship). As a
result, we approached the discussion from a basis of science and
technology. The realization of the political nature of the situation
is one major reason we developed the ARRL Legislative Action Program.
We need your participation in this program. Please contact me at
to learn how you can help.

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...

The way to fix that is Turn ALL bpl OFF and leave it OFF.
cuhulin

"Blatant, misguided economics" also can be applied to our economic policy
with Communist China.

"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
m...
Jim Weaver, the ARRL Director for the Great Lakes Division, made the
following comment about BPL in his newsletter:

wrote:

A confession: We [the ARRL] failed to recognize the FCC position on BPL
had
nothing to do with science and technology. We did not recognize
initially the FCC position was a simple example of blatant, misguided
partisan economics (I don't mean political party partisanship). As a
result, we approached the discussion from a basis of science and
technology. The realization of the political nature of the situation
is one major reason we developed the ARRL Legislative Action Program.
We need your participation in this program. Please contact me at
to learn how you can help.

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...

fcc = Fuming Commie Commies.Well,let them FUME! Speaking for meself,I
Don't Want bpl! I am Much Smarter and Much More Intelligent than any and
All of those fcc = Fuming Commie Commies bunch of little Sissys.
cuhulin

"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.

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

Frank Dresser

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.

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.

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.

"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

www.vivisimo.com fcc Corruption

AlertNet: Rotten,Old Fashioned CORRUPTION at fcc
cuhulin

Frank Dresser wrote:

OK, why would anybody have to be on the take? Is there any evidence of FCC
corruption, or is this all speculation?

Well, they don't -have- to be on the take; it is just speculation.

However, what was remarkable (to me) was that an ARRL official (who,
presumably, is much more in touch with the issue than you or I) came out
and seemed to stop just short of accusing them of being on the take. And
please keep this in the context of an FCC Commissioner from the 1950s
outright admitting that the FCC -was- on the take during the color
standards war and the VHF/UHF war. (HIS quote: "We called them the
'whorehouse years'").

Furthermore, the FCC is -refusing- to enforce their own Part 15
interference rules.

So, will an FCC spokesman appear on the 6 o'clock news tonight and say
"We are on the take"? Unlikely, but between the ARRL official's comment
and the 50's Commissioner's admission and the FCC's refusal to enforce
their own rules, well, ya gotta wonder.

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

Well, maybe they should. There *ARE* other users of the HF spectrum, you
know--not just hams and SWLs.

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

Probably true. :-(

"Dick Chisel" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

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

Well, maybe they should. There *ARE* other users of the HF spectrum, you
know--not just hams and SWLs.

Right. The first two which come to mind are the military and the airlines.
I expect the interference problem can be minimized by banning BPL from
certain areas. And I'm also sure that interference complaints from either
of those orginizations will be taken much more seriously than complaints
from the ARRL.


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

Probably true. :-(

It's been suggested here that oversight of the public access parts of the
radio spectrum be taken from the FCC and given to The National Park Service.
If the public can enjoy the resource, then they will have an incentive to
protect it.

Frank Dresser