"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Somehow, I don't see the protestations from SW preachers (in general) as
being very effective towards stopping BPL... I almost think that may only
serve to speed it's implementation! g



-=jd=-


I do think the politicians would listen to the National Association of
Religious Broadcasters, or whatever they call themselves.

Frank Dresser

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...


Nor does he have a clue about how people choose to spend their money. For
example he mentions that there is good market potential since 80% of the
internet users are still on dial up. He seems to think that they will
switch to BPL. But let's look at why they are on dial up. It is cost.
Dial up is still the cheapest access and it will be cheaper than the
projected cost for BPL. Unless they can get much closer to dial up in
price, most will NOT switch. There's a dial up service around here that
is
only about $10 per month. Even the most expensive dial up in this area
tops
out at $20 per month. BPL won't be able to snag a major share of the dial
users no matter what anyone would like to believe assuming their projected
costs are accurate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


That's another good point. I think $30 bucks a month might attract alot of
buyers to BPL, but it's still not low enough for cheapskates such as myself.
I do think the likely number of buyers is researchable, but reporters don't
always do research. Since the number is unspecified, I'll assume the BPL
folk didn't bring up this fundamental issue in their press release.

The finanical press usually has a disclaimer at the end of their columns.
Something like "Our columnist owns no stock or any other interest in the
company". That's nice, but it would be more informative to the reader if
the disclaimer said "Our columinist has done no research for this column
beyond reading the press releases of the company".

Frank Dresser

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

Oh - I thought the poster intimated the "less than mainstream" SW
preachers, ala "Profit Stair", etc.



-=jd=-

I suppose he was, but I'm thinking of the all the religious broadcasters
who've set up shop on the SW bands in the last 20 years or so. They have
demonstrated a measure of political clout in that the old rules against
domestic SW broadcasting are now freely ignored. These guys have a
significant investment to protect, particularly those guys who buy another
100 kW transmitter every 18 months or so.

Frank Dresser

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:32:31 -0000, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

I agree that if BPL is rolled out en mass, it _is_ likely to cause
serious interference with HF operations (amateur and otherwise), and
that the momentum of "Hey, we've invested billions to field BPL, you
can't just shut us down" is likely to override the original "No, there
won't be interference" promised.

You've hit on a key issue here -- interests will cry out
against "premature regulation" or promise to mitigate if regulation is
already in place. Then, when damage to others has been shown to exist,
they claim they've been led down the garden path by being allowed to
proceed in the first place. Next they complain about the "crushing
burden" it would impose on them and their investors to mitigate
damages as per the original contract. Standard tactis for running
roughshod ofer the rights of others.

On 09 Jun 2004 20:05:36 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


Now, I do not expect the FCC to investigate every CB'er messing up TV
reception, but I would expect them to eagerly investigate complaints from
any public safety related organization. If they don't, shame on them.


In the current political climate that public safety
organizations should be able to invoke homeland security concerns to
bolster their side of the debate -- inability to coordinate
evacuations, etc.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 11 Jun 2004 04:58:29p, "-=jd=-" wrote
in message :

On Fri 11 Jun 2004 04:46:24p, "Frank Dresser"
wrote in message
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

Oh - I thought the poster intimated the "less than mainstream" SW
preachers, ala "Profit Stair", etc.



-=jd=-

I suppose he was, but I'm thinking of the all the religious
broadcasters who've set up shop on the SW bands in the last 20 years or
so. They have demonstrated a measure of political clout in that the
old rules against domestic SW broadcasting are now freely ignored.
These guys have a significant investment to protect, particularly those
guys who buy another 100 kW transmitter every 18 months or so.

Frank Dresser



Wholly-Cow! They must be realizing a fair bit of success when they "pass
the plate".


-=jd=-


Now I'm trying to google up the price of a 100kw xmitter without much
success..


-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Well over a million jd and probably more like 2-5mil
--
73 and good DXing.
Brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of radios and 100' of rusty wire!
Zumbrota, Southern MN
Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

Wholly-Cow! They must be realizing a fair bit of success when they "pass
the plate".


-=jd=-

Some of the broadcasters are pretty ambitious. WYFR bought several about 20
years ago. Then it was WWCR. WWRB already has five transmitters.

I haven't heard as much of WWRB since Alex Jones moved to WWCR, but I
imagine Dave Frantz might have had something to say about BPL. This time
last year, he was talking about HAARP causing all those tornadoes and the
evils of Satan's World Wide Web.

Frank Dresser

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 11 Jun 2004 05:40:28p, "Brian Hill" wrote in
message :


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 11 Jun 2004 04:58:29p, "-=jd=-"
wrote in message :

On Fri 11 Jun 2004 04:46:24p, "Frank Dresser"
wrote in message
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

Oh - I thought the poster intimated the "less than mainstream" SW
preachers, ala "Profit Stair", etc.



-=jd=-

I suppose he was, but I'm thinking of the all the religious
broadcasters who've set up shop on the SW bands in the last 20 years
or so. They have demonstrated a measure of political clout in that
the old rules against domestic SW broadcasting are now freely
ignored. These guys have a significant investment to protect,
particularly those guys who buy another 100 kW transmitter every 18
months or so.

Frank Dresser



Wholly-Cow! They must be realizing a fair bit of success when they
"pass the plate".


-=jd=-


Now I'm trying to google up the price of a 100kw xmitter without much
success..


-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Well over a million jd and probably more like 2-5mil


Even with amortization, that's a fair chunk of cake to have to realize
every payment period when your revenue stream is somewhat reliant upon
shortwave evangelists. They must have more listeners than you would think
at first blush - Check that - "contributing" listeners...


-=jd=-

People give great amounts of their income to fund the churches they beleive
in. SW avangelists can have a large audience too I would think just like
the ones on TV. They may even cover more ground. It would be interesting to
know just what that is.
--
73 and good DXing.
Brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of radios and 100' of rusty wire!
Zumbrota, Southern MN
Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

Pass the plate to modulate the plate?

Regards

John Barnard

-=jd=- wrote:

On Fri 11 Jun 2004 04:46:24p, "Frank Dresser"
wrote in message
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

Oh - I thought the poster intimated the "less than mainstream" SW
preachers, ala "Profit Stair", etc.



-=jd=-

I suppose he was, but I'm thinking of the all the religious broadcasters
who've set up shop on the SW bands in the last 20 years or so. They
have demonstrated a measure of political clout in that the old rules
against domestic SW broadcasting are now freely ignored. These guys
have a significant investment to protect, particularly those guys who
buy another 100 kW transmitter every 18 months or so.

Frank Dresser



Wholly-Cow! They must be realizing a fair bit of success when they "pass
the plate".

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...



Plus if BPL does "threaten" to enter a market, the DSL and cable guys will
drop their prices to keep from losing market share. So I bet they are
monitoring this situation closely. The latter already know it is price
that
keeps some people from switching from dial-up. Just look at some of the
recent ads on TV for their promotions. Cable had been advertising a
$29.99
introductory offer and now they are offering a $19.99 introductory offer.
DSL and cable know that they have to get close to dial up prices to get
the
customers.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I was wondering how many people have broadband access, so I googled this up:

"A new, national report by comScore Networks indicates broadband Internet
access is ready to overtake dial-up access as the top online subscription
service in major metro markets in the United States. "

""In the past several months, we've seen the U.S. online population reach
150 million people, and household broadband penetration cross the 33 percent
threshold," said Russ Fradin, executive vice president of comScore Networks.
"Now we've recorded another milestone, with broadband accounting for more
than half of U.S. major market Internet connections.""

If the story is correct, half of the internet users have broadband access
where it's widely available, and a third of the country has it. Roughly 50
million people in the US have broadband access.

http://www.ectnews.com/story/33108.html

The story doesn't mention dropping price as much of a driving force in the
expansion of broadband, but I don't see how it can't be considered as the
main reason. SBC here runs promotional offers with the first few months of
DSL broadband for little more than the cost of dial up. Of course, the
price goes up after the promotional period ends.

Anyway, there seems to be a wide interest in broadband, as long as it's
offered at an attractive price.

Frank Dresser

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Even with amortization, that's a fair chunk of cake to have to realize
every payment period when your revenue stream is somewhat reliant upon
shortwave evangelists. They must have more listeners than you would think
at first blush - Check that - "contributing" listeners...


-=jd=-


I don't know if all the activity on the US domestic SW scene means there are
actually many people contributing or even listening. Some of the religious
broadcasters who set up their own transmitters do it as a part of their
ministry and cover the costs themselves. Harold Camping made a fortune
before he set up WYFR and the Christian Scientists have had a long term
commitment to journalism and broadcasting, so their SW operation was a good
fit.

If I recall, The Assemblies of Yahweh pays for WMLK, and they recently
bought an 250kW ex-BBC transmitter.

Alot of the people who get on the radio just want to get on the radio. At a
ballpark price of about a dollar a minute, it's affordable to them.

I think the big time shows, such as Brother Stair and James Lloyd are
largely funded by big contributors. I seem to recall that Brother Stair
once got a contribution of over a million dollars.

Alex Jones has said that his SW show is funded by the sale of water filters
and such.


I think the percentage of radios sold that have SW is probably the best
indication of the number of SWL's.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message

I think the percentage of radios sold that have SW is probably the best
indication of the number of SWL's.

Frank Dresser



I don't know? I don't diagree but I've never bought a brand new SW radio.

--
73 and good DXing.
Brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of radios and 100' of rusty wire!
Zumbrota, Southern MN
Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

That was the one from "yea right" who wrote in his message
...

"If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "


Anyone who has not given the FCC their input, should (you too, Frank).

AK

wrote in message
...
On 09 Jun 2004 20:05:36 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


Now, I do not expect the FCC to investigate every CB'er messing up TV
reception, but I would expect them to eagerly investigate complaints from
any public safety related organization. If they don't, shame on them.


In the current political climate that public safety
organizations should be able to invoke homeland security concerns to
bolster their side of the debate -- inability to coordinate
evacuations, etc.

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses sight of
the original message that prompted my post. That was the one from "yea
right" who wrote in his message
...

"If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "


Anyone who has not given the FCC their input, should (you too, Frank).

AK

"John Barnard" wrote in message
...
Pass the plate to modulate the plate?

Regards

John Barnard

-=jd=- wrote:

On Fri 11 Jun 2004 04:46:24p, "Frank Dresser"
wrote in message
:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...

Oh - I thought the poster intimated the "less than mainstream" SW
preachers, ala "Profit Stair", etc.



-=jd=-

I suppose he was, but I'm thinking of the all the religious
broadcasters
who've set up shop on the SW bands in the last 20 years or so. They
have demonstrated a measure of political clout in that the old rules
against domestic SW broadcasting are now freely ignored. These guys
have a significant investment to protect, particularly those guys who
buy another 100 kW transmitter every 18 months or so.

Frank Dresser



Wholly-Cow! They must be realizing a fair bit of success when they "pass
the plate".

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses sight of
the original message that prompted my post. That was the one from "yea
right" who wrote in his message
...

"If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "


Anyone who has not given the FCC their input, should (you too, Frank).

AK

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Clair J. Robinson wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

I'm sure some of our right-wing preachers that have taken to the
shortwaves could mount good letter-writing campaigns, should their
broadcasts be drowned out by BPL :-)

Bob
k5qwg



Don't forget that those right-wing preachers and all other US short-wave
broadcasters are licensed to broadcast to foreign locations only. I
guess those 800 numbers are for use in the Caribbean and Canada. Sure,
that has to be the case.

73, CJ K0CJ

You mean if I pick up their broadcast here in the US then that makes
them illegal?

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses sight of
the original message that prompted my post. That was the one from "yea
right" who wrote in his message
...

"If you value radio, this may be the last and only chance to have your
voice heard to stop BPL from destroying your hobby. The FCC has extended
the comment period for BPL.

It is VERY simple to file a FCC comment. Click the link below and enter

03-104

in box #1 (proceeding number) and fill in the blanks. The simplest way to
comment is to type your comment into the box on the bottom of the form.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi "


Anyone who has not given the FCC their input, should (you too, Frank).

AK

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...



Plus if BPL does "threaten" to enter a market, the DSL and cable guys
will
drop their prices to keep from losing market share. So I bet they are
monitoring this situation closely. The latter already know it is price
that
keeps some people from switching from dial-up. Just look at some of the
recent ads on TV for their promotions. Cable had been advertising a
$29.99
introductory offer and now they are offering a $19.99 introductory
offer.
DSL and cable know that they have to get close to dial up prices to get
the
customers.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I was wondering how many people have broadband access, so I googled this
up:

"A new, national report by comScore Networks indicates broadband Internet
access is ready to overtake dial-up access as the top online subscription
service in major metro markets in the United States. "

""In the past several months, we've seen the U.S. online population reach
150 million people, and household broadband penetration cross the 33
percent
threshold," said Russ Fradin, executive vice president of comScore
Networks.
"Now we've recorded another milestone, with broadband accounting for more
than half of U.S. major market Internet connections.""

If the story is correct, half of the internet users have broadband access
where it's widely available, and a third of the country has it. Roughly
50
million people in the US have broadband access.

http://www.ectnews.com/story/33108.html

The story doesn't mention dropping price as much of a driving force in the
expansion of broadband, but I don't see how it can't be considered as the
main reason. SBC here runs promotional offers with the first few months
of
DSL broadband for little more than the cost of dial up. Of course, the
price goes up after the promotional period ends.

Anyway, there seems to be a wide interest in broadband, as long as it's
offered at an attractive price.

Frank Dresser

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...


I don't know? I don't diagree but I've never bought a brand new SW radio.

--
73 and good DXing.
Brian

But most listeners listen in on recently manufactured radios. Radio sales
aren't a perfect indication of the number of SWLs, of course. The boom in
sales of microprocessor controlled digital radios in the 90s, was probably a
mixed indication of new listeners and established listeners upgrading. SW
radio sales are way down now, but that might be another mixed indication of
reduce interest and listeners who are satisfied with their current radio(s).

But overall, I do think radio sales are a better indication of the number of
listeners than the number of new transmitters or the money the shortwave
broadcasters have. The shortwave broadcaster money might be a better
indicator of the number of paranoid or senile monied people we have here in
the US.

Ideally, a good pollster could come up with a better number. That is, if
the SWLs can be convinced that the poll isn't part of the New World Order.

Frank Dresser

"AK" wrote in message
news:iDFyc.24732$0y.9613@attbi_s03...
Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses sight
of
the original message that prompted my post. That was the one from "yea
right" who wrote in his message
...

[snip]

Yep, they got it, and I got the confirmation.

Frank Dresser

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"AK" wrote in message
news:QdQxc.26209$Sw.14324@attbi_s51...

[snip]


I doubt the "benefits millions" bit, but will the FCC restrict amateur
radio
if it interferes with big-business political contributors' operations ? Of
course it will.

ak



OK -- I'll go through it.

If BPL works as promised, it will benefit millions. The BPL folk promise
high speed internet access at under $30.00 a month.

Snip

Most of the country has a $26.95 promotion for DSL from SBC and Extreme
DSL et cetera.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens after the
election.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , starman
wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens after the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article , starman
wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens after the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article , starman
wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens after the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

I thought he was appointed to a term so it does not matter at this point
who is elected. Is this correct?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article , starman
wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens after
the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

I thought he was appointed to a term so it does not matter at this point
who is elected. Is this correct?


Most appointees can be fired, can they not? I believe the only exceptions
are judges (and even they can be fired under the right circumstances)

In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article , starman
wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens after
the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

I thought he was appointed to a term so it does not matter at this point
who is elected. Is this correct?


Most appointees can be fired, can they not? I believe the only exceptions
are judges (and even they can be fired under the right circumstances)

I was under the impression that unless something extraordinary occurred
Powell would serve out his term regardless of who was elected.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

...
In article , starman

wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one
loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens
after
the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

I thought he was appointed to a term so it does not matter at this
point
who is elected. Is this correct?


Most appointees can be fired, can they not? I believe the only
exceptions
are judges (and even they can be fired under the right circumstances)

I was under the impression that unless something extraordinary occurred
Powell would serve out his term regardless of who was elected.


Cabinet positions are appointees. They go when the new administration takes
over. Can't see why an FCC appointment would be any different. I sure hope
he can be fired at any rate.. he's bad news to say the least.

In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

...
In article , starman

wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one
loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens
after
the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

I thought he was appointed to a term so it does not matter at this
point
who is elected. Is this correct?


Most appointees can be fired, can they not? I believe the only
exceptions
are judges (and even they can be fired under the right circumstances)

I was under the impression that unless something extraordinary occurred
Powell would serve out his term regardless of who was elected.


Cabinet positions are appointees. They go when the new administration takes
over. Can't see why an FCC appointment would be any different. I sure hope
he can be fired at any rate.. he's bad news to say the least.

I think most people reading this newsgroup would wish Bush would fire
him myself included.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

...
In article ,
"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

...
In article , starman

wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As
the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no
one
loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens
after
the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

I thought he was appointed to a term so it does not matter at this
point
who is elected. Is this correct?


Most appointees can be fired, can they not? I believe the only
exceptions
are judges (and even they can be fired under the right
circumstances)

I was under the impression that unless something extraordinary
occurred
Powell would serve out his term regardless of who was elected.


Cabinet positions are appointees. They go when the new administration
takes
over. Can't see why an FCC appointment would be any different. I sure
hope
he can be fired at any rate.. he's bad news to say the least.

I think most people reading this newsgroup would wish Bush would fire
him myself included.


We at least agree on that, if nothing else.

Brenda Ann Dyer wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article , starman
wrote:

AK wrote:

Excuse me for butting into an interesting discussion. As the
originator of
this string heading, I just wanted to say that I hope no one loses
sight of
the original message that prompted my post.

I filed a complaint. We'll have to wait and see what happens after the
election.

What has the election have to do with the complaint?


Possibly whether Michael Powell still has a job after January?

Powell has a job until June 30, 2007 unless he does something really
stupid which can be used to remove him from the position. A Kerry
administration would tell Powell what their policy is regarding BPL.
Hopefully they would be against it. Powell would then be expected to
comply with the Presidents wishes (as he has for Bush) or face some
rough times ahead. This raises an interesting question for some on this
group. Would you vote for Bush if you knew that a Kerry administration
would stop BPL?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----