"CW" wrote:

You seem to be saying that ham operators
are the only ones affected. How about air
traffic control? FEMA? Coast Guard.
Many more. All have voiced their objections
but the FCC is still going with the money.


Look, I'm not trying to defend the BPL industry here, so don't jump on me
about it. Instead, I'm simply explaining the realities of the situation. I
limited my prior comments to ham operators because that was the discussion.
Yes, others have expressed concerns about BPL. But, again, without some very
specific problem for the FCC to hang it's hat on, it has no justification
whatsoever to stop BPL. Concerns expressed without substance simply isn't
enough if that industry can shown it has taken reasonable steps to minimize
problems where those concerns exist. When it comes specifically to the
relatively small number of ham operators, even superficial steps to minimize
problems is probably enough.

Your claim the FCC is "going with the money" is patently deceptive, and is
doing nothing to improve our position in this situation. The money is there
solely because the numbers are there. Again, BPL has the potential to serve
many millions of households around the country. And, like any government
agency, the FCC has an obligation to serve the majority (whether money is
there or not). With all that in mind, give me one reason why the FCC should
ignore the greater number that might benefit from BPL and instead cater to
the objections of ham operators - especially if that industry can show it
is, or has, taken steps to minimize the impact to ham radio. You may
disagree those steps are sufficient, but deceptive comments about those we
need on our side isn't going to prove it.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/