May 2004 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:10658] Re: BPL comment extension
by Joel Harrison 28 May '04

28 May '04

I forgot........what was it? 73 Joel p.s. just kidding.....don't get fired up. -----Original Message----- From: K5ur(a)aol.com [mailto:K5ur@aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 11:57 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10657] Re: BPL comment extension Did I ever tell ya'll what I think of the FCC? Oh yeah, I think that I did. Hey, everyone have a super holiday weekend!!! 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10657] Re: BPL comment extension
by K5ur＠aol.com 28 May '04

28 May '04

Did I ever tell ya'll what I think of the FCC? Oh yeah, I think that I did. Hey, everyone have a super holiday weekend!!! 73, K5UR

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10656] Re: BPL comment extension
by dick＠pobox.com 28 May '04

28 May '04

28 MAY, 2004 - 1115 CDT Chris, I agree with everything you say except for your choice of one word. The commissioners have not "prejudged" their BPL proposal as there has been no judgement at all. They are merely following orders coming from the White House and ultimately from those Bush supporters who stand to make a lot of money from a BPL build-out. They are not doing their jobs as spelled out in the various Congressional enabling acts and amendments over the years. If they were performing to job specifications, BPL would never have gotten to first base. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10654] Re: BPL comment extension
by W3KD＠aol.com 28 May '04

28 May '04

In a message dated 5/28/2004 9:29:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, n2ff(a)optonline.net writes: > > Both actions indicate partiality. The question is what do we do about it? > > Frank, per my prior message in response to Tom, I don't think we are being treated differently, and certainly not from others who OPPOSE BPL. The issue in our extension filing (which admittedly should have been granted), and that in the reply comment extension are different. Had FCC not extended the reply comment date after receiving NTIA (initial) comments (which are supposed to be filed today and which will be favorable to going ahead with BPL and making specific technical suggestions) FCC would have set themselves up for an appeal based on an Administrative Procedure Act violation, since there would have been no time for anyone to respond to NTIA. Our argument on the initial comment date, that we needed more time to address the NTIA study, was less compelling because of (1) the time available before comments were due to review the study, which was short but not non-existent; and (2) the fact of the reply comment period, which offered an opportunity to address the NTIA study. So, while this whole proceeding is a freight train without brakes, and FCC wants to pad the record with stuff favorable to BPL, and they have prejudged the entire issue, it is hard to compare the two extension of time requests in any way that establishes anything. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10653] Re: BPL comment extension
by W3KD＠aol.com 28 May '04

28 May '04

In a message dated 5/28/2004 12:56:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, frenaye(a)pcnet.com writes: > > Interesting that our request for an extension was turned down but this one > was granted (3 weeks). -- Tom > > CARRIER CURRENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING BROADBAND OVER POWER LINE SYSTEMS. > Granted in part the Motion of NAC/Amherst , and extended the deadline > for filing reply comments. (Dkt No. 03-104, 04-37). > Action by: Chief , Office of Engineering and Technology. Reply Comments > Due: 06/22/2004. Adopted: 05/26/2004 by ORDER. (DA No. 04-1552). OET > <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1552A1.doc> > <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1552A1.pdf> > <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1552A1.txt> > Not at all, Tom. Look at the reason for the extension. NTIA hasn't yet filed its comments and a technical proposal. FCC knows full well what that is going to be, because it was vetted at an IRAC meeting. They are waiting for the NTIA filing, because it will assist them in going ahead with their BPL proposal. They just used that bozo antenna consortium as a vehicle. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10652] Re: BPL comment extension
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 28 May '04

28 May '04

It is actually more than interesting. One could get paranoid about all this. The bottom line is that is that ARRL is NOT being treated equally here. First the FCC shows the NTIA report to industry folks before it goes public and refuses to do the same for us and now this. Obviously FCC did not want us to file comments and has gone out of its way to make that happen. Both actions indicate partiality. The question is what do we do about it? Frank Fallon........ N2FF

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10651] Re: BPL comment extension
by W5JBP＠aol.com 28 May '04

28 May '04

Tom, I found that interesting as well. I guess old Ed Thomas did not want to give us any recognition. Jim Haynie

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10650] BPL comment extension
by Tom Frenaye 28 May '04

28 May '04

Interesting that our request for an extension was turned down but this one was granted (3 weeks). -- Tom CARRIER CURRENT SYSTEMS, INCLUDING BROADBAND OVER POWER LINE SYSTEMS. Granted in part the Motion of NAC/Amherst , and extended the deadline for filing reply comments. (Dkt No. 03-104, 04-37). Action by: Chief , Office of Engineering and Technology. Reply Comments Due: 06/22/2004. Adopted: 05/26/2004 by ORDER. (DA No. 04-1552). OET <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1552A1.doc> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1552A1.pdf> <http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1552A1.txt> ===== e-mail: k1ki(a)arrl.org ARRL New England Division Director http://www.arrl.org/ Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10649] Anti-BPL Reply Comment
by dick＠pobox.com 27 May '04

27 May '04

27 MAY, 2004 - 1700 CDT One of my ham friends who has the time to monitor various issues up for FCC consideration sent me this reply comment URL REPLY COMMENT: ShipCom, LLC, Maritime Public Coast Station Licensee, on Broadband over Powerlines (BPL) (ET Docket 04-37) http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume… Looks to me like the FCC and the White House are really developing a bad case of The Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome on BPL. I just hope enough political pressure can be brought to bear to get this proposal buried by one means or another. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:10648] Interesting Anti-BPL Web Page.
by dick＠pobox.com 27 May '04

27 May '04

27 MAY, 2004 - 1620 CDT The URL below will display a nicely done, comprehensive anti-BPL commentary by an SWL with lots of links to documents, and comments (most of which we already know about) that urge the FCC to drop BPL. http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04238.html Happy holiday to all of you and your families. And for those traveling this weekend, please take care. I don't want to send any more condolence messages to members of our board family. We plan to stick close to home. 73 - Dick, W9GIG

1 0