----- Original Message -----

From: W3KD@aol.com

To: arrl-odv

Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 7:21 AM

Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10654] Re: BPL comment extension

In a message dated 5/28/2004 9:29:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, n2ff@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