And, I should add (sorry for missing it the first time -- early here, no coffee yet) I'm sure the reference to harmful interference is to interference from BPL, not to BPL. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Fri 10/15/2004 11:00 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11429] Re: Chilling! We'll have to see what the actual rules say, but they can't legally alter the obligation of the unlicensed device operator not to cause harmful interference. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Bellows, John (Dir, Dakota) Sent: Fri 10/15/2004 6:47 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11427] Re: Chilling! I read that sentence to place the obligation on the unlicensed BPL providers not to create interference with licensed services. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Wade Walstrom [mailto:walstrom@mchsi.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 10:34 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11425] Chilling! Recall earlier I expressed concern about BPL susceptibility to interference from licensed users and that the FCC had addressed this issue. They did today! This sentence was in the second paragraph of the FCC press release. "The rule changes in the Order establish specific technical and administrative requirements for Access BPL equipment and operators to ensure that interference does not occur and, should it occur, to provide for a timely resolution of that harmful interference without disruption of service to Access BPL subscribers." This is the most chilling sentence for Amateur Radio of all that were released. 73, Wade W0EJ