Well, I have an MBA and am willing to wade a bit deeper into that water than my learned legal colleague. I've done it before.
 
One reason is that I've watched the U.S. delegations to successive WRCs squander our national credibility by railroading new technologies with flawed business plans through the international regulatory process. Teledesic is perhaps the outstanding example. Our ox wasn't gored by that one, so we kept quiet.
 
I still get mileage out of the fact that the Little LEOs business plan called for them to have 55 million customers by the year 2003, but that in the November 1996 QST editorial I said it was a lousy investment.
 
But my favorite example is March 1988 QST: "TV Answer: What Was the Question?"  A quote from that editorial: "Once in a while an idea comes along that is so preposterous, and the actions of its proponents so outrageous, that no amount of human charity can put a reasonable face on it -- or on the actions of those who would even take it seriously."
 
Dave K1ZZ
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Imlay, Chris (ARRL Counsel)
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:31 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9492] Re: FCC's Commissioner Abernathy Praises BPL

In a message dated 9/25/2003 3:20:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, k8je@earthlink.net writes:



Are we against BPL?  Or, are we against the interference it brings with
it?  Would we fight BPL if it did not cause interference on our
frequencies or potential frequencies?  I doubt it.

Jim W.



I think Jim put this very well. We stated in our comments that our concern was not with the commercial viability of BPL, or its value as a competitive service, but with the technical problems that make it simply not feasible. I don't think we are the experts on the commercial viability of BPL and we stand to lose credibility wading into that deep and subjective water, which requires predictive assessments. But then, I didn't major in economics in college, as I should have.

Chris