Has Ambient or FCC ever indicated why the use of two different timelines in the resolution of BPL interference issues should apply? Specifically why a system shutdown for even a few days pending resolution for the relatively few number of actual BPL customers is unreasonable, but a disruption to and the loss of use of a licensed service for over 10 months is permissible? By the way according to my Webster’s Dictionary ambient is defined as “surrounding on all sides.” An aptly named corporation. Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: W3KD@aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 2:59 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: n1rl@arrl.org Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11705] Briarcliff Manor BPL interference case Greetings. The following was just sent to FCC and to the attorney for Ambient Corporation, the BPL provider at Briarcliff Manor, NY. For your eyes only, the "FCC Enforcement Bureau staff member" referred to here is Riley Hollingsworth. Ambient has taken a decidedly hard line most recently, since they can't effectively notch out the amateur interference from its BPL system. 20 meters is a mess in large parts of Briarcliff Manor. This is now the poster child case for our reconsideration petition, and Ambient is now in full denial mode. 73, Chris W3KD