Chris, John, Zach, Does not the fact the Commissioners acknowledge the potential of interference to legally operated radio systems (in at least the BPL range of transmission) provide another argument to use with Representative Upton in seeking his/Congresses intervention in the BPL issue? Jim Weaver, K8JE Director, Great Lakes Division ARRL; http://www.arrl.org/ 5065 Bethany Rd., Mason, OH 45040 Tel.: 513-459-0142; E-mail: k8je@arrl.org ARRL: The reason Amateur Radio Is! MEMBERS: The reason ARRL Is! -----Original Message----- From: W3KD@aol.com [mailto:W3KD@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 3:28 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:11409] Re: FCC"s BPL news release and statements In a message dated 10/14/2004 2:43:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, walstrom@mchsi.com writes: It does not appear the Powell recused himself. They all gave the interference issue lip service, but only one gave any indication of taking that issue seriously. (sigh!) Wade, Powell didn't recuse himself because the FCC General Counsel recommended that he didn't have to. The issue isn't over. I got a fax late yesterday (after the courts were closed) of a letter from the General Counsel, Rogovin, who said that there was an applicable exception to the ex parte prohibition during the sunshine period. I just sent the attached memo to Dave Sumner on this subject. Forgive me, it is long and somewhat ponderous. I didn't have time to shorten it. We plan to tell Rogovin that he is wrong, that we have been irreparably harmed, and that the Commission should vacate the Report and Order as the result of its taint. The basic point is that the exception doesn't apply to this situation, and even if it did, FCC didn't comply with the very specific disclosure requirements where the exception does apply. Please keep all this confidential for now, OK? 73, Chris W3KD