Cross-posting normally isn't a good idea, but I think this is the fastest way to pass along initial reaction to today's WSJ article. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:20 AM To: pr-com Subject: [PR-COM:2197] Re: Wall Street Journal front page Well, the good news is that the article documents the existence of interference. Ken Brown heard it himself and describes its effects fairly accurately, as it obliterated the Salvation Army's SATERN Net and WWV among others. The bad news is that the thrust of the article is pretty much as Bill describes, new vs. old technology with us representing the old. It's not an unsympathetic portrait of hams, but overall the article reinforces the notion that BPL problems can be fixed on a case-by-case basis. We certainly could quibble about some of the facts. For example, Brown says "A half-dozen hams even confronted FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a big advocate of the power-line technology, when he visited a test site near Raleigh, N.C., earlier this month." The hams in fact bent over backward not to be confrontational. I agree with Bill that the article is not going to help us very much with policy makers. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: N2COP [mailto:n2cop@ec.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:14 AM To: pr-com Subject: [PR-COM:2195] Wall Street Journal front page Dear Fellow Committee Members: I bounded out of bed this morning at 6:45 and raced to my mailbox to see if there was an article about amateur radio and BPL in today's Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Then my heart sank to see it was positioned on the front page in the middle column. Over the years, the middle column has garnered a reputation as the "fluff" column, where quirky items without serious merit or even targets of derision are portrayed. If you end up in the middle column, your topic becomes the class clown of the day. I understand the writers are supposed to take a more "tongue in cheek" approach to a subject if they know it's being assigned to the middle column. Unfortunately, my fears seem founded. While Ken Brown did get many of the facts correct, his slant shows amateurs as a dying breed of geeks, and as a nuisance to power companies and to the FCC itself in relation to pointing out the problems with BPL. I'd be curious if you all have the same reaction I did. I would have been much happier if the article had landed on one of the inside pages where it would have been treated as more serious news. My fear is that policy makers will see it in the middle column and dismiss the concern of amateurs. 73, Bill Morine, N2COP