RE: Dick's message, I apologize for duplicating it by hitting "send" when I was aiming for a different button. I don't view our strategy as seeking a compromise. What we're doing is setting out what we need in order to be able to coexist with BPL. If either the FCC or the industry can't deliver that, the next step is to make sure it's their problem, not ours, that they can't. The guys who are on the front lines are those who are actually dealing with active BPL installations. The gang in Raleigh, for example, is doing a very good job on a continuing basis. Progress Energy is tying up a lot of resources trying (so far unsuccessfully) to resolve the ongoing interference issues down there. Here's a dispatch just received from Gary Pearce, KN4AQ. Dave K1ZZ Hi, Jen The WSJ article did SOME good... a reporter at the Raleigh News & Observer had been toying with doing a general ham radio feature for some time, and then started picking up bits and pieces of the BPL story. When the WSJ story broke, she said "That's my story!" When she saw the mention of our talk with Chairman Powell, she recognized a local angle that put her back in the game. Tom N4TAB and I had a 3 hour interview on Wednesday, including a drive to the BPL trial sites, which cooperated nicely in covering up some ham transmissions on 20 meter phone and giving the reporter a headache (a 2 kHz tone will do that). They need to take some pix, and talk to some young hams, so publication date isn't set. No guarantee it won't be a rerun of the WSJ article, but I sure didn't get that impression. I imagine it will include Mat Oja's "what's the big problem/whip into a frenzy" comments (we made some fun of that, as Tom did get heated up a bit). We'll see. I'll let you know when I learn a publication date. Pass this message to anyone who needs to know. 73, Gary KN4AQ