There is plenty of time for analysis of this, but initial reactions from the Wilmerhale lawyers are positive. The 40 dB/decade issue is very important to the BPL companies. It is in fact the only reason, according to Dave's friend and my arch-nemesis (and a worthier opponent we don't have) Mitch Lazarus, that Current Technologies was even interested in this appeal. And the way I see it, the main issue that the Court was troubled with was the glaringly obvious coverup that the FCC was perpetrating by redacting the field studies that they say they relied on. Note Tatel's concurring opinion saying that the FCC has to release the entirety of the field studies since they relied on them -- "warts and all". Recall that the Court was given, after the case was over, the redacted documents "in camera" for the court, but not ARRL, to review. So the judges had the unredacted pages, and knew what was in them. I think what is in those redacted pages?is some good stuff for us, bad stuff for BPL, and embarassing stuff for FCC. But we will see. The Court's upholding FCC on the mobile interference rule is unfortunate, and their analysis of the Section 301/Section 302 jurisdiction of the FCC in authorizing BPL was more than?a bit bizarre, boding ill for the future of Part 15/Amateur Radio interactions, but those problems can be addressed another day.? For now, the game is on! 73, Chris W3KD?