[QCWA] It's official... we are secondary.

[THOMAS WEBB]

I see.  Thanks, Mark.  I wasn't implying that your comments were political; they weren't.  Others were.

Tom  W4YOK
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: W1EOF 
  To: Discussion of QCWA 
  Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:42 AM
  Subject: RE: [QCWA] It's official... we are secondary.


  Tom -

  As I understand it from lawyer/hams on several other lists you can only sue
  when there has been damages. So far there is little or no real damages YET.
  So their opinion was that we would have to wait for that course of action.

  As far as political discussion, all I will say is that both major U.S.
  Presidential candidates have gone on record in favor of a large-scale BPL
  rollout. I posted the original message regarding BPL. My intention was NOT
  political but strictly informative and as a "call to action" for my
  fellow-hams that we really need to keep up the awareness on the part of our
  elected officials.

  73,

  Mark W1EOF

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: THOMAS WEBB [mailto:sam9lives at msn.com]
  > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 10:24 AM
  > To: Discussion of QCWA
  > Subject: Re: [QCWA] It's official... we are secondary.
  >
  >
  > Since I started this discussion, I'll make one more comment and
  > quit.  I enjoyed reading all the ideas.  Political comments on
  > the reflector are probably not a good idea, as has been said.
  >
  > I'm an engineer, not a lawyer.  Some of you legal types tell us
  > if there is any legal recourse that might be taken to force the
  > FCC to comply with their own rules (Part 15).
  >
  > Tom Webb  W4YOK
  >   ----- Original Message -----
  >   From: Paul L. Schmidt
  >   To: Discussion of QCWA
  >   Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 7:11 AM
  >   Subject: Re: [QCWA] It's official... we are secondary.
  >
  >
  >   Norm Gertz wrote:
  >   > ITF writes " I do not think it matters whose in the White House "
  >   >
  >   > Sorry old man.....it sure does matter.  All the top brass of
  > the FCC are
  >   > political appointees......you could easily question the expertise of
  >   > many of them.
  >   >
  >   > They do the bidding of those who have placed them in office.
  >   >
  >   > 73   Norm    K1AA
  >
  >   Sure, it does.  But take a look at the question from the political
  >   perspective -- the interests of a nation of about a half billion
  >   people, many of which (by the way, myself included) don't have access
  >   to high-speed internet access - compared to the interests of under
  >   a million people -- with the (regulated) power industry telling the
  >   government that they can, indeed, provide such service to the large
  >   group with minimal or no impact on the small group.
  >
  >   We're still the primary users of the spectrum, although with the
  >   position not nearly as strong as it has been.  The FCC'a given the
  >   power industry permission to go ahead with something that isn't
  >   going to work as advertised. But when the power industry is bearing
  >   the financial risk in a market that has competetion from providers
  >   who actually *can* provide service to the customers, what are they
  >   supposed to do?
  >
  >   Yes, I think the FCC blew this one.  But I think the ones who are
  >   eventually going to be complaining the loudest are the power companies -
  >   when their customers call up to have BPL disconnected and replaced with
  >   a competitor's service due to poor performance.  And we've been down
  >   this interference-from-wired-services road before in many areas -- with
  >   cable TV systems.
  >
  >   The R&O is requiring the power industry to keep all of their deployment
  >   information out in the open - that at least gives us a fighting chance
  >   (or, reversing the phrase around, a chance to fight).  The
  > ARRL's petiton
  >   for reconsideration is a good start, but our best long-term
  > chances may be
  >   with local hams monitoring (policing?) the local BPL implementations.
  >   Maybe the ARRl should set up a website to collect and track BPL
  >   complaints?  If John Q. Ham could just go type in an interference
  >   location on a website, instead of having to initiate a formal complaint
  >   with the FCC, I'd bet enough complaints could be collected (and, of
  >   course, verified by some trained volunteers) to totally bury the
  >   issue.
  >
  >   On the other hand, what if the power companies are telling the truth?
  >   What if it really *can* work?  (Time to look out the window and see
  >   if there are any flying pigs going by.)
  >
  >   73,
  >
  >   Paul / K9PS
  >   _______________________________________________
  >   QCWA mailing list
  >   QCWA at mailman.qth.net
  >   http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
  > _______________________________________________
  > QCWA mailing list
  > QCWA at mailman.qth.net
  > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa
  >
  >

  _______________________________________________
  QCWA mailing list
  QCWA at mailman.qth.net
  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa