I no longer have any doubt that the editor of this publication is biased.
The following paragraph was on the page right after the comment box ""... willing to look at, and print, both sides. Fair reporting at its best."" And I quote [see "Why are we giving BPL all this coverage" from http://www.computingunplugged.com/]: "Follow the money We're still trying to figure this one out. From all we know of the FCC and their desire to protect the radio spectrum, I have some trouble accepting the claims of the ham operators. It seems to me that it's likely to have been doubtful that the FCC would approve this technology if it was broadcasting as intensely as the hams claim. Whenever there's a dispute this strong, I always look to where the money interests are. We know where the interests of the BPL advocates are. After all, they have chips, equipment, and services to sell. They have a clean, apparent reason for pushing their agenda. I'm not so sure about the ARRL. The ARRL is a membership organization, but it's also a very well-connected political organization as well. How many of the ham radio operators who contacted us experienced problems on their own and how many just read the lobbying documents provided by the ARRL in the organization's magazine? Who's funding the ARRL? Do the cable providers and DSL providers have an interest in this debate? After all, BPL is a direct competitor to cable modems and DSL services. Or is this truly the case of one technology interfering with another? Frankly, if it were just ham radio operators unable to play with their toys, this debate would be a non-issue. Ham radio is really a technology of the 20th Century. It was exciting back then when you couldn't call any country easily except with a ham radio. It was exciting when you couldn't talk to anyone when they were out and about unless they had an operator's license" Un freaking believable. Now if I read this correctly, the author is implying... perhaps "smearing" would be more precise... that the ARRL is against BPL because of hidden funding from DSL and cable providers. And we don't know any better. Keep in mind that the ARRL has said countless times, and I'm paraphrasing here, that the issue wasn't BPL, it was QRM from the early BPL test configurations. And ARRL has been cooperating with one BPL variant (from Motorola if I recall correctly) which has proven to date to NOT cause interference. But I guess it's just easier as to brand the League, and all of us, as the old geezers who won't get out of the way. Don't bother with the little details, you know, like the facts. Grrrr. 73 Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA http://njdxa.org
