The "Follow The Money" section incensed me and was the basic inspiration for my long email to the Editor. His innuendoes and insinuations were way out of line, so I answered them point by point and took him to task for making such accusations which border on libel.
As it turns out, the Editor responded in a very positive manner to my message, requested permission to publish it which I granted with the proviso that he may do so if I clarify, update, and document some of my statements (I needed to confirm that the ARRL does not have any fulltime lobbyists nor office in DC and to track down the League's grassroots program which I have done, among several other things including the fact that BPL CAN be made to be interference-free as evidenced by the Motorola BPL installation at League HQ) and that the ARRL's Annual Report is online showing that it does not receive funds from DSL and cable providers. I have until Wednesday to finish the document, so have dropped a few projects to concentrate on the article. It won't be my best work since I usually spend weeks on articles for publication. However, the Editor is also very active in Boy Scouting (with which I compare the ARRL's non-lobbying efforts and general lack of political influence and controversy). I had presumed Computing Unplugged would be swamped by ham responses to his article and am still hoping that others with more expertise and different perspectives than I will send more technical and debate information. I am also going through recent back issues of QST looking for "buzzwords", position papers (there's a good one by Frank Fallon N2FF and the League's grassroots lobbying effort) and additional information along with an emphasis on the politicalization of BPL at the FCC and NTIA levels. Oh, the original link may have unwrapped resulting in a 404 error. Here it is again: http://www.computingunplugged.com/issues/issue200608/00001818001.html . Back to work. 73 de Fred K2FRD At 10:50 AM -0500 14/8/06, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote: >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. > 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
