On Sep 15, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Thom R LaCosta wrote:
You need to read a bit more carefully(his links are
not that clear)...and you'll see he is a communications
consultant.
What does that mean? Does he work for clients in the support of the
deployment of BPL?
NO
... I have opposed BPL vigorously ... I wrote the comments
of IEEE-USA against BPL, the Comments
of IEEE 802.18, and my own personal
comments, with a technical report outlining my measurements with
calibrated test equipment that confirmed Ed Hare's measurements (Dave Sumner
actually gave me an "atta-boy" in his up front column in QST some time
back. I continue to work against BPL interference and am in touch with
Ed Hare regularly.
Who are his clients? Do any
of his clients compete with amateur radio for spectrum?
NO,
and I promised in the affidavit not to take any clients that
would.
It would seem to me that these questions, and probably others should be
answered before we all just assume that there is something fishy here. The
ARRL has a stated policy of making individual decisions on who may and who may
not hold office. Now it may very well be that they took a look at Carl and
just decided they didn't like the cut of his jib and wanted to keep him
out.
Obviously that would be bad.
On the other hand, there may be a very good reason why they think that
his professional work would conflict with the ARRL in which case they would be
justified in their decision.
I don't know Carl from Adam but I'm willing to bet that he's a great guy
and only has the best interest of amateur radio in mind. But just because he
says his work doesn't conflict with ham radio and just because he promises not
to take work from clients that would cause a conflict of interest, I'm not
sure that is good enough.
Heck, I voted for George Bush in 2000 because he said he was against
"nation building". Yet here we are in 2005 having spent $600 billion tax
dollars to build two different nations.
So I suppose that things change and what people promise not to do one
year might not agree with what they actually do in another.
The
affidavit would have been legally binding as long as I held
office.
73,
Carl
- wk3c
