N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
handle the limit already on the market.


Exisitng equipment could still be used by LP licensees - they just have to turn
it down by 3 dB.

Yes, of course.


Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
watts is something most people are comfortable with.


When the Novice was created back in 1951, the power limit was 75 watts input.
Which works out to about 50 watts output.

In a short time there were many manufacturers making transmitters for the
Novice market. Their resale value was good because there were always new
Novices coming along looking for a bargain.

And those manufacturers had to compete with homebrew and surplus rigs which
were in abundance back then. (One of the reasons Novices were limited to 75 w
xtal control was so that homebrew rigs used by Novices would be kept simple).

In fact many Novices used less than the full power allowed.

Let's see...there was the Ameco AC-1, the Heath AT-1, DX-20, DX-35, DX-40, d
DX-60 and HW-16, the Johnson Adventurer, Challenger, Navigator and Ranger, the
Drake 2-NT, the Hallicrafters HT-40.......to name just a few.

And this was when the amateur radio market was a lot smaller than it is today.

No argument with any of your points, Jim. But that isn't today. Today
the standard HF rig puts out 100 watts.


And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
power?


Under Hans' plan, no existing hams would lose any privileges. So they don't
have to worry.

But that isn't answering my question. Perhaps I should phrase it
better. If technicians, who are allowed to toy with 1500 Watts, are not
being harmed by their hobby, then what is the reason for limiting their
power? More on this in a minute


And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
advocate that.


Until a few years ago there were no questions about RF exposure at all in the
pools.

Are you arguing for or against this, Jim? If there were no questions on
RF exposure, and hams did okay, but we should limit new hams to 50 watts
because of safety concerns - it just isn't a good argument to me.


One question is being overlooked, though: Why are most manufactured rigs rated
100 watts? Why not 50 watts, or 250 watts, or something else? (A very few are
rated at other power levels). Why 100.

The answer is about 50 years old.

Sometimes change is good, and sometimes change is not so good.

All change comes from within the framework of what exists at the time of
the change.

If we were to propose a class A class B system from scratch, then I
might say this is a good idea.

But it isn't a system from scratch, it's a tack-on to another system.

So we'll end up with:

1. Technicians - 1.5 kW privileges but no HF privileges, license period
10 years renewable.

2. Generals - HF plus 1.5 kW privileges, but no access to Extra
sections. License period ten years renewable.

3. Extras - all privileges, license period ten years renewable.

4. Class B - all privileges, 50 watt power limit, license period 10
years non renewable.

5. Class A - All privileges, full power, non expiring license.


Now I would like to know why this is a better system than what I would
propose, a 3 tier system in which the setup is much like today. The only
difference would be that if Morse code testing were to go away, the
writtens would be beefed up a bit.

I suspect this system would more likely find favor with the FCC. No new
databases, and similar to something already in place.

All the safety issues are moot. I haven't seen the harm done by over 50
watts. In fact, is it even that *good* of an idea to look at limiting
power on the basis of "safety"? I mean if 50 Watts is safer than 100,
maybe 25 is safer than 50. Maybe the FCC should look very closely at the
power levels that hams use. Maybe all hams should be limited in power so
we don't hurt ourselves with RF. Could be a real can of worms to open.

- Mike KB3EIA -