Brian Kelly wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.


The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

Hf type questions? I also have a question along these lines. I
personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that
was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping
them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half
the Ham population out of something they should have?

Honest, Folks, knowledge is good!

-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues, so I'm not all that
worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI
problems are different between HF and VHF and above.

As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce
power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants
with silly questions about RF safety.

- Mike KB3EIA -