"KØHB" wrote:

(snip) ...by their license grant they are
responsible for a ensuring that their
transmitted signal meets a set of technical
parameters beyond what the little blinky
digits on the faceplate read.

The current qualification process is
woefully inadequate to ensure they can
fulfill that responsibility. (snip)


Yet there are no widespread problems, reported by the FCC or other
organizations, relating to that. How can that be, Hans? Perhaps you're wrong
about your assessment of a large portion of this radio community.


The current rules have kept most... (snip)
...in parts of the spectrum which have
mostly local propagation, even with 1.5KW
output.


Out of band emissions, and so on, are not dependant on HF, Hans. Again, no
widespread problems relating to that.


However, we can soon expect rules changes
which may extend their turf to parts of the
spectrum where their ignorance can have
worldwide visibility and consequences. And
that scares the bejeebers out of me.


Yet that very thing is happening in many countries around the world, with
none yet reporting any problems whatsoever. Or is it just American operators
(their "ignorance") that scares the "bejeebers" out of you?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Or is it just American operators (their "ignorance") that scares the
"bejeebers" out of you?

I am not eligible to petition the regulators in other countries, so my
proposal will only affect license applicants under FCC jurisdiction.
Hopefully there are responsible hams in other countries who will attempt to
ensure adequate qualification levels are maintained in most countries.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


Nice editing to fit an agenda, Hans.


I have no agenda.

But it was clever editing nonetheless.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote


Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.

You

have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.


The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote:

But there IS a mandate that each licensee
is directly responsible for the proper
adjustment and operation of their
equipment, (snip) ...like signal purity, etc.
97.307(a) thru (e) come to mind.
Personally, I don't believe that your
(misnamed) Technician qualification
examination is adequate to ensure that
you can carry out that mandate.


Really? The FCC does think it is adequate. Regardless, I only saw a few
questions in the Extra question pool (July, 2002) about signal purity
(measurements and so on), none having to with the actual adjustment of
equipment. That hardly makes someone with your license an expert in this
regard.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote


And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose.

Two points:

POINT A
------------

This "unenforceable" mantra is a weak argument, which does not gain strength
by the repetition.

Of course it's enforceable, or at least just as enforceable as power levels
have ever been. "Unenforceable" is a complete cop out. If power level is
not enforceable at 50W, then it's not enforceable at 2.5W, 25W, 50W ERP,
100W, 200W, or 1.5KW, all of which are power currently exist in FCC Amateur
Radio regulations.

POINT B
------------

That particular power level has a real purpose. The purpose is two-fold.

Purpose #1) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which we can limit power to a level which FCC has stated is safe for both
the user and unknowing passers-by.

Purpose #2) It allows us to institute a "learners permit" class of license
in which the power level minimizes the unwanted side-effects of granting
broad spectrum access to relatively underqualified operators. Now, before
you spin up your rotors about "but QRP operators work around the world",
bear in mind that most of the "bad" signals heard on HF are the result of
ignorant operators trying to run a lot of power, and the consequent
splatter, flat-topping, birdies, over-compression, etc. On the other hand,
I've never heard a distorted or crappy QRP station. In further support of
the idea is the fact that all these 100W-class rigs you keep harping on are
running at near their designed-in upper capability, making them more likely
to become purveyors of all the crappy-signal symptoms I just talked about.
At 50W they are much less likely to be straining their design specifications
and consequently radiating cleaner signals. In the hands of even a QCAO
life-member it would be hard to splatter/chirp/over-modulate when you're
running at half the design limit of the rig.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Mike Coslo" wrote


But it was clever editing nonetheless.


Yes, it certainly was. Thank you for noticing.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Hans K0HB" wrote:

(snip) But I am also recommending, after
a generous period with 'training wheels',
a more strenuous qualification for
standard privileges than currently exists.
The QCAO and IOoDHW cries of "the
unfairness of it all" are deafening.


The only thing I've heard is cries for proof that your license proposal
actually addresses a real need within the Amateur Radio Service - something
that fits the goals and purposes of that. What you've offered so far has
certainly not provided that proof.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Or is it just American operators (their
"ignorance") that scares the "bejeebers"
out of you?

I am not eligible to petition the regulators in
other countries, so my proposal will only
affect license applicants under FCC
jurisdiction. (snip)


I'll leave that answer to speak for itself.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bert Craig wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote


I've looked over the current written tests. I just don't see where

they're

lacking as far as the existing goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service are concerned.

Translation: "After over 6 years as a Technician, I've almost got the
General Class test memorized. Don't set me back by making me memorize a
whole different set of questions."

73, de Hans, K0HB


"Hammer, meet nail."

When you're only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail! 8^)

Lol.

I don't even think we need to change the questions. Eliminate the
published
Q&A pools and reorder the answers, that'll do it.

Big deal! There will have to be a study guide, which will have the
answers in it in text form. I'd read it and know it. Probably quicker
and better than the pools

I'd bet you would too. I had a slightly unfair advantage, a college avionics
curriculum that culminated in a GROL. However, in order to earn our
sheepskins, we had to pass screening exams...no published Q&A pools. Same
applied to our FAA exams.

BTW, Bert, did you know that they change the order of the answers in the
actual test as compared to the question pool?

Didn't really notice. Once you review the Q&A pool, the correct answer
stands out like a sore thumb. I reviewed the Q&A pool twice and drove and
hour so to Yonkers, NY...for approx. six minutes of actual exam time. (&
that gave me privies to 1500 Watts on 50 MHz and up?!)

Q. Do what?

A. Require just a hair more cerebral activity than rote memorization.


Maybe for some.

You're right, maybe.

- Mike KB3EIA -

73 de Bert
WA2SI