Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

........

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

........


d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz. This
allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The use
of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for the
frequencies concerned.


e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as of
this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While this
restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage" equipment,
it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a General
Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph, is
no longer an issue.

(end quote)

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz. This
allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The
use
of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for the
frequencies concerned.

e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as of
this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While
this
restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage" equipment,
it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a General
Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph, is
no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

It isn't on the NCI website. It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website. It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

Is it on the ARRL website? If so, provide the LINK for it.

Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?" That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal? If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz.
This
allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The
use
of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for
the
frequencies concerned.

e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as
of
this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While
this
restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage"
equipment,
it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a
General
Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph,
is
no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?

From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it yesterday
and read it. Didn't you?

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did not
match the news release?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an NPRM.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you know
where to look.

It isn't on the NCI website.

It's not an NCI petition.

It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.

It's not a Newsline petition either.

It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by ol'
Fast Freddie.

Is it on the ARRL website?

I don't know. That's not where I got it.

If so, provide the LINK for it.

Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone else
here orders?

Why should I help you find the new NCVEC petition, Len, given the way you
behave here? Will you act in a civil manner towards me if I help you? Or will I
simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad jokes, and
other abuse?

Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?"

No.

I am referring to, and quoting, the new NCVEC proposal. The one mentioned in
the news release. Don't you have a copy yet, Len? If not, why are you
commenting on something you haven't read?

That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].

That's not where I found it.

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal?

I'm not talking about the ARRL proposal. I'm talking about the new NCVEC
proposal.

If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.

Is that an order? Who are you to give me or anyone else here orders?

I'm quoting from the new NCVEC petition. It's online, available for download.
Took me about 2 minutes to find it, once I realized that the links posted were
to the old NCVEC petition, not the new one.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.

Then what's your problem, Len? If it's not a real petition, why are you all
worked up about it?

Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:


Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits: Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 MHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 MHz.

This

allows enough power for adequate communication under most circumstances, and
matches the nominal power output of the largest number of commercially
available transmitters and transceivers available as of this writing. The

use

of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for RF safety
evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated threshold values for

the

frequencies concerned.

e. Additional electrical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may
incorporate a final amplifier stage that requires more than 30 volts DC for
normal operation. The goal of this restriction is to prevent, as much as is
possible, injury to inexperienced operators. All known current production
Amateur Radio transmitters and transceivers, including kits, available as

of

this writing, operate using 28 volts or less for the final stage. While

this

restriction of necessity prevents use of some "legacy" or "vintage"

equipment,

it is not likely to be a serious impediment to assembling a station.

f. Additional technical limits: No transmitter or transceiver may be used
unless it is of commercial manufacture, or built from a kit of commercial
origin. The reason for this provision is to prevent, as much as possible,
spurious emissions from units lacking proper engineering design. Again, we
realize that this leaves out one of the traditions of Amateur Radio, namely
that of building your own station from "scratch". However, we note that
technically inclined persons are likely to upgrade fairly quickly to a

General

Class license, where this restriction, and that of the previous paragraph,

is

no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?


From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it yesterday
and read it. Didn't you?
I think he's talking about th eNECVEC propoasal, not the NCVEC
proposal, Jim!



The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!


Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did not
match the news release?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.


They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an NPRM.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?


Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".


You must be mistaken Jim.

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you know
where to look.

Got that one on all my computers. The NCVEC does indeed seem to have
power limits on the newbies. The NECVEC proposal must be different.


It isn't on the NCI website.


It's not an NCI petition.

Go figure, eh?


It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.


It's not a Newsline petition either.

LIB!


It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.


It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by ol'
Fast Freddie.

You bet.

Is it on the ARRL website?


I don't know. That's not where I got it.


If so, provide the LINK for it.


Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone else
here orders?


It's not on the arrl website Jim. So I doubt you could provide a link! 8^)

Why should I help you find the new NCVEC petition, Len, given the way you
behave here? Will you act in a civil manner towards me if I help you? Or will I
simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad jokes, and
other abuse?


Remember good manners are a sign of weakness, Jim!


Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?"


No.

I am referring to, and quoting, the new NCVEC proposal. The one mentioned in
the news release. Don't you have a copy yet, Len? If not, why are you
commenting on something you haven't read?


That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].


That's not where I found it.

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal?


I'm not talking about the ARRL proposal. I'm talking about the new NCVEC
proposal.


If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.


Is that an order? Who are you to give me or anyone else here orders?

I'm quoting from the new NCVEC petition. It's online, available for download.
Took me about 2 minutes to find it, once I realized that the links posted were
to the old NCVEC petition, not the new one.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.


Then what's your problem, Len? If it's not a real petition, why are you all
worked up about it?

Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

.......

19. Basic framework of the new entry level license:

.......
d. Power limits:
.......

no longer an issue.

(end quote)

"Quote" from WHAT?

From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it
yesterday and read it. Didn't you?

I think he's talking about th eNECVEC propoasal, not the NCVEC
proposal, Jim!

Something like that.

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of
the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did
not match the news release?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an
NPRM.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".

You must be mistaken Jim.

Not me.

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you
know where to look.

Got that one on all my computers.

Easy to find, wasn't it?

The NCVEC does indeed seem to have
power limits on the newbies.

100 W below 24 MHz, 50 W above.

The NECVEC proposal must be different.

Don't hold yer breath waiting to see the "NECVEC" proposal.

It isn't on the NCI website.

It's not an NCI petition.

Go figure, eh?

Exactly.

It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.

It's not a Newsline petition either.

LIB!

?? I don't know that one, Mike.

It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by
ol' Fast Freddie.

You bet.

There's a guy used to getting his way.

Is it on the ARRL website?

It's not an ARRL petition.

I don't know. That's not where I got it.

If so, provide the LINK for it.

Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone
else here orders?

It's not on the arrl website Jim. So I doubt you could provide a link! 8^)

I could provide a link in a few seconds. But why should I? Len's a
self-proclaimed "professional in radio" - he doesn't need my help, does he?

Why should I help you find the new NCVEC petition, Len, given the way you
behave here? Will you act in a civil manner towards me if I help you? Or
will I
simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad jokes, and
other abuse?

Remember good manners are a sign of weakness, Jim!

Never heard that one.

Are you talking about the ARRL "new proposal?"

No.

I am referring to, and quoting, the new NCVEC proposal. The one mentioned
in
the news release. Don't you have a copy yet, Len? If not, why are you
commenting on something you haven't read?

The world wonders.

That "new proposal"
doesn't show up on any FCC Public Notices page for the morning of
18 Mar 04 ["Consumers & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference
Information Center Petitions For Rulemaking Filed"].

That's not where I found it.

Is there an RM number for the "new" ARRL proposal?

I'm not talking about the ARRL proposal. I'm talking about the new NCVEC
proposal.

If there is, tell
us, don't let us accuse you of quoting from vaporware.

Is that an order? Who are you to give me or anyone else here orders?

I'm quoting from the new NCVEC petition. It's online, available for
download.
Took me about 2 minutes to find it, once I realized that the links posted
were
to the old NCVEC petition, not the new one.

ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.

Then what's your problem, Len? If it's not a real petition, why are you all
worked up about it?

Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded
from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.

So what do you think of the NCVEC petition in its entirety, Mike? Not the press
release, the actual petition.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And note this: All of these petitions are simply delaying any new restructuring
NPRM. We won't even see an NPRM until both the ARRL and NCVEC petitions get RM
numbers and have comment periods.

And Hans hasn't done his proposal yet.

The ARRL estimate of two years looks like it was too soon!

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

TAFKARJ, that's Mighty Bold of you to title the subject, "Wrong Again,
Len!" without quoting what you think TNAFKNAMPARRL got wrong. You
really gotta do a better job than that laying a foundation to entrap
TNAFKNAMPARRL.

I think he's got you rattled.

Advice: Get a Grip before you lose title of El Supremo Amateur de
RRAP.

While you compose yourself, give us a hint what TNAFKNAMPARRL said
that was so wrong (again).

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

II. PROPOSAL

D. Creation of a new entry level license.

"Quote" from WHAT?

From the actual NCVEC restructuring petition, Len. I downloaded it yesterday
and read it. Didn't you?

There's only ONE "actual NCVEC petition," RM-10787.

Downloaded that one a long time ago...first of September 2003.

There's one OTHER proposal which has been tossed about under
"Ham radio for the 21st Century" title. That's been out for a while
too and I've had that in the download folder. It is NOT in any FCC
Notice as any "RM" (petition for Rule Making).

The link published by Bill Sohl in here is to Amateur Radio Newsline's
"new" items. Going there will get anyone a very nice copy of the
original NECVEC petition RM-10787 submitted on 29 Jul 03!

Both published links were in error. That was obvious from the first page of
the
petition. Didn't you notice that it wasn't a new petition, and that it did not
match the news release?

I noticed the exact similarity of the posted link download after viewing
it, that's why I commented.

I don't eagerly view each and every download as it comes in. I just
use "save as" to download PDFs and DOCs in the background while
I surf elsewhere.

Was I supposed to check in with you first or what?

RM-10787 is toast just like all the other 13 RMs. The last comment
filed on RM-10787 was 4 November 2003.

They're not "toast", Len. Obviously, FCC is still gathering input for an
NPRM.

Obviously NOT. The LAST comment on RM-10787 was made over
four months ago.

The ECFS files on NPRM 98-143 are still available to the public. Are
you saying the FCC is also "still gathering input" on that?!?

News flash: R&O 99-412 happened at the end of 1999. NPRM 98-143
was no longer under consideration for anything except checking on
the complaints of a few.

WHERE is this "new" petition proposal from NECVEC?

Len, it's "NCVEC". Only one "E".

Oh my! Fuss and furor going to be raised on a simple typo... :-)

I can hear your strident messaging even now..."error!"..."mistake!"
"not worthy of consideration!" :-) :-)

The new NCVEC petition is online and can be downloaded easily, once you know
where to look.

The FCC doesn't seem to have it available for the public.

Where is it?

It isn't on the NCI website.

It's not an NCI petition.

Bill Sohl is with NCI and he is the one posting links in here.

It doesn't show up on a Search of Amateur
Radio Newsline's website.

It's not a Newsline petition either.

Never said it was. Newsline has made other petitions, have they?

It doesn't show up on the W5YI Organization
website.

It's not a W5YI Organization petition, although you can bet your bippy that
every single word of the NCVEC petition had to be personally approved by ol'
Fast Freddie.

Is Fred Maia still on the NCVEC? Answer Yes or No.

Is it on the ARRL website?

I don't know. That's not where I got it.

I think you "got it" all in your head...

If so, provide the LINK for it.

Is that an order, Len? Sounds like one. Who are you to give me or anyone else
here orders?

Poor baby. Getting all upset are you?

"Nobody can give YOU orders!" Not of any kind, shape, or form! :-)

No problem. When the REAL petition shows up as an RM,
then it is worth looking at.

Or will I simply be the target of more of your name calling, ridicule, bad
jokes, and other abuse?

OH! You've been ABUSED have you?!? Poor baby...!

Tsk, tsk, tsk, all you of the self-perceived nobility are the same.
It must be all that blue blood, royal cynaosis not letting enough
oxygen into your emotion centers!


Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.

"Real petitions," yer lardship, are on the FCC site.

Sorry to not bow and scrape to your most esteemed worthiness,
but if you ever got down from your high horse, you might be
tolerable to other civilized humans.

Don't get off...yer horse piddled on da ground, 'e did...ya'll step
in it an' get yer booties all wet...

LHA / WMD

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...


ALL of these "new" petitions are nothing but vaporware until it shows
up at the FCC for public viewing with an assigned RM number.

Then what's your problem, Len? If it's not a real petition, why are you all
worked up about it?

Here's a hint: It's a real petition, not vaporware. It can be downloaded from
an easily accessed site. I even printed it out this morning.

WHAT??! This is ridiculous. I haven't been following this topic area
at all recently, I don't much care about it one way or another. But
having stopped to take a quick look at this thread you got my
curiosity up and running so I went out and dredged up the NCVEC
petition via the usual trick. Cold start to the whole thing in it's
original .doc format up onscreen ready to print out in maybe 60
seconds. If that.

He's off his meds again or he hasn't wiped his eyglasses for a couple
months.

Goofy Putz: Who cares?

w3rv

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
Quoting from the NCVEC restructuring petition (not the press release, the
actual petition):

(begin quote)

TAFKARJ, that's Mighty Bold of you to title the subject, "Wrong Again,
Len!" without quoting what you think TNAFKNAMPARRL got wrong. You
really gotta do a better job than that laying a foundation to entrap
TNAFKNAMPARRL.

I think he's got you rattled.

Advice: Get a Grip before you lose title of El Supremo Amateur de
RRAP.

While you compose yourself, give us a hint what TNAFKNAMPARRL said
that was so wrong (again).

"Anything." :-)

LHA / WMD

"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...

"Sorry to not bow and scrape to your most esteemed worthiness, but if you
ever got down from your high horse, you might be tolerable to other
civilized humans."
__________________________________________________ ___________

Sounds like good self-advice, Leonard. Why don't you try it? And if you
can't, just do your best impression of a human being. It would certainly be
an improvement over what we've seen here from you in the past.

BTW, we put our Amateur Radio gear on-line for the first time in the Mobile
Incident Command Center the other day. First contact was via CW with a
station in Iowa. Conditions for SSB were just not up to par. We just love
having all those tools in our communications kit.

We also tested our state of the art sat-phone/VTCs and wireless VOIP
network. They worked flawlessly -- what wonderful pieces of gear. We are
now completely wireless (including phone lines) so we can go wherever
needed. 21st Century comms at its best -- which means a mixture of the old
and new together to give us the strongest redundancy possible.

Arnie -