March 19th 04, 12:54 AM
|
|
|
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 -
|