In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Alex Flinsch" wrote in message
...
In article t, Bill Sohl
wrote:
[snip]
RM-10870 NCVEC Petition
Essentially the same as the ARRL petition, but removes the code
requirement
for Extras also.

Also includes a "commercial only" transmitter rule for
Communicator (Novice)
Also includes power limit for Communicator/Novice

The same power limits are defined in the ARRL proposal also. The 100/50
watt
limits proposed are set so they would be below the RF environmental
evaluation required levels.

The power limits make sense.

They're similar to what has existec in the past.

Disallowing homebrew is counter to the purpose
of the ARS and should not be enacted.

I agree 100%.

However, in addition to the "commercial only" rule, the NCVEC proposal calls
for a low voltage limit, which would also keep new hams from taking
advantage of hamfest bargains on older rigs with tube finals, like the
venerable FT-101, TS-520/820, etc. This is an unnecessary impediment to new
hams getting a "starter" HF rig at affordable prices.

Again I agree. Also, it's unenforceable, and open to contradiction. For
example, could a "Communicator" build a power supply for his/her manufactured
rig? Any such supply that uses house current would pose at least as much of a
shock hazard as, say, a TS-520. But the Communicator would be allowed to build
such a supply, but not to buy a TS-520. Or, rather, he/she could *buy* the
TS-520, but could not *transmit* with it. Makes no sense at all.

I also dislike the entry level class name proposed by the NCVEC proposal -
"communicator" - I prefer retaining the traditional "novice" name, which is
recognized around the world (and has been used in other countries as well).

How about "Basic"?

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than have a
lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that they be
*replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that they have obtained
a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by it. This is proposed so that
the "Communicator" test and its pool can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

73 de Jim, N2EY