Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote in
: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: KØHB wrote: On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. How are you going to enforce that? Same way all the other power limits are enforced. I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running way too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other hams too. But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50 watts. - Mike KB3EIA - It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the equipment, not vicea versa. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |