"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.


Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.


(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she
wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things 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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"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/

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she
wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things 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.

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers?

Nope. My proposal has a dramatically less strenuous set of qualifications
for newcomers.

"Dramatic?" :-)

Okay, I'm sure there is great "drama" in having to get together the
requisite cash to go out and buy NEW equipment so as to meet
the the NEW RF power output levels.

Meanwhile, ol Hans can fire up his 2.5 KW rig (with higher drive
level input) and be as safe as a bug in a rug...

The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

But there IS a mandate that each licensee is directly responsible for the
proper adjustment and operation of their equipment, including all sorts of
QCAO-unfriendly things 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.

Heaven forbid that anyone offend any "QCAO" members who hold
title, fief, and divine rule over amateurspace. :-)

LHA

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.


Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.


(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)


The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:

I have no agenda.

Sure you do, Hans. Aren't you promoting an alternative licensing system
with stiffer tests for newcomers? This points to an obvious reason why you
would focus on the "electronics expert" portion of 97.1(d) while ignoring
the rest.

Sounds like Hans is promoting a "BAA" (Bachelor of Amateur Arts)
degree diploma in lieu of a license. :-)

BAA...say I. :-)

(snip) it lacks any foundation of credibility
when you consider that the successful
applicant for *any* amateur license is
authorized to build his own station. (snip)

The key word is authorized, not expected, required, obligated, compelled,
obliged, or whatever. A person can build radio equipment if he or she wants,
but there is no mandate to do so.

Incorrect, Dwight. There MUST be a MANDATE to conform to the
wishes of the "QCAO" and their needs to be the CONTROLLING
elements in amateur radio activities.

In this case, "option IS a failure."

MANDATE. Control. Issue orders. Comply. Conform.

LHA