| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
December 3rd 03, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| 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 | |||
Threaded Mode
