In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy.

You

have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements.


The rules have a wide assortment of power level restrictions below 100W,
some as low as 2.5W, Many of them apply to every license class. Can I
presume from your flip answer that we can safely ignore those limits because
it would be an "invasion of privacy" for FCC to enforce them?

You muddy the waters. The point as I see it is that Technicians now
have access to much higher power levels. Equipment is already out that
has 100 watts, and you can be hurt by 50 watt units as well as 100 watt
units. And it makes an unenforceable power level for no real purpose. No
reason why the first class of license can't have enough RF information
that it is expected to know that it can safely operate 100 watts.

I presume there is evidence that Technicians are harming themselves now?
If not, you have a pretty weak argument.

"Technicians" are harming Hans' concept of what is "harmful." :-)

Hans hasn't shown his work proving that 50 W is okay while 100 W
is "harmful."

But...he still thinks the first recognized 1906 voice transmission was
done with a spark-gap transmitter...and that all modern cellphones
power-up by talking to cell sites automatically. :-)

LHA

"Len Over 21" wrote:

"Technicians" are harming Hans' concept of
what is "harmful." :-)


LOL!! Exactly. And harming his vision of self. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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