Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 5:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote ...

And you've trained your volunteers to some standard?

Our "volunteers" are government employees who have this duty assigned to
them as part of their employment, and they are well trained in EM. All of
the angencies that support us have trained their volunteers via either
RACES
or ARES in EM. Of course, that training varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but there is little we can do to enforce our standards on
them.

I could be wrong, but I think only school teachers and the ARRL's W1AW
Operator are allowed to be paid while using amateur radio.

And for once you'd be right. Congratulations.

I agree that the specialized function it provides could have assisted us --

and we too a long look at that when we were planning. But in reviewing all
COAs, the cost-benefit just wasn't there. Since we are primarily in
contact
with civilian agencies (both state and federal) during emergencies, it made
better sense to utilize the cilvilian HAM radio assets we had in place. We
have plenty of standard military comms available other than MARS HF. The
Amateur radio piece is for redundancy purposes -- not as a primary means of
communication. For example, all of our VHF is military and of course the
SAT and wireless is run on military net/satilites for security purposes.

Fair enough.

It only took you three days.

Steve, K4YZ

For those that might be interested, here is some info from the NCVEC
proposal:

From Part II (Proposal), section 19. (basic framework of the new entry
level license) Paragraph d.

Power limits. Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 mHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 mhz.
This allows enough power for adequate communication under most
circumstances, and matches the nominal power output of the largest
number of commercially available transmitters and transceivers available
as of this writing.

The use of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for
RF safety evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated
threshold values for the frequencies concerned.

(end paragraph d)


Okay, so the NCVEC petition *does* specifically ask for restricted
power on their "communicator" class license.


First, I like Carl's note on the name. Novice is so much better. It is
a time honored name, and although some may think this superfluous, it
looks good in print, and sounds good too. I like having just two easy to
say syllables, instead of 5!

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

- mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

You can troll here or you can submit Comments to the FCC on
RM-10870. Which will be the more effective on the "amateur
community?" :-)

Since the NCVEC petition rejects the morse code test for all
classes, that should be an excellent reason for you to reject it.
[you are PCTA]

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs. It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs.

Wrong *again*, Len!

The K4SX proposal does *not* propose "morse code testing for all
amateurs".

It proposes no code test for Tech, 5 wpm for General, 13 wpm for
Extra.

It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

And yet you mis-state what it proposes. Unless you don't consider
Techs to be amateurs....

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs.

Wrong *again*, Len!

The K4SX proposal does *not* propose "morse code testing for all
amateurs".

It proposes no code test for Tech, 5 wpm for General, 13 wpm for
Extra.

It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

And yet you mis-state what it proposes. Unless you don't consider
Techs to be amateurs....

Hah! As expected. All you want to do is argue minutae.

You are wasting my time trying to provoke a word fight.

Pizza off.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs.

Wrong *again*, Len!

The K4SX proposal does *not* propose "morse code testing for all
amateurs".

It proposes no code test for Tech, 5 wpm for General, 13 wpm for
Extra.

It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

And yet you mis-state what it proposes. Unless you don't consider
Techs to be amateurs....

Hah! As expected. All you want to do is argue minutae.

It's not minutiae, Len. Your statement indicated that *all* amateurs would have
to pass a code test ubder the K4SX proposal. The reality is far different.

You are wasting my time trying to provoke a word fight.

I'm simply correcting your mistakes. You made a real whopper there, on the K4SX
proposal. Very unprofessional.

Pizza off.

What does that mean? Sounds like you're telling me to shut up. Very unAmerican
of you, Len, telling someone to shut up when they correct your mistakes.

I make a pretty good homemade pizza - sauce *and* crust. No, you can't have
any.

Jim, with each others help, we can avoid feeding the trolls! 8^)


ahem!


- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

I make a pretty good homemade pizza - sauce *and* crust. No, you can't have
any.


Did you know they still make Chef Boyardee Pizza kits Jim?


- mike KB3EIA -

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Pizza off.

What does that mean? Sounds like you're telling me to shut up. Very unAmerican
of you, Len, telling someone to shut up when they correct your mistakes.

You got pizza now? EAT IT.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

For those that might be interested, here is some info from the NCVEC
proposal:

From Part II (Proposal), section 19. (basic framework of the new entry
level license) Paragraph d.

Power limits. Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 mHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 mhz.
This allows enough power for adequate communication under most
circumstances, and matches the nominal power output of the largest
number of commercially available transmitters and transceivers available
as of this writing.

The use of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for
RF safety evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated
threshold values for the frequencies concerned.

(end paragraph d)


Okay, so the NCVEC petition *does* specifically ask for restricted
power on their "communicator" class license.

Yep - just like I posted here back on March 18.

First, I like Carl's note on the name. Novice is so much better.

I prefer "Basic". Descriptive, new, fits in the class structure (Basic,
General, Extra) and avoids confusion with the existing Novice class.

It is
a time honored name, and although some may think this superfluous, it
looks good in print, and sounds good too.

Some folks might thing we're trying to recruit nuns.

I like having just two easy to say syllables, instead of 5!

Ba-sic

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

Yep:

- No homebrewing from scratch
- No rigs with more than 30 volts on the finals
- "Signed stament" instead of regs testing

73 de Jim, N2EY