
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
"Dwight Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |