Re: The 14 Petitions

Bill Sohl wrote:

> "Mike Coslo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Bill Sohl wrote:
> >
> > > "Kim W5TIT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > <some snippage>
> >
> >
> > > > Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or
> > > > even
> > > > monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more
>
> dollars
>
> > > > and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.
> > > >
> > > > Kim W5TIT
> > >
> > >
> > > While enforcement might prove difficult, the implementation
> > > of a power limit would, I believe, not be violated by the
> > > majority of hams.  Those of us that were Novices at one time
> > > lived with a 75 watt limit.  Did some novices violate
> > > that?  Probably, but by and large, most stayed within the
> > > legal limit.
> >
> > But even if that is the case, it would seem to me to make more sense to
> > us a limit that is easily handled by virtue of equipment that will
> > handle the limit already on the market.
>
>
> I agree, see more below.
>
>
> > Would the manufacturers make equipment that only put out 50 watts?
> > Possibly, but what will be the resale value of the equipment? So the new
> > Class A ham has to go out and buy a new rig to make use of his or her
> > new priveliges? Remember not everyone wants to run a lot of power. 100
> > watts is something most people are comfortable with.
>
>
> And that's a logical threshold point in my opinion.
>
>
> > And the rationale for the reduction of power needs to be proven to me
> > anyway. How many Technicians have been hurt by using more than 50 watts
> > power?
>
>
> None I know of.
>
>
> > And do you think that the prospective ham should not know about RF
> > safety until they reach the equivalent of an Extra? This plan seems to
> > advocate that.
>
>
> Actually, I think they SHOULD know about the basics of RF,
> RF hazards, etc

Seems like we're pretty much on the same page here! 8^)

	- Mike KB3EIA -