Re: The 14 Petitions

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Coslo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>KØHB wrote:
>> "Dee D. Flint" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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