Alan,
Nope, you are absolutely correct. I used an inappropriate word in my
interpretation of Paragraph 4 on page 3.
Tommy - W4BQF
At Thursday 07:57 PM 7/21/2005, you wrote:
Tommy,
Where is that about defining the amateur service as a "hobby"? The only
mention of hobby I can find is referencing a petition by Holliday
concerning handicapped individuals on page 7. Is there another hobby
reference I'm missing somewhere?
Paragraph 4 on page 3 clearly defines the amateur service as it
currently exists in the regulations.
73,
Alan N5NA
Tommy wrote:
>The dropping of the CW requirement for testing does not bother me.
>What DOES bother me a great deal is in this same FCC NPRN, the
>definition of the amateur service has 'casually' been redefined. The
>amateur service in this NPRN definition, no longer has any ties with
>'emergency' or 'public' service, it is defined as a "hobby". How long
>do you think it's going to take commercial interest to convince the
>FCC to give them the "hobbist" frequencies? To be, that is what WE
>should be concerned about in this NPRN.
>
>Tommy - W4BQF
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|