John Warren wrote:
>
> Wayne Overbeck N6NB wrote:
>
> >With the LM-470 fully extended, the readings on the FCC's
> >high-priced instrumentation were miniscule!
>
> And therein lies the problem Wayne. We don't all have access to HIGH-PRICED
> instrumentation to demonstrate our compliance when our neighbors (and their
> HIGH-PRICED attorneys) discover your new rules, and use them to batter us
> over the head. It's the "IRS" problem - They can just CLAIM we're guilty,
> then we have to PROVE we're innocent!
>
> I hope you're well satisfied with the genie you have let out of the bottle.
> Too bad you couldn't swallow your pride, and let ARRL deal with the FCC.
>
> John, NT5C.
Hey, I resemble that remark about the IRS.
Doug, WD8AUB (IRS Internal Revenue Agent)
P.S. There is a bunch of negative press about the IRS, especially
during the crunch of an election year, and the budget and deficit
crisis.
If only people (USA anyway) could look at IRS as a necessary tool to
ensure that everyone pays only their fair share of taxes. And that your
neighbor or whoever - lacking your good conscience - pays none, making
Congress enact higher taxes on you to make up for it.
Sorry for the bandwidth. Couldnt help putting in my 2 cents worth.
>From steven@zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H) Thu Aug 8 01:06:01 1996
From: steven@zianet.com (Steven Nace KN5H) (Steven Nace KN5H)
Subject: FRC guys -- re: W3GPE
Message-ID: <00060146804991@zianet.com>
A long time ago I operated at W3GPE. This was back in the early 70s. Can
anyone tell me W3GPE's new call? TIA.
73 de Hose KN5H
\\\|///
( O O )
_______________________________( )___oOO____________________________
| Steven K. Nace KN5H Phone: 505-525-6205 |
| AlliedSignal Technical Svcs E-Mail: Snace@tdrss.wsc.nasa.gov |
| Spacecraft Engineering Group Alt E-mail: steven@zianet.com |
| NASA White Sands Complex Fax: 505-525-6229 |
| Las Cruces, NM 88004 Alt Fax: 505-527-7223 |
+_________________________Ooo________________________________________+
|__| |__|
|| ||
|| ||
(__) (__)
>From k6km@mail2.quiknet.com (cncnet - Bill Snider) Thu Aug 8 02:27:18 1996
From: k6km@mail2.quiknet.com (cncnet - Bill Snider) (cncnet - Bill Snider)
Subject: RF Exposure
Message-ID: <19960808012715.AAA11723@LOCALNAME>
At 01:17 PM 8/7/96 -0800, Wayne Overbeck wrote:
>
>NT5C@easy.com wrote:
>
And a lot of good words followed. However:
The details don't matter, Wayne. VERY few hams will be able routinely to
demonstrate
that they comply with the new RF exposure standards. Very few others will choose
to jump through the necessary hoops do so demonstrate when challenged.
The child of your labor, and of your good intentions, is that every amateur
radio
operator in the United States of America is now financially and administratively
vulnerable. Vulnerable to neighborhood ham-haters, vulnerable to attorneys
hungry
for a contingency fee, and vulnerable to ego- or politic-driven bureaucrats who
might someday find it prudent to challenge the existence of ham radio.
It will be extremely difficult for us hams to prove that we're legal, but as I
underatand the regulation, the burden of proof is upon us and not upon our
accusers.
It appears that individual enjoyment of amateur radio in the U. S. has just
been
burdened with a new set of risks that we should never have had imposed on us.
The attorneys who write the regs get paid whether or not they make sense.
The attorneys who interpret the regs get paid whether or not they are correct.
The attorneys who try the cases get paid whether or not they win.
The attorneys who defend the U. S. hams get paid whether or not they win.
The U. S. hams pay the attorneys at every stage of the game.
I don't think this new reg is in the best interest of amateur radio operators
in the U. S.
Bill, K6KM
k6km@cncnet.com
|