[Ham-80211] OT??? High power 2.4 GHz rules change

[jeff at aerodata.net]

> On Sunday 21 May 2006 13:13, jeff at aerodata.net wrote:
>> Tim told us:


>> Already covered. I suggest you read the FCC rules, as your concerns are
>> already addressed -> 97.313(a)An amateur station must use the minimum
>> transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications. ).
>
> No, not already covered. If it were already covered we wouldn't have the
> problem on the HF bands with people running amplifiers when they are not
> needed.

So your saying another law to make up for another law that people already
are not following?

> You can pooh-pooh it all you want, it is still a fact of life.

I'm not saying your wrong, I am saying this is amateur radio, and the best
way to promote experimentation is to have as few rules as possible. Good
amateur practice and minimum power need to communicate, which we have on
the books now, covers your concerns but at the same time doesn't overly
change Part 97 to a Part 15 service.


> And no one has answered why 100watts is needed on any SS point-to-point
> link.

I seem to recall at least one fellow that did. One might need the link
margin. Do the math Tim, I think it is in the ARRL handbook.


>> Cut me a break... Your chicken little tactics may play well to the WISP
>> audience, but they don't amount to much in fact.
>
> Chicken little tactics? I suggest you go look on ebay sometime to see what
> is
> available. 20watt bricks are readily available - even for 2.4Ghz. While
> they
> are certainly pricey, 50watt and up bricks are available as well.
>
> You would have us believe that this is NOT where things are headed when it
> is
> obvious that they are.

Your outrage seems misplaced. You do realize all thos amplifiers you cite,
are squarely aimed at the Part 15 audience, don't you? Its like saying,
boy we should punish those hams for all the illegal amplifiers the CB
radio operators are using. Oh wait, that already happened. Guess you big
goverment boys do know a thing or two.


> Do you really think the rest of us are so stupid as to not be able to look
> back on history and be able to learn from it?

Rest of us? Interesting... who is "us"?