| |
GM7HUD > FUTURE 09.12.06 00:43l 35 Lines 1706 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 604174GM7HUD
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Amrad Regs here and there
Path: ON0AR<HS1LMV<CX2SA<GB7YFS<GB7LGS<GB7ESX
Sent: 061208/1902z 44083@GB7ESX.#31.GBR.EU $:604174GM7HUD [Witham, Esx]NNA V3.1
G4EBT wrote:-
> Where there are progressive licensing structures in place, such as the
> UK 3-stage structure allowing 10, 50 and 400 Watts, and the VK 3-stage
> structure, this isn't - as many believe "incentive licensing".
I have to thank David for explaining and clarifying a fair bit of the
thinking behind the UK Foundation licence.
I have always maintained that there seemed little incentive to progress to
Intermediate and Full licence grades when most of what people wanted in
terms of frequency allocations is available at the base level. I personally
thought that as an incentive, giving a few HF bands (80m, 15m) and a few
VHF bands (6m, 2m, 70cm) but at a sensible power (100W) rather than nearly
all bands at 10W was better. 80m allows reasonable local working and 15m
allows real DX (but not at this part of the solar cycle). 2m and 70cms
allows the use of mobile and hand held equipment and 6m allows both local
and DX working. Setting the power to 100W takes away all the arguments as
to whether our novices are really running 10W or not. Whilst people may be
able to easily gain access to higher power amplifiers, the vast majority
will end up with 100W HF sets or 50W(ish) mobile sets. The question of
illegal power disappears when hearing callsigns on the wrong bands is the
giveaway.
However, from the UK perspective, David's explanation of why the UK novice
allocations are the way they are makes perfect sense. The risk from a 10W
transmission of causing interference is vastly less than from a 100W.
I still feel that the "less frequencies, more power" is a better way to
incentivise upgrading but that isn't what the UK regulator is really
interested in.
73 de Andy GM7HUD
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
