I always thought it was weird and unnecessary to use EIRP power limits on 60m vs transmitter output power (before feedline losses and antenna gain) as on every other band.

The TX power limits were primarily driven by builder/operator safety - higher power requires higher amplifier voltages. If there is a lower requirement for a band to avoid interference with shared uses, why not just specify a lower power level? Why add a requirement that involves antenna and near-field environment modeling?

That's around 10W with a dipole. With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe.

I support less limitiatons for ham radio operators, but 15W eirp is really not that useless.

That's not really the point. You can work the whole world with 100mW on FT8. We don't need another low power band for digital only. If this is the route they want to go, make it unlicensed experimental operation and just limit the power to 1 W transmitter power. The whole point is having an amateur band is that it can be used for operation which might otherwise be problematic because I've agreed to work with the FCC if interference arises.

> With some modes (even FT8, not just stuff like WSPR), that's enough to reach around the globe.

I semi-routinely spoke to Japan with SSB using improvised antennas in the field with 10W.

Elecraft KX3 + Buddipole Deluxe. Doubt I was very efficient, though I did try to get a couple good counterpoise wires going.

~10 watts into a dipole is plenty for both CW and modern data modes. SSB is harder but still doable. ARRL is right it probably limits its use for emergency interop, and I do support their proposal to keep the 100w limit. However, if the FCC goes with its original proposal I won't lose any sleep. Perhaps it can be a haven for QRP operations. The propagation on 60m is quite good day and night.