RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 16th 03, 03:51 AM

In article ,
(K0HB) writes:

My concern is NOT with the severity of his penalty (I think it was
pathetically lenient) but with the chilling effect it could have on
tinkering and experimenting by amateurs who apparently must now fear
that FCC can require them to put their equipment back into
factory-fresh configuration.

I don't have a single peice of equipment which I have not "improved"
from it's original schematic. Frankly, I thought the FCC encouraged
such experimentation. This incident suggests just the opposite and
I'm surprised that ARRL isn't screaming bloody murder.

Hansl:

I have no problem with the penalty imposed. If Mr. Swift complies, in
the allotted time frame, he obviously would show that he is genuinely
interested in keeping his license by complying with the regulations.
I'm also sure that his visit to the FCC Field Office will include a
thorough reading of the Riot Act, not to mention the Communications
Act 1934. From that point on, if he re-offends, he's toast.

Requiring Mr. Swift to re-connect and encapsulate his jumper doesn't
bother me one little bit. This never would have happened if he wasn't
stupid enough to actually transmit on a Marine frequency with non-
type accepted equipment -- and make false distress calls, to boot.
He obviously got caught on his first offense, and for a first offender,
this "punishment" is appropriate and adequate. BTW, I'm only
assuming that the distress call did not initiate an expensive SAR
response by the Coast Guard. Were that so, I'd also be handing
him the bill for the costs involved, but that would be a DOT/Coast
Guard action, not the FCC.

73 de Larry, K3LT