I agree with Jim 100% on this one ...

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(K0HB) writes:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote


Obviously not a lawyer, but my read on this was that the FCC is
giving him a chance to keep his radios, avoid the nasty fine that
COULD have gone along with this, and sends a very loud signal to
anyone else so inclined to not abuse the privilege.


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.

Hans,

Step back a minute and look at what this newbie actually did.

He allegedly cut a wire in a manufactured piece of amateur equipment so
that he
could *illegally* transmit on frequencies he was *not* authorized to use.

I don't have a single peice of equipment which I have not "improved"
from it's original schematic.

Neither do I. However, neither have I modified any equipment so that I
could
*illegally* transmit on frequencies I am *not* authorized to use.

Frankly, I thought the FCC encouraged
such experimentation.

Not when the end result is *illegal* transmission on frequencies the
"tinkerer"
is *not* authorized to use.

And to make it all that much worse, he transmits false distress calls on a
marine freq.

This incident suggests just the opposite and
I'm surprised that ARRL isn't screaming bloody murder.

I'm glad the ARRL is keeping quiet. This guy gives ham radio a black eye.
You
wanna defend his "right" to modify his rig to a bunch of emergency
personnel
who scrambled to answer the phony distress calls?

I do NOT want one cent of my dues, or one second of ARRL personnel's time,
spent defending the modification of amateur equipment for *illegal*
transmission on frequencies hams are *not* authorized to use.

73 de Jim, N2EY