RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 20th 03, 01:21 PM

In article ,
(K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

I don't think modification of factory-made amateur equipment for illegal
purposes should be defended by the ARRL.

Did I say the ARRL should defend the actions of this guy? Damn, Jim,
you were one of the last guys I'd expect to twist my words in such a
dishonest manner.

Earlier you said something about the ARRL raising a stink about the requirement
to unmodify. I thought you were still on that kick.

What I did say was ...

... 1) that the guy got off way too easy,
... 2) but that this particular FCC action smacks of a possible
precedent for denying hams (or certain classes of hams as in Canada)
the right to modify their equipment.

So what should the ARRL be doing? Should they be saying "He did a bad thing but
you should not make him restore the rig to factory condition"?

AFAIK, there is NO LEGAL USE for the expanded transmit coverage provided by the
modification. Modification for illegal purposes isn't what the ARS is about.

... and K2ASP is excused for rising in defense of his ex-employer, but
he has taken the lawerly approach of not directly addressing my
question, instead raising a diversionary fog about "but the guy wasn't
acting as a ham". So I'll ask a rhetorical question which requires
only a "simple Yes or No"..... "Does FCC have the authority to
require hams to maintain factory built equipment in it's original
state?"

I say "Yes" if the owner of said equipment has demonstrated that he/she cannot
be trusted to perform modifications in a responsible manner.

I say the right to modify equipment carries with it the responsibility to do so
in accordance with FCC rules and regs.

Thought experiment: Ham buys a Heath SB-220/1 amplifier. Ham modifies same to
cover 30 meters and proceeds to use it there, at a power level far above that
authorized. FCC finds out. Does FCC have the power to make ham un-modify it? Or
is their only possible action seizure/confiscation and destruction?

73 de Jim, N2EY