On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:06:44 -0400, alexb wrote:


Aside from what you just said which is valuable, I want to point out that my
communications, I hate to say it, are encrypted. That small GMRS has 15 or
so codes and multiplied by the number of channels I can use (from the top of
my head from the 12th

I would take what he said about call sign usage with a grain of salt. It's
no different than somebody telling you it's OK to do 20 over on the
highway because they never saw a cop. Yeah you might get away with it for
a long time, but sooner or later you'll get nailed. Also consider you're
trying to use it for business, that gives the licensed users an extra
incentive to report you.

Now for your comment above, if your talking about those
so-called "privacy codes", forget it. They don't encrypt anything. What
they're for is to keep other radios from opening up the squelch for every
transmission on that channel except for the one using that code. That way
you don't have to be bothered listening to transmission you're not
interested in. Anybody with a scanner can still hear everything you say.
One more thing, if you read the rules about station ID it states clearly
that you must ID either in English or Mose Code on the GMRS channels. That
basically ends any sort of encrypted transmission on GMRS. You may find
FRS radios using "voice inversion" scrambling, but then again you have to
have all matching radios typically from the same manufacture and most
people who are serious monitors have ways to unscramble the signal anyway,
either using hardware or some software based technique using a computer
sound card. The best rule to observe is assume that somebody can hear you
regardless of what kind of transmission you make scrambled, or in the
clear.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO
WPYJ972

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:06:44 -0400, alexb wrote:


Aside from what you just said which is valuable, I want to point out
that my
communications, I hate to say it, are encrypted. That small GMRS has 15
or
so codes and multiplied by the number of channels I can use (from the
top of
my head from the 12th

I would take what he said about call sign usage with a grain of salt. It's
no different than somebody telling you it's OK to do 20 over on the
highway because they never saw a cop. Yeah you might get away with it for
a long time, but sooner or later you'll get nailed. Also consider you're
trying to use it for business, that gives the licensed users an extra
incentive to report you.

Now for your comment above, if your talking about those
so-called "privacy codes", forget it. They don't encrypt anything. What
they're for is to keep other radios from opening up the squelch for every
transmission on that channel except for the one using that code. That way
you don't have to be bothered listening to transmission you're not
interested in. Anybody with a scanner can still hear everything you say.
One more thing, if you read the rules about station ID it states clearly
that you must ID either in English or Mose Code on the GMRS channels. That
basically ends any sort of encrypted transmission on GMRS. You may find
FRS radios using "voice inversion" scrambling, but then again you have to
have all matching radios typically from the same manufacture and most
people who are serious monitors have ways to unscramble the signal anyway,
either using hardware or some software based technique using a computer
sound card. The best rule to observe is assume that somebody can hear you
regardless of what kind of transmission you make scrambled, or in the
clear.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO
WPYJ972

Thanks, Do I have to get a second license for the second walkie-talkie that
works vis-a-vie of mine?

I am not paranoid about encrypting. There is basically nothing I need to
hide. I just do not want to broadcast what I am doing unnecessarily across
town. When I talk to people I know I am very open about it. All I want to do
is to take MINIMAL precautions with minimal cost involved.

Thanks.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 20:56:38 -0400, ALEXB wrote:


Thanks, Do I have to get a second license for the second walkie-talkie that
works vis-a-vie of mine?

In general no. The license you have should cover all the radios in use and
under your control. For example if it was for a family it would cover all
the members in the house hold.


I am not paranoid about encrypting. There is basically nothing I need to
hide. I just do not want to broadcast what I am doing unnecessarily
across town. When I talk to people I know I am very open about it. All I
want to do is to take MINIMAL precautions with minimal cost involved.

Well just keep in mind anything you say on the air is going to have many
"ears" hearing you.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

From: (Leland=A0C.=A0Scott)
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:06:44 -0400, alexb wrote: I would take what he
said about call sign usage with a grain of salt. It's no different than
somebody telling you it's OK to do 20 over on the highway because they
never saw a cop. Yeah you might get away with it for a long time, but
sooner or later you'll get nailed.
_
Leland is confused. Contrary to what he claimed, sooner or later people
do NOT get nailed for such actions. Listen to the cb, channel 6 or any
other channel where dx is rampant. A quick peep into the records of the
FCC busts reveals the way things really are. Leland likes to cite the
exception and -not-the norm of how the feds operate. Even if you were to
get the attention of the feds and get "nailed", you must be served with
a warning notice alerting you to the violation and an order to cease the
illegal activity, as Leland's examples cite. In fact, most cited are
guilty of repeat offenses after receiving multiple warnings. The chances
of getting busted are slim to slimmer unless someone complains. Even
then, the feds must actually witness any violation before any action
other than a warning notice is issued.

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (Leland C. Scott)
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:06:44 -0400, alexb wrote: I would take what he
said about call sign usage with a grain of salt. It's no different than
somebody telling you it's OK to do 20 over on the highway because they
never saw a cop. Yeah you might get away with it for a long time, but
sooner or later you'll get nailed.
_
Leland is confused. Contrary to what he claimed, sooner or later people
do NOT get nailed for such actions. Listen to the cb, channel 6 or any
other channel where dx is rampant. A quick peep into the records of the
FCC busts reveals the way things really are. Leland likes to cite the
exception and -not-the norm of how the feds operate. Even if you were to
get the attention of the feds and get "nailed", you must be served with
a warning notice alerting you to the violation and an order to cease the
illegal activity, as Leland's examples cite. In fact, most cited are
guilty of repeat offenses after receiving multiple warnings. The chances
of getting busted are slim to slimmer unless someone complains. Even
then, the feds must actually witness any violation before any action
other than a warning notice is issued.

You do not understand. Everything you said is formally correct. On a
practical level a great degree of tolerance exists in such matters. I got it
even before I posted here.

The issue for me was to learn the amplitude of trouble a person can get in,
potentially, under extreme circumstances. The license costs just $80.00
which is next to nothing for me. It is much better for me to pay 80 bucks
and forget about the matter otherwise in some extreme circumstances
somebody, not necessarily the Feds, can point their finger at me and say:
BTW, he operates a RADIO TRANSMITTER without a license or in some illegal
way.

This is the point.

From: (ALEXB)
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
... From:
(Leland C. Scott) On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:06:44 -0400,
alexb wrote: I would take what he said about call sign usage with a
grain of salt. It's no different than somebody telling you it's OK to do
20 over on the highway because they never saw a cop. Yeah you might get
away with it for a long time, but sooner or later you'll get nailed.
_
Leland is confused. Contrary to what he claimed, sooner or later people
do NOT get nailed for such actions. Listen to the cb, channel 6 or any
other channel where dx is rampant. A quick peep into the records of the
FCC busts reveals the way things really are. Leland likes to cite the
exception and -not-the norm of how the feds operate. Even if you were to
get the attention of the feds and get "nailed", you must be served with
a warning notice alerting you to the violation and an order to cease the
illegal activity, as Leland's examples cite. In fact, most cited are
guilty of repeat offenses after receiving multiple warnings. The chances
of getting busted are slim to slimmer unless someone complains. Even
then, the feds must actually witness any violation before any action
other than a warning notice is issued.

You do not understand.

Everything you said is formally correct.

..which would illustrate I understand just fine.


On a practical level a great degree of

tolerance exists in such matters.


Actually, practicality has nothing to do with it..,,it's reality.


I got it even before I posted here.


Got what?

The issue for me was to learn the amplitude of
trouble a person can get in, potentially, under

extreme circumstances.




Since you didn't ask anything of the sort in your post, it's interesting
to note how Leland just read your mind. Wow. You two have a serious
bond.


The license costs just $80.00 which is next to

nothing for me. It is much better for me to pay

80 bucks and forget about the matter

otherwise in some extreme circumstances

somebody, not necessarily the Feds, can point
their finger at me and say: BTW, he operates

a RADIO TRANSMITTER without a license or

in some illegal way.

If someone other than the feds "point a finger at you" , it means
nothing.



This is the point.

Not in your original post it wasn't. In fact, that wasn't your point
until Leland needed corrected. Even if it was your point, you would have
nothing to worry about, as your decision was already made to get a
license. Enjoy.

J

twitlips wimps again

On Tue, 31 May 2005 10:32:10 -0400, I AmnotGeorgeBush wrote:


Leland is confused.

Strong opinions, yes, confused, no.

Contrary to what he claimed, sooner or later people
do NOT get nailed for such actions. Listen to the cb, channel 6 or any
other channel where dx is rampant.

There's no DX in that sense on the GMRS frequencies.

A quick peep into the records of the
FCC busts reveals the way things really are. Leland likes to cite the
exception and -not-the norm of how the feds operate.

Perhaps, but he is looking to use it in a business setting. You operate
your marine rig without an FCC license by the way? And if you don't, why?
I'm just asking for the heck of it.

Even if you were to
get the attention of the feds and get "nailed", you must be served with
a warning notice alerting you to the violation and an order to cease the
illegal activity, as Leland's examples cite. In fact, most cited are
guilty of repeat offenses after receiving multiple warnings.

True enough, they do try to give people a break before they impose any
fines. The idea is to give them a chance to clean up their act. Some don't
and some plain don't care, that's when when they get to make a
contribution to the US Treasury. And if that doesn't work, then some free
room and board for several years at government expense is next. It's much
better not to let things even get to the point of a warning letter.

The chances
of getting busted are slim to slimmer unless someone complains.

This is where I have to disagree to an extend. There are licensed
users on the channels who are not going to be happy with unlicensed
operation. Remember the licensed uses "paid for their right", by receiving
a license from the FCC, to use those channels. On the combo FRS/GMRS
channels its hard to tell who is or is not licensed. On the strictly GMRS
channels any unlicensed operation is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
And the licensed people do complain to the FCC because they don't want the
sort of unlicensed activity on the combo channels spreading to the GMRS
only channels. When people have to identify themselves they tend to act
better on the air.

Even
then, the feds must actually witness any violation before any action
other than a warning notice is issued.

By the time you get the warning letter they tape recordings etc. already.
They don't issue a warning letter unless they, the FCC, is first satisfied
a violation had already occurred. Why do you think they aways request
tapes etc. from people filing a complaint with the FCC? Read some of the
FCC warning letters. You'll see where they state they have recordings etc.
already just to make a point with some violators.

Anyway he should have enough opinions by now from all sides to make an
informed choice.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO