"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jan 31, 9:28 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
"KE5MBX" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jan 31, 2:46 pm, "KC4UAI" wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:00 pm, "KE5MBX" wrote:

Is it legal to modify a 2-meter amateur radio transceiver to
transmit
on all frequencies it can receive? It seems to me that such a
modification could be useful in case of an emergency. Additionally,
as long as the power is limited to 2 watts, it should be legal on
MURS
bands, right?

First question, is it legal to modify your 2 meter rig... Yes, but
that does not make it legal to actually use on these new frequencies.
Other radio services generally require FCC certification of the
equipment for it to be used legally. For example, you can modify your
10 Meter rig to have the capacity to transmit on 11 Meters (CB) but
you legally cannot transmit on the new frequencies unless your radio
is certified for that service (which it won't be in this case.)

Ham Radio enjoys the privilege to build and modify equipment for Part
97 operation without formal certification, so you can take a CB and
re-
tune it to 10 Meters if you want, just not the other way. Also you can
only do this on a limited basis. For instance, you can build an HF
amplifier for your own use without FCC certification, but once you
start building them to sell you must get FCC certification for a part
97 device.

For your second question:

No, it would not be legal to use a Part 97 certified device (modified
or not) in any other service that required use of FCC certified
equipment. Part 95 (MURS) specifically requires that equipment being
used is certified for that Part and does not allow equipment certified
under other parts to be used. Your Part 97 certified 2 meter rig,
modified to use on Part 95 frequencies would be illegal.

Now, would the FCC care in the case of a true emergency? I doubt they
would. But it's a chance you are taking. I don't care to loose my hard
won license this way...

-= bob =-

I agree on the MURS part after doing some reading. Seems to me though
that "you may use any means at your disposal in case of an emergency"
as the tech test says. I think you would even be legal in an
emergency.

The catch is that the authorities define what constitutes a sufficiently
severe emergency to warrant it not you.


but they do so in theory in accordance with the standards laid out in
the rules
which define an emergency roughly as anything the endagering life or
the safety of property a fairly broad standard

and did even this receive some expantion to include health and welfare
traffic by folks working outside their preveldges recently?

you sil aint me woger



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com