|
On 14 Jul 2003 14:44:08 -0700, N2EY wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, false distress calls should not be treated lightly. If it were up to me, and the charges could be proved, the person(s) responsible would have no license, no radios, and much thinner wallets. But it's not up to me. The USCG or the FAA/CAP, depending on who goes out to "rescue" same, now sends a bill for the cost of the operation. The FCC does levy a maximum-limit forfeiture for false distress. But the bottom line is that it's up to the Justice Department to collect, and they are always overloaded, or so they say. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:16:27 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:
It is my understanding that even amateur operators must have equipment that is "Type Accepted" by the FCC. You are greatly in error, Kim. BUT, I do know that I've heard discussions on the air whereby it is said to be illegal to own "illegal" radios (those CBs that can transmit outside the legal limits of CB radio) and "foot warmers" (those that have been modified to be able to work outside the ham bands...like, one that was originally for 10M that now works well in the CB range, etc.). I wish that that was so, but it is not. It is a violation to use such equipment, and use is presumed as a matter of law when there is possession coupled with extrinsic evidence of contemporary violation of the type that would result from use of the device, but mere possession is not a violation (barring other factors). -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Would you be so kind as to either (a) repost it here or (b) give me a title and
a probable group to google or deja it? Jim "Phil Kane" shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: - Also note that I used the term "type certified". "Type acceptance" - is no longer an FCC procedure - I think that I posted a tutorial on - this a short while ago (perhaps in another group). Jim Weir, VP Eng. RST Eng. WX6RST A&P, CFI, and other good alphabet soup |
|
"K0HB" wrote in message om... (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. I do not think it will have any effect on tinkering or experimenting. The reason that he was ordered to do this was because after the mod, he deliberately violated the regulations governing the amateur radio service by transmitting out of band etc. 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. Yes the FCC and ARRL do encourage this experimentation. But remember that the offender was committing some rather serious violations of the regulations. The FCC can modify the operator/station license in almost anyway they see fit when someone has committed such violations. The ARRL would have no reason to scream bloody murder about the guy's penalty. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
Another scenario is that this transceiver includes an FCC type certified receiver, and even though there may not be any out-of-band operation, the use of a non-certified receiver when one is required to be certified is a separate violation. There is a procedure for one-of-a-kind amateur equipment self-certification, but if it is a commercial piece of gear that is required to be certified, it must be a mod approved ny the manufacturer. Wait a minnit here, I sense a hidden bag of worms. You did a nice job with explaining the type acceptance and type certification complexities a short time ago. You explained that type certifcation of ham xcvrs is based on rcvr spurious emissions supression requirements. All well and good so far. Maybe I missed it but I did not pick up on they fact that hams can't mod their rcvrs unless the mod designs are factory approved. This is news to me and raises a flag. We all know that rcvr mods are and have been routine ever since Hector was a pup. There are innumerable websites stuffed with how-to-do-it instructions for making all sorts of rcvr mods and there are mod kits for sale for just about every ham HF xcvr out there today. I seriously doubt that Yeasu for instance puts any assets into "approving" Joe Slobotnik's latest circuit mod for boosting the performace of say FT-1000MPs in some way. Nor have I ever seen any warnings in the websites which refer to the consequences of ham-developed mods beyond the usual possiblity of voiding manufacturer's warranties if one futzes with the innards with a soldering iron. Are you saying that if I install any of these types of mods in my Yaesu xcvr I'm in violation?? If yes then we have one *helluva* lotta violators roaming the bands, thousands of us. w3rv |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: It is my understanding that even amateur operators must have equipment that is "Type Accepted" by the FCC. You are greatly in error, Kim. Situation normal, Phil -- Situation normal! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com