Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

By the way, Dave, was that SSB or CW?

Ask complete questions and you'll likely receive complete answers.

Dave K8MN

Likely not.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 15 Jul 2003 17:42:38 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:

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.

Only if the receiver section is of a type that is required to be
type-certified. In general, that's for VHF and above receivers.

Installing such a mod in a type-certified receiver voids the type
certification, which raises two separate issues.

(1) The receiver (or transceiver) can no longer be conveyed to
another party (sold, given, shipped, all the good words in Section
302(b) of the Comm Act) unless the manufacturer recertifies the
receiver with the mod (i.e. approved the mod and stated that with
the mod the receiver still meets seignal leakage specs).

Let me count the number of perps . .

(2) if the mod causes harmful interference to another licensed
station ("freebanders" are fair game but I never said that) then
you would be liable for using same.

Cash deal and what radio are you talking about? I never met the guy.

Yeah, I know it's weird - put a preamp inside the VHF receiver and it
busts the type certification. Put it in a box with a transistor
battery and hook it to the receiver antenna terminal with a wire and
it doesn't. I never said that the equipment certification rules
were logical, only that they are "the rules".

I oughta known . . confusion at the top does tend to propagate.


Whatever worm is left in the can - put it on a hook and catch me a
trout.

Last time I tried that all I caught was a tire and a week's worth of
bronchitis. Don't hold yer breath.

(N2EY) wrote

I agree with Carl 100% on this one.

I don't, and I don't agree with you either for that matter.

We all seem to agree that the guy ought to be nailed, and nailed HARD.

But under the heading of "unintended consequences", the notion of
requiring a ham to restore a radio to "factory spec" is first probably
outside the authority of the FCC. Even if it is within their
authority, it is a very troubling precedent to have lurking in
background. ARRL has gone to the mat with FCC on matters of far less
importance, but they seem to be looking the other way on this one.

73, Hans, K0HB

"K0HB" wrote in message
m...
(N2EY) wrote

I agree with Carl 100% on this one.

I don't, and I don't agree with you either for that matter.

We all seem to agree that the guy ought to be nailed, and nailed HARD.

But under the heading of "unintended consequences", the notion of
requiring a ham to restore a radio to "factory spec" is first probably
outside the authority of the FCC. Even if it is within their
authority, it is a very troubling precedent to have lurking in
background. ARRL has gone to the mat with FCC on matters of far less
importance, but they seem to be looking the other way on this one.

73, Hans, K0HB

No, I don't think it is outside of the FCC's authority. They have the power
to modify the station license and operator license in just about anyway they
see fit.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:37:44 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

No, I don't think it is outside of the FCC's authority. They have the power
to modify the station license and operator license in just about anyway they
see fit.

Get it straight, Dee. This bozo was not operating under the color
of any authorization (station or operator license or blanket rule
authority) and is being treated as such.

The fact that he holds an amateur license authorizing him to operate
on amateur frequencies is meaningless at this stage.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:37:44 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

No, I don't think it is outside of the FCC's authority. They have the
power
to modify the station license and operator license in just about anyway
they
see fit.

Get it straight, Dee. This bozo was not operating under the color
of any authorization (station or operator license or blanket rule
authority) and is being treated as such.

The fact that he holds an amateur license authorizing him to operate
on amateur frequencies is meaningless at this stage.


True enough but they chose to take the approach of ordering him to return
the equipment to the unmodified state rather than simply just confiscating
it, which they could have done.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(K0HB) wrote:

I was under the impression (apparently mistaken?) that a licensed
amateur could possess any sort of equipment (commercial, homebrew,
converted surplus) or whatever.
[snip since other replies will have fullbody text]

Anyone transmitting false and malicious distress should not be a ham,
a cb'er, frs user nothing period. There is no need to modify
equipment back since this person should not ever have another radio
ever in his/hers hot little hands. Sorta like a child molester never
being allowed to work in a school.

Revert to type acceptance, what were they thinking?

73, wes, kc8spr


--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

In article ,
(K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

I agree with Carl 100% on this one.

I don't, and I don't agree with you either for that matter.

OK, fine, Hans.

We all seem to agree that the guy ought to be nailed, and nailed HARD.

Yep.

But under the heading of "unintended consequences", the notion of
requiring a ham to restore a radio to "factory spec" is first probably
outside the authority of the FCC. Even if it is within their
authority, it is a very troubling precedent to have lurking in
background. ARRL has gone to the mat with FCC on matters of far less
importance, but they seem to be looking the other way on this one.

I see the requirement to return it to factory spec as a plea bargain from
outright confiscation/seizure and eventual destruction. I know FCC has done
those things in the past.

K2ASP sez the fact that the guy is a ham has no bearing on his marine-band
activities. I would point out to m'learned friends that when the accused
applied for the ham license and signed the papers, he agreed to abide by *all*
FCC regulations, not just those in Part 97.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

(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.

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.

.... 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?"

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

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