"Dee D. Flint" wrote

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

Yes they do. That would fall under the category of modifying that
individual ham's license. It does not set a precedence. They can put
limits on a specific individual ham as to how, when, and where he can
operate his gear.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

You didn't answer my question. I said nothing about modifying a
license.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"N2EY" wrote


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

Jim, you're starting to sound like the gun control people.

There is a whole range of actions available to FCC, including a big NAL,
designating license for review, prohibiting use of 30M by this
particular induhvidual, or whatever.

"Radios don't break radio laws, people do."

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB





--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"N2EY" wrote


I'm glad the ARRL is keeping quiet. This guy gives ham radio a black eye. You
wanna defend his "right" to modify his rig to a bunch of emergency personnel
who scrambled to answer the phony distress calls?

I do NOT want one cent of my dues, or one second of ARRL personnel's time,
spent defending the modification of amateur equipment for *illegal*
transmission on frequencies hams are *not* authorized to use.


Under FCC rules there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about modifying an amateur
radio transmitter. NOTHING. ZIPPO. NADA!

The *illegal* part of this incident lies in the *USE*.

I'm not here to defend this guy for USING his radio in the manner he
did, nor did I ever suggest the ARRL should defend his illegal use of
the radio, but they damn well SHOULD defend our existing privelege of
tinkering and modifying our equipment, as mandated by 97.1(b) of the
Commissions Rules.

"Modified radios don't break the rules, people do."

With all kind wishes for your QCAO chapter membership drive,

de Hans, K0HB
Lord High Liberator of the Electric Smoke




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 03:11:25 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

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.

No, Dee, "they" could not have "done". The FCC does not have the
authority to confiscate anything, and in any event, radio equipment
that is not smuggled into the United States is not contraband and
is not seizable without a court order or statutory authority.

The bozo (a highly technical term) could have wanted to surrender the
equipment as part of a plea bargain where all other action is
deferred, but it appears from the questions being asked in the
letter that the FCC District Office has a more substantial penalty
in mind. This is just the first step.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

They could have seized it as part of the "evidence" for an investigation
though. It would take them only a few hours (if that) to get the
appropriate warrant.

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...

(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.

You have the mind of a criminal.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:02:41 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! And, confiscating equipment would have been the ethical
thing to do.

And totally illegal. See my "tutorial" on what the FCC can do and
cannot do in that regard.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:24:07 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

They could have seized it as part of the "evidence" for an investigation
though. It would take them only a few hours (if that) to get the
appropriate warrant.

No, Dee, the FCC cannot "seize" equipment under any circumstance.
The seizure would have to be done by the U S Marshal Service in
compliance with a court order.

Even in a situation like this, the probability of getting a warrant
- and the Marshal to serve it - within a few hours is rather nil
especially when the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of California is involved. In years past there was a warrant
paralegal there who speeded our cases through on a one-to-one
personal basis because our paperwork was always complete,
understandable, and error-free, but she is long retired and her
successors are not so inspired.

Too many people in the U S Attorney's office, the Marshals, and the
courts are involved in examining and approving the procedure, and
getting them out of bed in the middle of the night is not
realistic for situations like this where the culprit has been
identified and interviewed and, most important, the interference
abated.

This isn't Lennie Briscoe and "Law and Order" where warrants appear
out of thin air. Our usual lead time on an equipment seizure
warrant was three days and that was considered "fast".

If you haven't figured it out by now, applying for and getting
warrants was one of my major specialties at the FCC and I've been told
the procedures and the roadblocks haven't changed.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

(yeah... off-topic but I am a fan of both shows mentioned)

I just had a interesting though in relation to that television show.....
Since Briscoe on "Law and Order" and Sipowitz on "NYPD Blue" both can't seem
to keep a partner, I think it would be cool to see the series where they are
both partners eh?


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

This isn't Lennie Briscoe and "Law and Order" where warrants appear
out of thin air. Our usual lead time on an equipment seizure
warrant was three days and that was considered "fast".

If you haven't figured it out by now, applying for and getting
warrants was one of my major specialties at the FCC and I've been told
the procedures and the roadblocks haven't changed.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article ilgate.org, "K0HB
with non-approved radios" writes:

"N2EY" wrote

I'm glad the ARRL is keeping quiet. This guy gives ham radio a black eye.
You wanna defend his "right" to modify his rig to a bunch of emergency
personnel who scrambled to answer the phony distress calls?

I do NOT want one cent of my dues, or one second of ARRL personnel's time,
spent defending the modification of amateur equipment for *illegal*
transmission on frequencies hams are *not* authorized to use.

Under FCC rules there is NOTHING ILLEGAL about modifying an amateur
radio transmitter. NOTHING. ZIPPO. NADA!

OK, fine.

The *illegal* part of this incident lies in the *USE*.

Yup.

I'm not here to defend this guy for USING his radio in the manner he
did, nor did I ever suggest the ARRL should defend his illegal use of
the radio, but they damn well SHOULD defend our existing privelege of
tinkering and modifying our equipment, as mandated by 97.1(b) of the
Commissions Rules.

With the privilege of being able to modify goes the responsibility to follow
the rules. That guy demonstrated that he could not follow the rules, therefore,
he lost the privilege.

Now if a law-abiding ham gets into trouble with the FCC for modification,
that's a different story. I don't know of any law-abiding ham who has gotten
into trouble for modifications. Do you?

But this dude isn't law abiding. Got his license two weeks and he's sending
phony distress calls on a marine freq.

"Modified radios don't break the rules, people do."

Yup. So the rulebreakers don't get to modify.

With all kind wishes for your QCAO chapter membership drive,

If you only knew.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ...


"Modified radios don't break the rules, people do."

Yup. So the rulebreakers don't get to modify.

With all kind wishes for your QCAO chapter membership drive,

If you only knew.....


http://www.wwdxc.org/tabloid0203/tab0403.htm


73 de Jim, N2EY