| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#19
July 15th 03, 11:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} | Antenna | |||
| Keeping moisture out of 9913 type coax? | Antenna | |||
| DRSI type 2 PCPA 4sal | General | |||
| New Type of HF Shootout (antennas, pedestrian, bicycle) | Antenna | |||
| Is the IC-V8 type accepted? | Equipment | |||
Threaded Mode
