I agree with Carl 100% on this one.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"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 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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans, et al,

I seriously doubt that the FCC intends to discourage experimentation
and improvement of our rigs (whether home-built or store-bought).

IMHO, there is a big difference between modifying your rig to improve
it and "opening it up" to transmit out of band *for the purpose of using
it to create interference to other services where equipment must be
type accepted*.

It seems that, in this case, that is exactly what the individual in question
did, so I personally think that the FCC action requiring him to undo
the mods, that were done with the apparent purpose of enabling illegal
operation, is not inappropriate.

However, I also agree with your view that, as a sole remedy, this action
was pathetically lenient.

Carl - wk3c

(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

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

"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