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