| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#27
July 19th 03, 03:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
| 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
