LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #32   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 01:21 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The "TRICK" to TV 'type' Coax Cable [Shielded] SWL Loop Antennas {RHF} RHF Antenna 27 November 3rd 04 01:38 PM
Keeping moisture out of 9913 type coax? Dave Woolf Antenna 15 January 5th 04 03:52 AM
DRSI type 2 PCPA 4sal Dennis A. Homerick General 0 December 26th 03 10:48 PM
New Type of HF Shootout (antennas, pedestrian, bicycle) Expeditionradio Antenna 15 October 4th 03 08:37 AM
Is the IC-V8 type accepted? VHFRadioBuff Equipment 4 August 9th 03 07:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017