|
K0HB wrote: I was under the impression (apparently mistaken?) that a licensed amateur could possess any sort of equipment (commercial, homebrew, converted surplus) or whatever. I know of no rule against MODIFICATION of equipment, even if that modification permits operation outside the amateur bands. The rules properly speak to signal purity, staying inside the assigned bands, etc., etc., but do NOT seem to prohibit modifications of factory-built equipment. (In fact, I could probably make an argument that the FCC rules ENCOURAGE tinkering and experimentation of this sort!) However I note the FCC has required at least one licensed ham, Michael V. Swift, KG6QOB, to restore a rig to "original manufacturer's specifications". ("You are directed to have the transceiver returned to the original manufacturer's specifications by reinstalling the jumper wire which the cutting or removal of permits operation outside the amateur bands. The jumper wire must be repaired or installed, and encapsulated with epoxy or similar material to preclude future modification. After the repair is completed you are directed to bring the transceiver to this office so that the repair can be confirmed and related technical measurements can be made. You have until July 7, 2003 to respond to this inquiry and to provide the repaired transceiver for inspection.") While I understand the reason for the action (malicious interference and false distress signals on marine frequencies), it strikes me that this particular remedy is not supported by the law, and might set a precedent for de facto "type acceptance" in the Amateur Radio service. What say, ye lawyerly types? 73, de Hans, K0HB I would guess that if you snipped the wire in your transceiver to open it up to receive and transmit on all HF frequencies, but you never transmitted out of the ham bands, no one will ever know or say anything to you about it. |
Smells like type acceptance
I was under the impression (apparently mistaken?) that a licensed
amateur could possess any sort of equipment (commercial, homebrew, converted surplus) or whatever. I know of no rule against MODIFICATION of equipment, even if that modification permits operation outside the amateur bands. The rules properly speak to signal purity, staying inside the assigned bands, etc., etc., but do NOT seem to prohibit modifications of factory-built equipment. (In fact, I could probably make an argument that the FCC rules ENCOURAGE tinkering and experimentation of this sort!) However I note the FCC has required at least one licensed ham, Michael V. Swift, KG6QOB, to restore a rig to "original manufacturer's specifications". ("You are directed to have the transceiver returned to the original manufacturer's specifications by reinstalling the jumper wire which the cutting or removal of permits operation outside the amateur bands. The jumper wire must be repaired or installed, and encapsulated with epoxy or similar material to preclude future modification. After the repair is completed you are directed to bring the transceiver to this office so that the repair can be confirmed and related technical measurements can be made. You have until July 7, 2003 to respond to this inquiry and to provide the repaired transceiver for inspection.") While I understand the reason for the action (malicious interference and false distress signals on marine frequencies), it strikes me that this particular remedy is not supported by the law, and might set a precedent for de facto "type acceptance" in the Amateur Radio service. What say, ye lawyerly types? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"K0HB" wrote in message om... I was under the impression (apparently mistaken?) that a licensed amateur could possess any sort of equipment (commercial, homebrew, converted surplus) or whatever. I know of no rule against MODIFICATION of equipment, even if that modification permits operation outside the amateur bands. The rules properly speak to signal purity, staying inside the assigned bands, etc., etc., but do NOT seem to prohibit modifications of factory-built equipment. (In fact, I could probably make an argument that the FCC rules ENCOURAGE tinkering and experimentation of this sort!) However I note the FCC has required at least one licensed ham, Michael V. Swift, KG6QOB, to restore a rig to "original manufacturer's specifications". ("You are directed to have the transceiver returned to the original manufacturer's specifications by reinstalling the jumper wire which the cutting or removal of permits operation outside the amateur bands. The jumper wire must be repaired or installed, and encapsulated with epoxy or similar material to preclude future modification. After the repair is completed you are directed to bring the transceiver to this office so that the repair can be confirmed and related technical measurements can be made. You have until July 7, 2003 to respond to this inquiry and to provide the repaired transceiver for inspection.") While I understand the reason for the action (malicious interference and false distress signals on marine frequencies), it strikes me that this particular remedy is not supported by the law, and might set a precedent for de facto "type acceptance" in the Amateur Radio service. What say, ye lawyerly types? 73, de Hans, K0HB since the interference was on marine frequencies it would sound like the sanction was not specifically aimed at his actions as an amateur licensee. but rather it was in his guise as a marine radio operator who's radios must be type accepted and can not be modified that he was penalized. that he also happened to be a ham was probably secondary, though there is precedent for non-amateur activities causing the fcc to cancel or not renew amateur licenses. if he had modified the radio and used it on amateur frequencies to cause interference there would probably not have been a requirement to 'fix' the radio unless maybe if the modification had caused excessive signal bandwidth or out of band spurs... and then it would probably have been a requirement to make the radio conform to amateur specifications for bandwidths and spurious emissions rather than back to the manufacturer specs. i would say he got off easy, the fcc could have just confiscated the equipement, canceled his license, and fined him and been done with it. |
|
|
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... (K0HB) wrote in message . com... I was under the impression (apparently mistaken?) that a licensed amateur could possess any sort of equipment (commercial, homebrew, converted surplus) or whatever. I know of no rule against MODIFICATION of equipment, even if that modification permits operation outside the amateur bands. The rules properly speak to signal purity, staying inside the assigned bands, etc., etc., but do NOT seem to prohibit modifications of factory-built equipment. (In fact, I could probably make an argument that the FCC rules ENCOURAGE tinkering and experimentation of this sort!) However I note the FCC has required at least one licensed ham, Michael V. Swift, KG6QOB, to restore a rig to "original manufacturer's specifications". ("You are directed to have the transceiver returned to the original manufacturer's specifications by reinstalling the jumper wire which the cutting or removal of permits operation outside the amateur bands. The jumper wire must be repaired or installed, and encapsulated with epoxy or similar material to preclude future modification. After the repair is completed you are directed to bring the transceiver to this office so that the repair can be confirmed and related technical measurements can be made. You have until July 7, 2003 to respond to this inquiry and to provide the repaired transceiver for inspection.") While I understand the reason for the action (malicious interference and false distress signals on marine frequencies), it strikes me that this particular remedy is not supported by the law, and might set a precedent for de facto "type acceptance" in the Amateur Radio service. Riley cut the dweeb a break. Cops have that option. Riley could have really lowered the boom on the guy, the perp would have to be out of his gourd if he didn't jump on his soddering arn and epoxy, serve his "sentence" and walk. The whole thing however is goofy as hell and prolly sets some kinda record for plea bargains gone whacky. Maybe Riley needs a vacation. What say, ye lawyerly types? 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv Remember also that according to the FCC rules, the FCC has the authority to modify the operator/station license in just about anyway they see fit. Making him return the radio to manufacturer's spec might fall under that authority. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"K0HB" wrote in message
om... I was under the impression (apparently mistaken?) that a licensed amateur could possess any sort of equipment (commercial, homebrew, converted surplus) or whatever. I know of no rule against MODIFICATION of equipment, even if that modification permits operation outside the amateur bands. The rules properly speak to signal purity, staying inside the assigned bands, etc., etc., but do NOT seem to prohibit modifications of factory-built equipment. (In fact, I could probably make an argument that the FCC rules ENCOURAGE tinkering and experimentation of this sort!) However I note the FCC has required at least one licensed ham, Michael V. Swift, KG6QOB, to restore a rig to "original manufacturer's specifications". ("You are directed to have the transceiver returned to the original manufacturer's specifications by reinstalling the jumper wire which the cutting or removal of permits operation outside the amateur bands. The jumper wire must be repaired or installed, and encapsulated with epoxy or similar material to preclude future modification. After the repair is completed you are directed to bring the transceiver to this office so that the repair can be confirmed and related technical measurements can be made. You have until July 7, 2003 to respond to this inquiry and to provide the repaired transceiver for inspection.") While I understand the reason for the action (malicious interference and false distress signals on marine frequencies), it strikes me that this particular remedy is not supported by the law, and might set a precedent for de facto "type acceptance" in the Amateur Radio service. What say, ye lawyerly types? 73, de Hans, K0HB I am not a lawyerly type (dang that's hard to even spell let alone sound out), but: It is my understanding that even amateur operators must have equipment that is "Type Accepted" by the FCC. Now, not all that sure what that means, as when one buys new equipment it isn't a concern. BUT, I do know that I've heard discussions on the air whereby it is said to be illegal to own "illegal" radios (those CBs that can transmit outside the legal limits of CB radio) and "foot warmers" (those that have been modified to be able to work outside the ham bands...like, one that was originally for 10M that now works well in the CB range, etc.). Kim W5TIT |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"K0HB" wrote in message . com... I was under the impression (apparently mistaken?) that a licensed amateur could possess any sort of equipment (commercial, homebrew, converted surplus) or whatever. I know of no rule against MODIFICATION of equipment, even if that modification permits operation outside the amateur bands. The rules properly speak to signal purity, staying inside the assigned bands, etc., etc., but do NOT seem to prohibit modifications of factory-built equipment. (In fact, I could probably make an argument that the FCC rules ENCOURAGE tinkering and experimentation of this sort!) However I note the FCC has required at least one licensed ham, Michael V. Swift, KG6QOB, to restore a rig to "original manufacturer's specifications". ("You are directed to have the transceiver returned to the original manufacturer's specifications by reinstalling the jumper wire which the cutting or removal of permits operation outside the amateur bands. The jumper wire must be repaired or installed, and encapsulated with epoxy or similar material to preclude future modification. After the repair is completed you are directed to bring the transceiver to this office so that the repair can be confirmed and related technical measurements can be made. You have until July 7, 2003 to respond to this inquiry and to provide the repaired transceiver for inspection.") While I understand the reason for the action (malicious interference and false distress signals on marine frequencies), it strikes me that this particular remedy is not supported by the law, and might set a precedent for de facto "type acceptance" in the Amateur Radio service. What say, ye lawyerly types? 73, de Hans, K0HB I am not a lawyerly type (dang that's hard to even spell let alone sound out), but: It is my understanding that even amateur operators must have equipment that is "Type Accepted" by the FCC. Now, not all that sure what that means, as when one buys new equipment it isn't a concern. BUT, I do know that I've heard discussions on the air whereby it is said to be illegal to own "illegal" radios (those CBs that can transmit outside the legal limits of CB radio) and "foot warmers" (those that have been modified to be able to work outside the ham bands...like, one that was originally for 10M that now works well in the CB range, etc.). Kim W5TIT As I understamd it, hams may modify for their own use radio equipment and use it on any ham band their license is good for. Even modify a CB radio to work in the ten meter band. Or modify a linear to operate in ten meters. But no more than 5 copies of any particular model in a year. That modified CB could operate outside of a ham band, but it's up to us to not do that. Supposidly we know enough (having passed written exams when applying for a ham license) to know what frequency and mode we are on and using, and where such are permitted for hams to use. Thus the FCC lets us use non type accepted (or whatever they call it nowadays) or modified radios. CBers, fire and police depts, marine users, cell phones, FRS and such users didn't take any exams on radio before being allowed to use these type accepted radios. Also heard that the big manufacturers who make more than 5 copies of the same model need type acceptance from the FCC. |
Keith wrote: On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 05:07:29 GMT, "Phil Kane" wrote: As I said, I don't know the whole story nor at which office it happened. He was caught by the FCC sending false distress signals on 156.8 and another marine frequency from his backyard. I wish they would just start throwing these morons in front of a jury. I don't think a jury will have much sympathy for the f*cking idiots. Absolutely, idiots who do something like this obviously lack the ability to think of the consequences of such stupidly. Some years ago I was involved with an SOS on 15 meters. The station sending the distress call claimed to be in a boat with several people on board and was sinking. The signal was weak and the station was sending pretty crappy hard to copy CW and repeated request for his location resulted in uncopyable CW. Stations, using their beam antennas, determined it was coming from somewhere in the northwest. The Coast Guard got into the act and came up on the frequency and before it was all over there was a Canadian Coast Guard cutter and a U.S. Coast Guard aircraft on the way to search off the Washington/Oregon coast. They searched all night and the next day I received a phone call from the Coast Guard that they decided it must be a hoax. Too bad it could not have been determined who the idiot was, he should still be in prison. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com