| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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. |
On 14 Jul 2003 14:44:08 -0700, N2EY wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, false distress calls should not be treated lightly. If it were up to me, and the charges could be proved, the person(s) responsible would have no license, no radios, and much thinner wallets. But it's not up to me. The USCG or the FAA/CAP, depending on who goes out to "rescue" same, now sends a bill for the cost of the operation. The FCC does levy a maximum-limit forfeiture for false distress. But the bottom line is that it's up to the Justice Department to collect, and they are always overloaded, or so they say. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:16:27 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:
It is my understanding that even amateur operators must have equipment that is "Type Accepted" by the FCC. You are greatly in error, Kim. 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.). I wish that that was so, but it is not. It is a violation to use such equipment, and use is presumed as a matter of law when there is possession coupled with extrinsic evidence of contemporary violation of the type that would result from use of the device, but mere possession is not a violation (barring other factors). -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Would you be so kind as to either (a) repost it here or (b) give me a title and
a probable group to google or deja it? Jim "Phil Kane" shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: - Also note that I used the term "type certified". "Type acceptance" - is no longer an FCC procedure - I think that I posted a tutorial on - this a short while ago (perhaps in another group). Jim Weir, VP Eng. RST Eng. WX6RST A&P, CFI, and other good alphabet soup |
|
"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 do not think it will have any effect on tinkering or experimenting. The reason that he was ordered to do this was because after the mod, he deliberately violated the regulations governing the amateur radio service by transmitting out of band etc. 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. Yes the FCC and ARRL do encourage this experimentation. But remember that the offender was committing some rather serious violations of the regulations. The FCC can modify the operator/station license in almost anyway they see fit when someone has committed such violations. The ARRL would have no reason to scream bloody murder about the guy's penalty. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
Another scenario is that this transceiver includes an FCC type certified receiver, and even though there may not be any out-of-band operation, the use of a non-certified receiver when one is required to be certified is a separate violation. There is a procedure for one-of-a-kind amateur equipment self-certification, but if it is a commercial piece of gear that is required to be certified, it must be a mod approved ny the manufacturer. Wait a minnit here, I sense a hidden bag of worms. You did a nice job with explaining the type acceptance and type certification complexities a short time ago. You explained that type certifcation of ham xcvrs is based on rcvr spurious emissions supression requirements. All well and good so far. Maybe I missed it but I did not pick up on they fact that hams can't mod their rcvrs unless the mod designs are factory approved. This is news to me and raises a flag. We all know that rcvr mods are and have been routine ever since Hector was a pup. There are innumerable websites stuffed with how-to-do-it instructions for making all sorts of rcvr mods and there are mod kits for sale for just about every ham HF xcvr out there today. I seriously doubt that Yeasu for instance puts any assets into "approving" Joe Slobotnik's latest circuit mod for boosting the performace of say FT-1000MPs in some way. Nor have I ever seen any warnings in the websites which refer to the consequences of ham-developed mods beyond the usual possiblity of voiding manufacturer's warranties if one futzes with the innards with a soldering iron. Are you saying that if I install any of these types of mods in my Yaesu xcvr I'm in violation?? If yes then we have one *helluva* lotta violators roaming the bands, thousands of us. w3rv |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: It is my understanding that even amateur operators must have equipment that is "Type Accepted" by the FCC. You are greatly in error, Kim. Situation normal, Phil -- Situation normal! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
|
|
I agree with Jim 100% on this one ...
Me, too. He should have been hung by his 'nads. |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (K0HB) writes: 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. ARRL knows what is best for the US ARS. Or was it K0HB that knows what is best for the US ARS? Does the FCC "encourage such experimentation?" I don't think so. I read Part 97 as giving radio amateurs the option of doing so. Can't find any brochures or pamplets from the FCC ramping up the joys of experimentation at all. Maybe that was "Electric Radio?" It might be that the ARRL knows what is best for amateur radio. There's a good chance that Hans knows what is best for amateur radio. I don't know of a soul who believes that you know what is best for amateur radio. You aren't involved in any capacity. The FCC rules giving the option to modify equipment certainly lends itself to the view that the Commission does not discourage such action. Your interpretation may differ but it really doesn't matter. Dave K8MN |
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 |
|
In article , Scott Unit 69
writes: I agree with Jim 100% on this one ... Me, too. He should have been hung by his 'nads. I don't think even Riley has that authority...;-( One interesting thing about that case is what we don't know. For example, we don't know hold old Swift is, or whether the rescue agencies were fooled or not, whether he suffers from some sort of problem besides ignorance of the rules, lack of common sense and extreme stupidity. Would be good to know the whole story. Usually there's more to these things than is apparent at first. Take the case of the ham who called for help on a police freq with his modded HT and wound up surrendering the thing. It was demonstrated that he could have hit at least two repeaters and dialed 911 via autopatch from the site where he called the police on *their* frequency. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (K0HB) writes: 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. ARRL knows what is best for the US ARS. Or was it K0HB that knows what is best for the US ARS? Does the FCC "encourage such experimentation?" I don't think so. I read Part 97 as giving radio amateurs the option of doing so. Can't find any brochures or pamplets from the FCC ramping up the joys of experimentation at all. Maybe that was "Electric Radio?" It might be that the ARRL knows what is best for amateur radio. There's a good chance that Hans knows what is best for amateur radio. I don't know of a soul who believes that you know what is best for amateur radio. You aren't involved in any capacity. The FCC rules giving the option to modify equipment certainly lends itself to the view that the Commission does not discourage such action. Your interpretation may differ but it really doesn't matter. Dave K8MN Perhaps Len should just go work some out of band Frenchmen and be done with it! Then he would have a claim to validity (and greatness)!!! By the way, Dave, was that SSB or CW? |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:33:46 -0700, Keith 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. Thanks for posting the letter with the details, Keith. Interesting to note that this was "my" former office, and I can picture the two agents involved (and their wives and kids) and now that I have read the letter, I can offer some more comments. This unlicensed operation took place on a frequency not in or adjacent to any amateur band, and as such, Riley Hollingsworth is not involved. It's strictly a District Office project. The fact that he has an amateur license has no bearing on his culpability at this point. In fact, the law prohibits the FCC from going after his license for failure to pay a monetary penalty unless the matter has been litigated to a final judgment in an evidentiary proceeding either before an Administrative Law Judge or within the Federal court system. If after the unlicensed operation matter is settled, the Bureau determines that he does not possess the moral character to remain a licensee, they must institute formal proceedings to revoke his station license and suspend his operating privileges for the remander of the term. This starts the circus all over again. From the letter, "restoration of the equipment" appears to be only the first step in the enforcement process. Based on what's going to happen next, my guess is that they did not want to accept the voluntary surrender of the equipment as a "plea bargain" for deferring further action, but could not let him continue to have the means to create further intentional violations. The letter requires him to make certain statements about how, why, and what. There's no "Fifth Amendment" rock to hide under in an administrative proceeding. After he replies, my best guess is that the office will issue a Notice of Apparent Liability for a substantial amount. Then, the bargaining can begin as to whether he is capable of paying such an amount - ability to pay is one of the factors that the law requires the issuing officer to consider when finalizing the forfeiture amount. It appears that they have enough evidence to proceed even if he denies everything or refuses to answer. It's up to the USCG to get the U S Attorney to file charges if the issue of false distress is to be pursued criminally. If so, I hope that the U S Attorney's Office (Northern District of California) will also move on the "Mervin" case that the FCC and the USCG brought her ten years ago for doing the same thing. Speedy they are not. Both the USCG investigator and I have retired in the meanwhile..... It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
On 15 Jul 2003 17:42:38 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote:
Are you saying that if I install any of these types of mods in my Yaesu xcvr I'm in violation?? If yes then we have one *helluva* lotta violators roaming the bands, thousands of us. Only if the receiver section is of a type that is required to be type-certified. In general, that's for VHF and above receivers. Installing such a mod in a type-certified receiver voids the type certification, which raises two separate issues. (1) The receiver (or transceiver) can no longer be conveyed to another party (sold, given, shipped, all the good words in Section 302(b) of the Comm Act) unless the manufacturer recertifies the receiver with the mod (i.e. approved the mod and stated that with the mod the receiver still meets seignal leakage specs). (2) if the mod causes harmful interference to another licensed station ("freebanders" are fair game but I never said that) then you would be liable for using same. Yeah, I know it's weird - put a preamp inside the VHF receiver and it busts the type certification. Put it in a box with a transistor battery and hook it to the receiver antenna terminal with a wire and it doesn't. I never said that the equipment certification rules were logical, only that they are "the rules". Whatever worm is left in the can - put it on a hook and catch me a trout. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:14:17 -0700, Jim Weir wrote:
Would you be so kind as to either (a) repost it here or (b) give me a title and a probable group to google or deja it? It was posted here on 6/22, but here it is again: Looks to me like type acceptance is required. Or is there some other flavor of FCC approval? Yes there is. Type acceptance as we knew it is no longer in existence. The equipment authorization processes are now "certification" which requires submission to the FCC of test measurements of compliance with applicable Rule sections (essentially the same as type-acceptance was), "Declaration of Conformity" which is the same as "certification" but the tests are made by an authorized private-sector testing facility and not submitted to the FCC, and "verification" which requires no submission to the FCC but merely a statement by the manufacturer of compliance with the limits set forth in Part 15 of the Rules. See FCC Rules, Part 2 Subpart J. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (K0HB) writes: 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. ARRL knows what is best for the US ARS. Or was it K0HB that knows what is best for the US ARS? Does the FCC "encourage such experimentation?" I don't think so. I read Part 97 as giving radio amateurs the option of doing so. Can't find any brochures or pamplets from the FCC ramping up the joys of experimentation at all. Maybe that was "Electric Radio?" It might be that the ARRL knows what is best for amateur radio. There's a good chance that Hans knows what is best for amateur radio. I don't know of a soul who believes that you know what is best for amateur radio. You aren't involved in any capacity. The FCC rules giving the option to modify equipment certainly lends itself to the view that the Commission does not discourage such action. Your interpretation may differ but it really doesn't matter. Perhaps Len should just go work some out of band Frenchmen and be done with it! Len isn't authorized any operation on any band under Part 97. Len has no license. If he operates without one or if he (fat chance) lowers himself to obtaining a license and operates on frequencies outside those allocated to him, he can be dealt with by the FCC. Then he would have a claim to validity (and greatness)!!! He has numerous claims. By the way, Dave, was that SSB or CW? Ask complete questions and you'll likely receive complete answers. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: By the way, Dave, was that SSB or CW? Ask complete questions and you'll likely receive complete answers. Dave K8MN Likely not. |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 15 Jul 2003 17:42:38 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: Are you saying that if I install any of these types of mods in my Yaesu xcvr I'm in violation?? If yes then we have one *helluva* lotta violators roaming the bands, thousands of us. Only if the receiver section is of a type that is required to be type-certified. In general, that's for VHF and above receivers. Installing such a mod in a type-certified receiver voids the type certification, which raises two separate issues. (1) The receiver (or transceiver) can no longer be conveyed to another party (sold, given, shipped, all the good words in Section 302(b) of the Comm Act) unless the manufacturer recertifies the receiver with the mod (i.e. approved the mod and stated that with the mod the receiver still meets seignal leakage specs). Let me count the number of perps . . (2) if the mod causes harmful interference to another licensed station ("freebanders" are fair game but I never said that) then you would be liable for using same. Cash deal and what radio are you talking about? I never met the guy. Yeah, I know it's weird - put a preamp inside the VHF receiver and it busts the type certification. Put it in a box with a transistor battery and hook it to the receiver antenna terminal with a wire and it doesn't. I never said that the equipment certification rules were logical, only that they are "the rules". I oughta known . . confusion at the top does tend to propagate. Whatever worm is left in the can - put it on a hook and catch me a trout. Last time I tried that all I caught was a tire and a week's worth of bronchitis. Don't hold yer breath. |
|
"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 |
|
|
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com