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.

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.

(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?

Well, I'm no lawyer, but here goes.

Check QRZ.com - the not-too-swift Mr. Swift is a raw newbie. His
Technician license is dated May 1, and the violations cited are for
May 15. Couldn't keep his nose clean for two weeks.

Sounds like The Commission decided to go a easy because he's a newbie,
and to save themselves a lot of work. We have almost no info on this
person - young, old, rich, poor, whatever. Maybe there was a plea
bargain, such as 'fix the radio so it won't go out of band and we'll
let you keep the radio and your license.' Maybe it wasn't his radio,
but on loan from someone else.

Or maybe he's an engineer working on Broadband over Power
Lines......;-)

There are precedents for all kinds of things if the licensee and FCC
'voluntarily' agree to them. For example, some time back a ham under
investigation for interference had his license (General, as I recall)
'modified' by FCC so that he was only allowed to operate on HF CW! I
think this compromise was worked out because it would be a lot easier
for the FCC than the full revocation/nonrenewal game. Plus the guy had
never committed any violations while using CW. (Yes, he did use the
mode!)

Of course most of the above is speculation as to FCC's actions.

--

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

(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

"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.

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