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

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?"

LHA

"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

In article ,
(K0HB) writes:

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.

Hansl:

I have no problem with the penalty imposed. If Mr. Swift complies, in
the allotted time frame, he obviously would show that he is genuinely
interested in keeping his license by complying with the regulations.
I'm also sure that his visit to the FCC Field Office will include a
thorough reading of the Riot Act, not to mention the Communications
Act 1934. From that point on, if he re-offends, he's toast.

Requiring Mr. Swift to re-connect and encapsulate his jumper doesn't
bother me one little bit. This never would have happened if he wasn't
stupid enough to actually transmit on a Marine frequency with non-
type accepted equipment -- and make false distress calls, to boot.
He obviously got caught on his first offense, and for a first offender,
this "punishment" is appropriate and adequate. BTW, I'm only
assuming that the distress call did not initiate an expensive SAR
response by the Coast Guard. Were that so, I'd also be handing
him the bill for the costs involved, but that would be a DOT/Coast
Guard action, not the FCC.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(K0HB) writes:

(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.

Hans,

Step back a minute and look at what this newbie actually did.

He allegedly cut a wire in a manufactured piece of amateur equipment so that he
could *illegally* transmit on frequencies he was *not* authorized to use.

I don't have a single peice of equipment which I have not "improved"
from it's original schematic.

Neither do I. However, neither have I modified any equipment so that I could
*illegally* transmit on frequencies I am *not* authorized to use.

Frankly, I thought the FCC encouraged
such experimentation.

Not when the end result is *illegal* transmission on frequencies the "tinkerer"
is *not* authorized to use.

And to make it all that much worse, he transmits false distress calls on a
marine freq.

This incident suggests just the opposite and
I'm surprised that ARRL isn't screaming bloody murder.

I'm glad the ARRL is keeping quiet. This guy gives ham radio a black eye. You
wanna defend his "right" to modify his rig to a bunch of emergency personnel
who scrambled to answer the phony distress calls?

I do NOT want one cent of my dues, or one second of ARRL personnel's time,
spent defending the modification of amateur equipment for *illegal*
transmission on frequencies hams are *not* authorized to use.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I agree with Jim 100% on this one ...

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(K0HB) writes:

(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.

Hans,

Step back a minute and look at what this newbie actually did.

He allegedly cut a wire in a manufactured piece of amateur equipment so
that he
could *illegally* transmit on frequencies he was *not* authorized to use.

I don't have a single peice of equipment which I have not "improved"
from it's original schematic.

Neither do I. However, neither have I modified any equipment so that I
could
*illegally* transmit on frequencies I am *not* authorized to use.

Frankly, I thought the FCC encouraged
such experimentation.

Not when the end result is *illegal* transmission on frequencies the
"tinkerer"
is *not* authorized to use.

And to make it all that much worse, he transmits false distress calls on a
marine freq.

This incident suggests just the opposite and
I'm surprised that ARRL isn't screaming bloody murder.

I'm glad the ARRL is keeping quiet. This guy gives ham radio a black eye.
You
wanna defend his "right" to modify his rig to a bunch of emergency
personnel
who scrambled to answer the phony distress calls?

I do NOT want one cent of my dues, or one second of ARRL personnel's time,
spent defending the modification of amateur equipment for *illegal*
transmission on frequencies hams are *not* authorized to use.

73 de Jim, N2EY