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 ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Are you saying that if I install any of these types of mods in my
Yaesu xcvr I'm in violation??

Sure - if the mod causes the xcvr to exceed FCC allowable limits as described
in Part 15.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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