PDA

View Full Version : THE HAMMER DESCENDS!!!


04-09-2004, 04:53 PM
From the ARRL website. 08 April 04. Latest FCC actions against illegals on 10M.

WHAMMMM!

K3FT
======================
March 19, 2004


CB Sales and Service
ATTN: Mr. Jim Norton
190E Lenlock Lane
Anniston, AL 36206

Citation No. C200432480001--File No: EB-04-AT-024

Released: March 19, 2004
By the Enforcement Bureau, Atlanta Office

1. This is an official Citation issued pursuant to Section 503(b) of The Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), [1] to Mr. Jim Norton, owner of CB Sales and Service, Anniston, Alabama, for violation of Section 302(b) of the Act, 2 and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.3

2. An investigation by the FCC's Atlanta Office revealed that on March 11, 2004, you offered for sale at your retail store
located at 190E Lenlock Lane, Anniston, Alabama, eight models of non-certified Citizens Band transceivers, namely, a Galaxy model DX66V, a Galaxy model DX 73V, a Galaxy model 48T Big Rig Series, a Galaxy model DX88HL, and a Galaxy model DX77HML, a Galaxy DX44V, Galaxy DX33HML, and Galaxy model DX99V. According to Commission's records, these devices have not received an FCC equipment authorization which is required for Citizens Band transmitters marketed in the United States. Furthermore, these devices bore no FCC equipment authorization labeling that is required for Citizens Band transceivers marketed in the United States.4

3. Section 302(b) of the Act provides "{n}o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that "...no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless: (1) In the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and labeled..." Jim Norton's CB Sales and Service's offer for sale of these devices violates both sections.

4. Additionally, dual use CB and amateur radios of the kind at issue here may not be certificated under the Commission's rules. Section 95.655(a) of the rules states: "...

({CB} Transmitters with frequency capability for the Amateur Radio Services....will not be certificated.)" See also FCC
88-256, 1988 WL 488084 (August 17, 1988). This clarification was added to explicitly foreclose the possibility of certification of dual use CB and amateur radios, see id., and thereby deter use by CB operators of frequencies allocated for amateur radio use. Five of the Galaxy model CB transceivers previously mentioned were identified as having the modification done to enable dual use of CB and amateur frequencies. These units were Galaxy DX66V; Galaxy DX73V; Galaxy DX48T; Galaxy DX88HL; and Galaxy DX77HML.

5. Furthermore, the Commission has revised Section 2.1204(a)(5) of its rules to prohibit all marketing and/or offering for sale in the United States of such devices even when the purchaser(s) had provided assurances that the transceivers are being bought solely for export. ALL DOMESTIC MARKETING OF SUCH DEVICES VIOLATES THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND THE COMMISSION'S RULES.

6. Subsequent violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's Rules may subject the violator to substantial
monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation, seizure of equipment
through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions including imprisonment.

7. Mr. Jim Norton may request a personal interview at the closest FCC location to its place of business, namely:

Federal Communications Commission
3575 Koger Blvd., Suite 320
Duluth, GA 30096

which can be contacted by telephone at 770-935-3370. Any written statement should specify what actions have been taken to correct the violation outlined above. When corresponding with the Commission, case number EB-04-AT-024 should be
referenced.

8. Any statement or information provided may be used by the Commission to determine if further enforcement action is
required. Any knowingly or willfully false statement made in reply to this notice is punishable by fine or imprisonment.

Fred Broce
District Director, Atlanta Office
================================================
March 24, 2004

Winco Company
101 East Myrtle Street
Boise, ID 83702-7608

Winco Company General Offices
650 North Armstrong Place
Boise, ID 83704-0825

SUBJECT: ADVISORY NOTICE--UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION BY DRIVERS

Dear Sir:

Information has come to the Commission's attention that your truck drivers may be using unlicensed 10-meter Amateur Radio
transmitting equipment, operating on 28.000 to 28.100 MHz, for communications on Interstate 84 between Idaho and Oregon. Your drivers confirmed this to a Commission licensee in Baker, Oregon, earlier this month.

Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license is a violation of Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject the operator to fine or imprisonment, as
well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for
your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.

Please contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.

CC: FCC Western Regional Director
===========================================
March 23, 2004

J. Grady Randolph, Inc.
541 Concord Road
Gaffney, SC 29341

SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE--UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION Case # EB-2004-2536

Dear Sir:

Information before the Commission indicates that one of your trucks, bearing South Carolina license plate 75205, was the
source of radio transmissions on the 10-meter Amateur Radio band at 1:13 PM on February 11, 2004, on Interstate 85 North at US 321 North. The frequency used was 28.085 MHz.

Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license is a violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject the operator to fine or imprisonment, as
well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for
your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.

You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.

CC: FCC South Central Region
=================================
March 23, 2004

Food Service, Inc.
273 Riverchase Way
Lexington, SC 29072-9407

SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE--UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION Case # EB-2004-2538

Dear Sir:

Information before the Commission indicates that one of your trucks, a 1990 GMC bearing South Carolina license plate
P107554, was the source of radio transmissions on the 10-meter Amateur Radio band at noon on March 2, 2004 on Interstate 85 South at Exit 2. The frequency used was 28.085 MHz. While truckers commonly use Citizens Band (CB) radio units, the use of any radio transmitting equipment on Amateur Radio frequencies requires a license issued by the Commission.

Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license is a violation of Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject the operator to fine or imprisonment, as
well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for
your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.

You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.

CC: FCC South Central Regional Director
========================================
March 23, 2004

RWBT Inc.
220 W Ritchie Road
Salisbury, NC 28147-8052

SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE--UNLICENSED RADIO OPERATION Case # EB-2004-2537

Dear Sir:

Information before the Commission indicates that one of your trucks, a tanker bearing North Carolina license plate LF-8611
and the logo "Quality Carriers," was the source of radio transmissions on the 10-meter Amateur Radio band at 2http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif5 PM on
February 5, 2004, on Interstate 85 North at Exit 22. While truckers commonly use Citizens Band (CB) radio units, the use of
any radio transmitting equipment on Amateur Radio frequencies requires a license issued by the Commission.

Please be advised that operation of radio transmitting equipment without a license is a violation of Section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, and will subject the operator to fine or imprisonment, as
well as an in rem seizure of any non-certified radio transmitting equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for
your jurisdiction. Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000.

You are requested to contact me at 717-338-2502 to discuss this matter.

CC: FCC South Central Region
============================
================================
March 23, 2004

Mr. Donal W. Hewitt
P. O. Box 344
Tomball, TX 77377

SUBJECT: WARNING NOTICE--POWER AMPLIFIER MARKETING VIOLATIONS
Case # EB-2000-222

Dear Mr. Hewitt:

At the Dayton Hamvention in 1999, an official Notice of Violation was issued to you as a result of violation of Section 2.815 of the Commission's rules regarding manufacturing and marketing external radio frequency power amplifiers that operate below 144 MHz. The citation was based upon the offering for sale of your model WM-600 and WM-300 amplifiers and kits.

In your response to the citation on May 24, 1999, you stated "I have ceased from selling and offering for sale the Model
WM-300 and WM-600 linear amplifiers and any other of this type amplifiers." We note that on your Web site
<www.worth-more.com>, you are again advertising these amplifiers. Although you state on the Web site that these units are for sale "pending certification," we note numerous reports from purchasers of these units on www.eHam.net.

We also note that on January 17, 2004, you presented and offered for sale non-certified amplifiers at the Houston Amateur
Radio Supply parking lot as well as at the February 21, 2004, Smithville, Texas Hamfest.

This letter constitutes a Warning that continued sale of non-certified equipment will subject you to fine or imprisonment, as well
as an in rem seizure of non-certified equipment, in cooperation with the United States Attorney for your jurisdiction.
Monetary forfeitures normally range from $7,500 to $10,000. Such continued sale will also result in the designation of
your Amateur Radio station license for a revocation proceeding, and your Operator license for a suspension proceeding. This is the last written warning you will receive about this matter.

CCL: Southeastern Regional Director, FCC
==============================

N0PU
04-09-2004, 05:00 PM
YES...
Things are looking up...

K4KWH
04-09-2004, 05:12 PM
Heehee!

I don' tole you fellers what would happen if y'all 'd git out 'air
an' start tarnin' yore ears on (thar). LOL!


It is EXACTLY what Riley asked for almost a year ago. And it
is the way that we can get this problem resolved. You see, I
believe that there is more to it than just listening. But FCC needs the people being affected by the 10 Meter problem to
come forward so that the Enforcement Division can say, "Hey,
look, we've got a problem. We have hundreds of hams submitting complaints of illlegal operators using, for example, the 10 Meter band. It is particularly truckers doing it, so what
can we do? Can we contact DOT for assistance? Can we get Congress to amend the PL-106-521 (local enforcement that trucker lobbies fought to prevent)? Can we get some sort of weight station inspection program? Can we get funding to go after the truck stops that are selling these radios that ARE already illegal to import?"

If we all get involved, then it becomes easier for FCC to build a case against the illegals. If the higher-ups, the elected elite
that likely don't know a radio from a flower vase, can be shown that there IS a problem with the theft of frequencies and the lawless activities of CBers (not of them, or course), then we have a better chance of protecting our bands.

We have numerous fights ahead of us. If we don't care enough about any one issue, then things such as BPL may be
will be even HARDER to stave if we are perceived as to not care enough to protect what we have now. That's just my opinion, of course.

I believe RH is doing all he can--he is, after all, just one guy that has to deal with a much larger picture. But you can see that he IS increasing the pressure on the 10 Meter illegals, and the Dallas Field Office is concentrating on the sellers of
illegal equipment. For me, I'll take all the help I can get to keep from hearing "Break THAR, Drivah, AH know you rah't (thar) SQUEEEEEEEEK!!!!!!!?"


73

N8CPA
04-09-2004, 07:35 PM
WHACK!

I love it! Go gettem, Riley!


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WA5KRP
04-09-2004, 08:36 PM
http://www.krox.com/forum/images/smilies/slap.gif
Hey stupid, I told you to stop!



http://www.findagrave.com/photos/1022/89/5560_1017616943.jpg

That man Riley is O-kee Doh-kee!
Yassir!

KA3RFE
04-09-2004, 08:54 PM
It's a nice start, but these actions are only a drop in the bucket, considering how many other sales are going on.

W8FAX
04-09-2004, 09:55 PM
I wonder if any action will ever be taken against E-bay. They are loaded with this crap..............

N0KLT
04-09-2004, 10:34 PM
Unless I misread or misunderstood something, I didn't see one single fine or any other form of punishment handed out. All I noticed was some threats of heavy fines. Also on the web site were some other violations including one man who had already servered some jail time for, I believe, unlicensed transmissions on area repeater. He again was on the air and all he got was another warning. As much as I would love to think this burst of enforcement is going to do some good, it sounds more like hand slapping and 'now Johnny, be a good boy and don't do this again'. Hopefully some very stiff fines will follow and follow swiftly. But until I see some fines or jail sentences, I don't see much hope this will help.

Hopefully I am wrong, I certainly hope so.

73

Gary NØKLT

KC9ECI
04-09-2004, 10:35 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8FAX @ April 09 2004,15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder if any action will ever be taken against E-bay. They are loaded with this crap..............[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Doubtful. Can a seller in Outer Slobovia sell an 11 meter amp to a buyer in Inner Earwaxania? I'd rather see the FCC target folks like http://www.davemade.com/ first. Then maybe go after the volume sellers of this stuff on Ebay.

N0PU
04-09-2004, 10:39 PM
KLT:

Think about it this way...

If you are having a party and you're blasting your music and the neighbor calls the cops... Do they bust in and arrest everybody and send them to Jail...No... The cops come by and ask you to turn the music down and warn you that if they have to come out again then they'll put a citation on ya...

Same thing here... What you see is the warning... The offenders are put on notice that they are on the FCC RADAR so to speak... One guy is getting a second notice from a previous offence....

The system is working... It is slow... but it works when allowed to... At least the FCC is on track again after many years of ignoring the problem...

W1RFI
04-09-2004, 11:17 PM
Riley can write more letters than he can issue formal enforcement actions. In many cases, those letters have the desired effect. If these stores stop selling illegal equipment, isn't that really the goal? If other stores not recipients of the letters stop as a result, that will ensure those few more formal enforcement actions that the FCC can undertake will have an effect.

Those actions are, btw, not rare at all:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/

73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI

kc0ebm
04-10-2004, 02:25 AM
Despite the fact that many of us desire that the FCC adopt a &quot;slash and burn&quot; enforcement policy by levying heavy fines, confiscating equipment, and putting people in jail for these violations, we need to take one thing into consideration.

And that consideration is the fact that the FCC now realizes and accepts the fact that they have not enforced the rules like they were commissioned to do. For whatever reason, whether legitimate or not, the FCC has, for over 20 years, placed insufficient focus on enforcement. They also realize that the current level of non-compliance is largely a result of their own lack of diligence. The FCC is culpable, and they know it!

I think this mindfulness is why the FCC is acting so carefully to be fair and issue warnings before they begin to lower a heavy hand.

I make no excuse whatsoever for violators. Neither do I have any compassion or patience or consideration for them at all. But I do, in light of the FCC's own culpability for the current level of non-compliance, understand why they are being so &quot;dainty&quot; and &quot;light fisted&quot; with the actions they are taking.

Despite my ravenous thirst for the hastilly shed blood of violators (figure of speech), I will take into consideration the FCC's own culpability in the problem, and I will allow without criticism, the FCC to exercise a little &quot;extra&quot; due process in their newly revitalized enforcement activities.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't intend to look a gift horse in the mouth. At least we are making progress.

Thank you Mr. Hollingsworth. I can't speak for others, but I appreciate everything you do to enforce the amateur radio rules.

WA5KRP
04-10-2004, 02:37 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc0ebm @ April 09 2004,20:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.......the fact that the FCC now realizes and accepts the fact that they have not enforced the rules like they were commissioned to do. #For whatever reason, whether legitimate or not, the FCC has, for over 20 years, placed insufficient focus on enforcement. #They also realize that the current level of non-compliance is largely a result of their own lack of diligence. #The FCC is culpable, and they know it![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We tried to tell them that. It didn't work.


Clear Channel Communications
Infinity Broadcasting
Viacom

K8YS
04-10-2004, 02:54 AM
sounds like a good old fashion class action suit against the FCC for not performing its job is a good place to start.

k6pme
04-10-2004, 04:23 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8YS @ April 09 2004,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">sounds like a good old fashion class action suit against the FCC for not performing its job is a good place to start.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The last I heard you have to ask permission from the agency in question before you can file a suit against them.

Well, OK, maybe it's only in California.......

w6ez
04-11-2004, 11:05 PM
I must say it it good to see that somrthing has been done to combat the use of 10 meter radios by unlicensed operators.

But before we all stand up and cheer, or call for more busts to take place shouldn't the ham community make sure that our own closets a free from skeltons?

What about the hams who modify ham equipment to use out of band? A lot of hams rush to do the &quot;mods&quot; on the radio(s) they buy and 9 times out of 10 all this new mods does is open up the ability of the radio to transmit some place it shouldn't.

I know of quite a few hams, who truly know better, who have modified the icom 706 to be the trucker's dream radio. A 100 watt signal on CB is a big signal. They use these radios daily on CB and then the same guys complain about hearing a trucker with no license on 10 meters.

I really see no difference. Breaking the law is breaking the law, wheather one has a license or not.

04-12-2004, 02:06 AM
W6EZ..

The answer to your concerns is QUITE simple.. yet it requires you to do something you MIGHT find difficult to do.

You state that you know of quite a few hams to operate CB with their ham rigs in violation of the law.

The implicit part of that statement 'you know' is that you PERSONALLY KNOW these folks and what they did/do.

NOW.. hte question..

Rather than complain about it.. ARE you going to pass along the specifics (Name, call, type radio, violation, particulars, etc.) to Riley so he can DO something about it?


As WM Shakespeare said.. so well.

'Aye.. that's the rub!' and 'That's the question!'

And before you ask me.. my answer is

YES I WOULD. (report 'em)

YES I HAVE. (reported 'em)

YES I WOULD AGAIN. (report 'em)

YES I WAS NOT ANONYMOUS WHEN I REPORTED IT. (I told the FCC who I was and gave them full particulars)

YES I AM JUST JOE-REGULAR HAM WHO GIVES A DAMN.
(hey! RYHMES!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif )

I did it NOT for glory, recognition, or to stand out in the crowd, I did it because we hams oughta practice what we preach and not be 'do as I say.. not as I do' folks


I put my callsign where my money is.

&lt;grin&gt;

K3FT

KB9YCO
04-14-2004, 12:12 AM
Just so you know, it is not illegal to modify equipment, it's only illegal to use it out of band. It's a matter of responsibility and not allowing said radios to get into the wrong hands.
If someone has a MARS license and they modify their radio, it doesn't only work in the MARS portions of the bands, it works everywhere the mod on the radio in question goes.
I modify every radio I have so that I can receive anywhere the radio will go. The difference is I don't use it in places I shouldn't like some people do these days; take a listen to the MURS band or GMRS and you will know what I mean. I think modifying it to open it up to it's maximum potential is always a good idea. Call it a glorified scanner or paranoia on my part, I like to be able to listen to as much as possible.
Just thought you'd like to know that the modification of a radio itself is not illegal. It's just the actions of a few radio freestylers that think it's alright to use it anywhere that stand out.
By the way, this rant refers to only amateur equipment, modification of a CB is illegal.

K9STH
04-14-2004, 12:25 AM
YCO:

Actually, it is not illegal to modify any Class &quot;D&quot; Citizen's Radio Service type-accepted unit. However, it is illegal to transmit ANYWHERE except on a bonified amateur radio frequency by a licensed amateur radio operator holding a class of license that allows the mode of transmission utilized by the radio on the particular frequency in use.

Any modifications made to the unit that affects the type-acceptance and that definitely includes anything that changes the frequencies on which the unit can transmit, violates the type-acceptance on the unit and therefore it cannot be used even for transmission on the &quot;legal&quot; 40 Class &quot;D&quot; Citizen's Radio Service channels.

But, it is perfectly legal for an amateur radio operator to modify and use the equipment so long as the operation is on a bonified amateur radio frequency using the appropriate emission type.

Glen, K9STH

KB9YCO
04-14-2004, 12:32 AM
Thanks Glen, I guess that's what I was going for. I knew that since it's the same with commercial equipment. It's alright to use my Motorola, that I use for GMRS, in the amateur bands; it's just not alright to use my modified amateur radio in GMRS. The same with CB applies. Thanks for making that clear.

KA9VQF
04-14-2004, 12:48 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 13 2004,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YCO:

Actually, it is not illegal to modify any Class &quot;D&quot; Citizen's Radio Service type-accepted unit. #However, it is illegal to transmit ANYWHERE except on a bonified amateur radio frequency by a licensed amateur radio operator holding a class of license that allows the mode of transmission utilized by the radio on the particular frequency in use.

Any modifications made to the unit that affects the type-acceptance and that definitely includes anything that changes the frequencies on which the unit can transmit, violates the type-acceptance on the unit and therefore it cannot be used even for transmission on the &quot;legal&quot; 40 Class &quot;D&quot; Citizen's Radio Service channels.

But, it is perfectly legal for an amateur radio operator to modify and use the equipment so long as the operation is on a bonified amateur radio frequency using the appropriate emission type.

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Does this mean I can actually use my old Johnson 235 messenger SSB radio, with the glen manufacturing digital VFO? I put it together and tested it into a dummy load then was told since it was not type accepted that I couldn’t use it so I got a HTX 100 and used it.

kc0ebm
04-14-2004, 03:57 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w6ez @ April 11 2004,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I must say it it good to see that somrthing has been done to combat the use of 10 meter radios by unlicensed operators.

But before we all stand up and cheer, or call for more busts to take place shouldn't the ham community make sure that our own closets a free from skeltons?

What about the hams who modify ham equipment to use out of band? A lot of hams rush to do the &quot;mods&quot; on the radio(s) they buy and 9 times out of 10 all this new mods does is open up the ability of the radio to transmit some place it shouldn't.

I know of quite a few hams, who truly know better, who have modified the icom 706 to be the trucker's dream radio. A 100 watt signal on CB is a big signal. #They use these radios daily on CB and then the same guys complain about #hearing a trucker with no license on 10 meters.

I really see no difference. Breaking the law is breaking the law, wheather one has a license or not.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree with you EZ.

Amateurs need to clean their own closets first! You point out illegal use of modified radios. l whole heartedly agree, but it doesn't stop there.

I hate the freebanders on 10 as much as anybody else. And I'm thrilled to death that amateurs are doing some field work, with good results, to put a stop to it. But it doesn't stop there either.

We need to take a long hard critical look at our own doorsteps. Because of our own violations, we've lost much of the moral authority we should have.

We love to point out the &quot;speck&quot; in our brother's eye. But we have a &quot;beam&quot; in our own eyes.

In order to see clearly to remove the &quot;speck&quot; from our brother's eye, we must first remove the &quot;beam&quot; from our own eyes. Then we can see clearly to remove the &quot;speck&quot; from our brother's eye.

Doing this is NOT about vain glory, or personal notoriety, or grandstanding for a crowd. Its about personal saccrifice in order to restore the moral authority we need in order to best serve the public good and to ensure our lasting value to society.

Amateur radio's value to society is our assurance of longevity. No effort to clean the skeletons out of our closets will be wasted.

I appreciate your post. I hope your committment is strong enough to inspire you to do the right thing with regard to your acquaintences that illegally use modified radios.

73

Tom

K8YS
04-14-2004, 02:11 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA9VQF @ April 12 2004,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ April 13 2004,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">YCO:

Actually, it is not illegal to modify any Class &quot;D&quot; Citizen's Radio Service type-accepted unit. #However, it is illegal to transmit ANYWHERE except on a bonified amateur radio frequency by a licensed amateur radio operator holding a class of license that allows the mode of transmission utilized by the radio on the particular frequency in use.

Any modifications made to the unit that affects the type-acceptance and that definitely includes anything that changes the frequencies on which the unit can transmit, violates the type-acceptance on the unit and therefore it cannot be used even for transmission on the &quot;legal&quot; 40 Class &quot;D&quot; Citizen's Radio Service channels.

But, it is perfectly legal for an amateur radio operator to modify and use the equipment so long as the operation is on a bonified amateur radio frequency using the appropriate emission type.

Glen, K9STH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Does this mean I can actually use my old Johnson 235 messenger SSB radio, with the glen manufacturing digital VFO? I put it together and tested it into a dummy load then was told since it was not type accepted that I couldn’t use it so I got a HTX 100 and used it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YES!

The Amateur Service does not need FCC certification (AKA Type Acceptance) because Amateurs are EXPECTED to use &quot;Good Amateur Practice&quot; to keep undesirable signals in check. Other services (CB, MURS, FRS etc) are subject to FCC Certification because they do not demonstrate a technical ability (FCC Exams). This is why the ham license is really TWO licenses, a STATION license and an OPERATORS license.

So YES, you may legally use your modified Johnson 235 and VFO in the HAM BANDS witht he proper license class and NOT be able to use it in another service.

In the late 70's, it was very popular to modify Hygain CB boards to 10m AM. Hygain was stuck with tons of unusable CB boards (23 channel radios were no longer Type Accepted and could not be sold into the CB Service, but were perfect for the ham bands).

KA9VQF
04-15-2004, 02:23 AM
Oh goody, now I just have to remember how I interfaced the VFO. I never got around to trying it on the air just into the dummy load. Several hams that had been Elmering me at the time told me I couldn’t use the thing. I was pretty upset about it because I’d done a lot of work on it. Not to mention the money I’d invested in the equipment.
I wonder what a google search on the glen manufacturing VFO will bring me. I never did have a manual or schematic for it.
Thank You for clearing this up for me. Now if I get it going again and ten ever comes around again I’ll be set.

K8YS
04-15-2004, 02:46 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KA9VQF @ April 13 2004,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh goody, now I just have to remember how I interfaced the VFO. I never got around to trying it on the air just into the dummy load. Several hams that had been Elmering me at the time told me I couldn’t use the thing. I was pretty upset about it because I’d done a lot of work on it. Not to mention the money I’d invested in the equipment.
I wonder what a google search on the glen manufacturing VFO will bring me. I never did have a manual or schematic for it.
Thank You for clearing this up for me. Now if I get it going again and ten ever comes around again I’ll be set.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Remember that you may use it ONLY in the ham bands... Once you added the VFO, it is no longer a legal CB!

KA9VQF
04-15-2004, 04:04 AM
When I modified it I retuned it so it has less than a watt on 11 meters it has real close to 25 on 10 now. I am just about bright enough to not want to lose my license because I'm operating out of band, with a not type specific modified rig. Thats why I got the HTX 100 and #never put the Johnson on the air.
I had a amplifier that I put together with some old 6BL6 sweep tubes. I found the project in a handbook from '65. Since I wasn't going to be using the Johnson I sold the amp.
I doubt I could find another set of 6BL6's these days because they can be used in place of the 6JS6 that were so popular in the FT 101E series of radios. I have a Henry Radio Tempo one that has a set of 6BL6's in it right now.I know the book says that it should have 6JS6 tubes but they were in it when I got it and they worked pretty well 17 years ago.
I've seen a few on e-bay but due to present financial conditions, I can’t buy them.
They are pretty weak in the knees but I still manage to get on the air with the thing. It has a homebrew power supply that was crafted up by W9MTM He's SK now but was a darn good tech. He had to realign the Tempo on ten because someone had converted it to 11M.

05-26-2004, 01:04 AM
Do not forget to write your anti-BPL letters,
encourage new amateur radio participation and generally be nice
to one another. That is all.