Ham Radio/Ham Radio CD-ROM (Emerald Software) (1995).ISO/news/inham08/991

Text File | 1979-12-31 | 13KB | 269 lines

Today's Topics:
                            ARRL (2 msgs)
             Modifiying radios for out of band operation
             Scanning the Ether, Privacy, and Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 89 10:34:26 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: ARRL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Stop, stop, stop saying that it is illegal for me to modify my radio
to transmit out of band unless you can show me that it is illegal to
simply own a transmitter capable of doing so.  Even though pushing
the PTT may be illegal, I'm not illegal until I do it.  It's like
owning a car capable of going 100 mph.  There are a few, rare examples
where using this capability would be legal.  Also true with my modified
radio.  There are a few, rare examples where using this capability (not
necessarily on the air, mind you) are legal.

Please pick your terms right and don't tell me I broke the law because I
modified my radio.


---------------------------
Jeff Tucker                         N9HZQ
[e-mail]           Senior, Electrical Engineering
[e-mail]               University of Illinois

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 89 18:19:02 GMT
From: cheers!quack![e-mail]  (Nick Sayer)
Subject: ARRL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Bob Hardwick) writes:

>I got the following off of a packet BBS the other day
>and thought the net might like to comment.

[lots deleted]

>If this is what the ARRL is doing with our dues money then
>the ARRL has just lost a member.

here here! I never joined in the first place.

Besides, there is nothing illegal at all about modifying your
HT to transmit out of band. It is illegal to USE that modification
except in distress or for services that do not require type
acceptance, like MARS, but the illegality is in the use of the
modification, not in making it.

Think about a parallel situation -- My HF rig breaks. Whenever you
use it on 40 meters, it puts a big spike right in the middle of
channel 3. The FCC tells me about it. I have two choices. I
can fix it, or I can stop using 40 meters. EITHER SOLUTION IS
EQUALLY VALID AND LEGAL (presuming, of course, that the other
bands are clean).

Let's take the same situation in the land mobile service. If a
multiband transceiver has trouble on one band, there is no
choice. You must fix it. The difference? Type acceptance. A
land-mobile rig that puts out a spike is not acceptable,
so you cannot use it at all.

Modifying my HT for out-of-band transmission is exactly the
same situation as the first example. If I operate it in a
certain fashion, it's illegal. If I avoid doing that, there
is no illegality.

As hams, we have lots of other things to get peeved about than
this, don't we? Sheesh!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Sayer | quack![e-mail] or cheers!quack![e-mail]
... or { uunet!daver apple!cheers | pacbell!cogent!uop }!quack!mrapple
Packet radio: N6QQQ @ WB6V | [phone] 300/1200/2400 - login guest
Disclaimer: The BBC would like to appologise for that announcement

------------------------------

Date: 7 Dec 89 21:00:14 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ctrsol!emory!stiatl!rsiatl![e-mail]  (John G. De Armond)
Subject: Modifiying radios for out of band operation
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Bono) writes:

[and incredible amount of BS deleted]

>If you believe that it is proper to modify a piece of Amateur radio gear
>for use on frequencies that it is not designed and type accepted for
>(we won't even address the issue of having a license for the frequencies
>in question, we can assume that the user has said license), then lets
>start a non-emotional discussion pointing out the facts that I am NOT
>aware of... Yes, I have been wrong, many times in the past.
>

Well, rich, It's a bit hard to keep emotion in check when one reads such
a collection of bovine effluvia but I'll try.  Rarely have I seen such
ignorance of the law and common sense coupled together with acute
chicken little syndrome.

Your post and logic shows an ignorance of:

1)     The law as regards Amateur Service.
2)    The law as regards Public Service/Commercial service.
3)    Reality.
4)    Common sense.

Let's look at these in sequence.  First the law regarding the Amateur Service.
I guess I can understand how a novice ham (regardless of license class) could
assume that there MUST be some law about removing the covers and messing with
the FM* inside.  After all, the factory must be infinitely more capable of
designing and building radios than could be any one ham.  And in today's
Orweillian NewThink, anything that's not OK'd by the government must be
illegal.  Not to mention that is ought to be illegal to have fun.

On the other hand, those of us who have been hams since before the
WundorRiceboxes find this concept a bit strange.  Especially those of us
who actually BUILD from scratch radios.  Tell me sir, under your assumption
that it must somehow be illegal to MODIFY radios to go out of band, how
would the law handle my homemade radios?  Since they were designed
from the beginning to make power and to receive wherever the VCO would
stay locked, how could this possibly be legal?  The answer to this
question is left as an exercise for the student.   Clue:  It has something
to do with our charter.

Next, commercial and Public service.   The law specifically permits the
use of ANY communications mode to mitigate a life-threatening situation.
I'll let you find the paragraph; it's been posted here before.  Maybe
while you're looking, you'll read some of the other interesting paragraphs.
That means I can use any radio on any frequency if sufficient danger
exists.  What is sufficient danger?  I think each ham has to determine that
himself and be prepared to defend his actions.  Certainly dialing over
to the local police dispatch frequency to report a car wreck is
inappropriate and could not be defended.  On the other hand, if I come
up on a car wreck and find a victim bleeding or perhaps with a broken
neck, and I cannot find a ham repeater with patch, you bet yer ass I'm
going to get on the police frequency call out a unit.  Anyone who would
not should be prosecuted for negligence in my book.  I'll gladly
take any heat forthcomming after the fact.  I'd bet the bank on there
not being any.

Yes, I modify my radios (or build them from scratch) to work adjacent
commercial/public service bands "just in case" for the exact same
reason I have emergency power - Just in case.  I consider it at least
reckless to have the ability to mitigate an emergency and not do so.

Next, Reality.  The reality is that modern amateur HTs meet or exceed
commercial specifications.  The reason is simple.  With few exceptions,
the amateur and commercial radios are the same with only firmware
changes.  So if a ham accidently (or on purpose) transmits on a commercial
frequency, the sun won't quit shining and the gods of EMI will not smite
the radio from his hand.  He will be breaking an anachronistic law
regarding type acceptance.

Speaking of type acceptance, I marvel at the hams that speak in
ignorant awe of "Type Acceptance" as if it were some rite of passage
a vendor must put a radio through.  All this is, boys and girls, is
the process of submitting a radio to some standardized tests the results
of which indicate that there is a high probability that production units
will also meet.  This is an anachronism that should go the same way as
the 1st class commercial.  Back in the days when analog FM* really did
go on under the covers and when it was state-of-the-art to make a
crystal capable of 0.025% stability over the temperature range, it made
sense to require extensive type acceptance testing AND to certify
those wizards who were permitted to lift the covers on the FM*.

Now that FM* is contained within LSI chips and crystals capable of 0.001%
stability are commodities, licensing the wizards makes no sense and
neither does type acceptance.  Half of the problem is already resolved.

So if I were to transmit on a commercial frequency, I know that
my radio is at least as good as the one on the other end.  I don't do this
because I try to live within the rules but it's no felony if I do.

Lastly, is common sense.  This posting really addresses common sense,
a commodity sadly lacking in today's hams.  And this is typically
coupled with an almost mantical desire to tend to others' business.

Perhaps you should consider some other uses for radios modified for
out of band service.  These include

1.    driving transverters.
2.    Generating test signals.
3.    Listening to test signals from other radios.
4.    Monitoring public service frequencies as a  public oversight function.

Lastly, assume for the moment that what I've said is not true and that
transmitting out of band is truely evil.  If, as you said, the possibility
of an evil modified radio falling into bad hands is such a problem, why
has this problem not become significant?  Or even a problem?  Maybe
it's not such a problem after all.

John

*  FM - F***ing Magic (tm)

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | The Fano Factor -
Radiation Systems, Inc.     Atlanta, GA    | Where Theory meets Reality.
emory!rsiatl!jgd          **I am the NRA** |

------------------------------

Date: Fri 8 Dec 89 09:56:24-EST
From: Carl DeFranco <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scanning the Ether, Privacy, and Government
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

    I usually get a lot more enjoyment from reading all the fluff and furor
    on the various newsgroups.  The latest rage over privacy and the public
    airways is an entertaining break from real work, but I just have to add
    in my 5 cents worth concerning the "right" to receive, demodulate,
    etc., along with some thoughts about the power of government.

    I actually pulled out my Encylopedia Brittanica last night and reread
    the U.S. Constitution.  Did you know that it provides, among other
    things, a specific provision that the Federal Government shall have
    only those rights and powers specifically designated, and that all
    others are "reserved to the several states or to the people."?  It also
    notes that laws and regulations of states may NOT supercede those of
    the Federal Government, which makes scanner laws and the like at least
    suspect, if not marginally unconstitutional.  But I digress.

    My real point here is that the original Communications Act of 1934
    provided all the protection that cellular phones, HBO, etc. really
    needed.  To those who claim the right to receive anything transmitted
    through their individual space, you are absolutely correct!  Receive
    all you want (at least under the old law).  However, should you choose
    to use information overheard on the public airways, including HBO
    movies, you step over the line.  THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE DOES NOT CONFER
    THE RIGHT TO USE.  If you overhear a conversation about an upcoming
    stock market deal, then go buy or sell based on that information, you
    have violated the inside trader law, because the information was not
    generally available to the public.  If you buy a decoder, learn to
    decipher, and watch HBO, you could be prosecuted for theft of services,
    since you took specific steps to use the information you overheard.

    I fully agree that the EPCA is an outstanding example of bad (and
    stupid) lawmaking.  But the U.S. has always has the attitude that
    "there oughta be a law!", and Congress and state legislatures, anxious
    to justify their existence, are more than willing to provide one.  What
    scares me is that some of these new laws, EPCA included, tread
    dangerously upon privacy rights by making possession of scanners,
    radios, etc., that might be used for violations illegal, even though
    purchase is legitimate.

    Until individual citizens are willing to make public statements to
    their representatives, however, and do so rationally, the nation of
    laws that we generally agree is the best of a mediocre lot will
    continue to favor the special interest over its citizenry.  My advice?
    Do like I do - write to your congressman and senators.  You'll almost
    always get a reply, even if they don't agree with your position.

    Carl DeFranco
    currently just porky, but being cured to become a ham.

-------

------------------------------

End of INFO-HAMS Digest V89 Issue #991
**************************************