----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 9:41
AM
Subject: [arrl-odv:17647] Re: Defintion
of Amateur Equipment
Well, of course that is the real fear, Jay; if their "ease of
modification" test, and their "capacity equals intent" enforcement policy
become too problematic (and we might already be there), the next step for FCC
might well be equipment authorization for Amateur equipment. Another
FCC alternative is to forego any freeband or CB radio
enforcement, another direction we don't want to
go.
Equipment authorization requires lab testing, which is
expensive, and delay, which is also expensive for bona fide Amateur
equipment manufacturers. And it really has no place in what is after all
an experimental radio service. So we have historically, of course, always
opposed that direction. We managed to clear that hurdle for software
defined radios, which presents a very complex enforcement
picture.
So, I don't know what the fallout from this case might
be, but we had best keep in touch with OET about it.
Incidentally, OET still has pending our request for clarification
of the equipment authorization requirements for ancillary Amateur station
equipment with microprocessors that would otherwise require Part 15 equipment
authorization. We haven't pushed that because our filing it forestalled
some incipient enforcement against very small manufacturers of Amateur
accessories, who advertise in QST, and who, but for ARRL's
intervention, otherwise simply would be driven out of the
marketplace.