Good point, Marty. Historically, fake ham radios have been our problem, because (1) these "questionable" radios are marketed at CB shops (as per the case I just forwarded) and are clearly marketed exclusively or at least primarily to non-hams; (2) the devices typically have at least some ham band coverage (in this case quite a lot) often including modes that would never be used in the ham band segments in which they operate, such as AM at the low end of 10 meters, as one typical example; and (3) as we have seen recently in Indianapolis with cops, and as Hollingsworth found out about interstate truckers, non-ham users of radios have very little interest in the niceties of licensing or frequency allocations.
So, the extent to which FCC can shut down the supply of ersatz ham radio gear at the marketing level is important to us, because the success of that effort makes it less necessary to try to close the lid on illegal operation, in our bands or otherwise. It is just hard to draw the line between the Yaesu/Icom/Kenwood/Elecraft etc etc radios, and the Rangers and their ilk for enforcement purposes.
73, Chris W3KD
Christopher D. Imlay
Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper, P.C.
14356 Cape May Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011
(301) 384-5525 telephone
(301) 384-6384 facsimile
W3KD@ARRL.ORG
-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Woll <n6vi@socal.rr.com>
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; Chris Imlay <w3kd@aol.com>
Cc: dhenderson@arrl.org
Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:17647] Re: Defintion of Amateur Equipment
It seems to me that our greater concern should be whether these radios are operated in our Amateur bands by unlicensed individuals. What they do in the CB allocation is not really our problem as long as it's confined to that segment of the spectrum. There are plenty of other CB enforcement opportunities not fully pursued, from ads for CB amplifiers to rampant high-power operations. Our own service is probably better off if the issue of conversion potential remains on the FCC's back burner.
73,
Marty N6VI
----- 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.