Marty: An interesting and valid observation on illegal operation but not the point of my question to Chris regarding the potential for changes in the ARS equipment certification exemption Rules or his answer as I understood it. The whole point of converting these “amateur radios” was to permit CB or freeband operation. If those folks wanted to operate in the amateur bands they would either leave the equipment as manufactured or buy amateur gear. They generally want to play in that pond. Our concern as you note arises when they spill over into our allocations. The question of enforcement of the rules against illegal operation in our service is already within the charge to Riley’s successor Laura Smith. We must continue to encourage vigorous enforcement and provide information on violations but implementation is ultimately up to FCC. On the other hand the exemption from equipment certification and free modification of equipment used in the ARS has always been central to the experimental aspect of our Service. Ignoring a potential challenge to the certification exemption or putting that concern on the back-burner is not in our best interest and certainly won’t make it go away. 73, Jay, KØQB -----Original Message----- From: Marty Woll [mailto:n6vi@socal.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:48 PM To: arrl-odv Cc: dhenderson@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:17649] 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 ----- From: Chris Imlay <mailto:w3kd@aol.com> To: arrl-odv <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Cc: dhenderson@arrl.org 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.