Re: Eric & Dave: Face the facts

Frank Gilliland wrote:



No, I didn't, as it was mentioned previously. But -you- failed to
consider that the radio was never certificated for transmitting on the
CB, so the rule regarding modification of a CB transmitter (and note
that it doesn't say 'transceiver') is moot.
really. my initial reason for posting was that it was *not* certified for 11
meter operation. I also further pointed out early on that the radio could
not be modified so as to allow 'receive only' access of the spectrum in
question (the design of the radio's main control circuitry makes this a
physical impossibility).

again, on another point, the fcc has mandated (through Riley Hollingsworth
and others) that "posession is sufficient to prove...". The meaning of this
is very clear on their enforcement pages.



both functions are
tied together within the radio's main chip. Therefor, this argument has
merit on its face and in whole.


Seek legal advice from your estranged tag-team partner -- he ran away
for a reason.
ah. the "personal attack" one of the many 'last refuges' of the incompetent.



also, because said radio was modified for 'out of band' operation, it
makes it also unacceptable (to the fcc) for use on the amateur bands it
was designed for (in this case, 10 meters).


Use on ham bands is not the issue, Eric. But if you really want to go
that route, there is no rule (regulation, law, etc) prohibiting the
modification of any ham equipment, period. Quite the contrary, the
modification of ham equipment is one of the cornerstones of amateur
radio.
use of the radio *at all* in its modified state without proper authorization
from the fcc is in violation. please prove to me where it isn't (and do
your own damned searches).



in this case, the radio in its entirety (not the inseparable sections
called receiver and transmitter) must be viewed as a whole, period. The
"separate functions" argument does not apply.


I not only cited the rules, I copied them word for word. It was not my
decision or perogative to make the distinction between a transmitter
and a transceiver -- the FCC did it. If you have a problem with that,
whine about it to Riley, not me.
where, no you did not. you quotes rules cited by someone else and you did so
out of context in order to make yourself look 'right'. you have yet to cite
one single fact that is relevant without attempting to denigrate the source
first. your recent postings are the best example of this.



It doesn't say you can't use any receiver,


No, it doesn't.
and the receiver in question here also controls the transmitter. thus, the
argument of "listening only" does not apply as one could transmit on those
frequencies as well with this particular radio.


One "could" transmit on the CB with a file, a screwdriver and a car
battery.
irrelevant example. and this would be a "spark gap" transmitter that would
transmit everywhere (mostly below 2 Mhz as that is where almost all of its
energy is)

And one "could" commit murder with a gun, a knife, an axe, a
baseball bat, etc, etc.
irrelevant. comparison of apples to oranges has no meaning to
this 'discussion'

But it is the -action- that is illegal, not
the mere ownership of a baseball bat.
owning a baseball bat has nothing to do with owning a modified radio (a
modification given the model of radio in question that would make it
illegal per the FCC regulations). you are still comparing apples to oranges
here.

Maybe you don't understand the
difference between the two but the FCC does, and that is why they
wrote the rules the way they did.
yet the fcc has also made statements (per their representatives)
that "posession is sufficient to prove...." and that is a public policy
statement (and per the US legal system, a "public policy" has the force of
law).


it says you can not make any
changes to any transmitter.


It says you cannot make any changes to a transmitter that has been
certificated to operate on the CB. Any other interpretation is pulling
the rule out of the scope of Part 95.

part 95 still applies, even to equipment being used within its spectrum of
jurisdiction without proper authorization (and using the radio originally
stated in this discussion would fall under both part 95 and part 97 as a
violation.)


Yes, Part 95 still applies, as per the rule I already posted but will
post again because of your limited comprehension (emphasis added):

47CFR95.409:
(a) YOU MUST USE AN FCC CERTIFICATED CB TRANSMITTER AT YOUR CB
STATION. You can identify an FCC certificated transmitter by the
certification label placed on it by the manufacturer. You may examine
a list of certificated equipment at any FCC Field Office or at FCC
Headquarters. USE OF A TRANSMITTER WHICH IS NOT FCC CERTIFICATED VOIDS
YOUR AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE STATION.
and I reiterate, the HTX-100 radio in question cannot be modified as
a "receiver only" on this bad without also modifying the transmitter. The
fcc views this modification as "intent to use" outside of the above
regulation.



The FCC considers posession of a modified
transmitter as illegal.


You have yet to provide an authoritative reference to this claim.

Well?

google it your damned self man. we are tired of doing your leg work for
you only to have it spit upon. either you do your own research or STFU on
the matter.


Let's see now..... I did my own research by both citing and quoting
the FCC rules that you refuse to read or understand. But instead of
taking advantage of an apparently super-easy way to prove me wrong in
a public and open forum, all you and Dave can do is whine. Enough with
the cop-outs, Eric -- either post the link and prove me wrong or take
your own advice and "STFU on the matter." Or, even better, plonk me
like your legally-illiterate ***-buddy.

what research? where are your facts?

I have the schematics here for the radio in question (I happen to OWN the
radio in question in its UNMODIFIED STATE) and I have a copy of the
modifications that can be done to this radio. I have checked with the
Original company of manufacture for this line of radios (The circuit board
clearly has uniden printed on it) and was informed that the design of the
control circuitry ON THIS RADIO would not prevent the transmitter from
being modified to operate on the specified range as detailed in the
original posting.

The fcc has made it clear (both in their enforcement bureau postings and in
the persons of various representatives including Mr. Hollingsworth) that
posession is sufficient to show intent to use (and thus prove guilt). That
is the current policy of the fcc.

The MODIFIED HTX-100 as originally posted in illegal in their eyes and no
amount of naysaying on your part will make it otherwise. The rules and
their policy appear in conflict (and the typical behavior in government is
this: if the policy is NEWER than the regulations, the policy wins out).

This is the position I am operating from. The government will win if a case
regarding a device like this were presented before an administrative judge
or in a civil proceeding. The person in posession would end up being fined
and the equipment being confiscated. This has happened and there are
numerous cases on the books where it is true (check the fcc enforcement
pages, they have lots of cases there where fines were issued and equipment
siezed and either sold or destroyed).

any arguments given in contrary to the the current 'policy' in the fcc are
considered irrelevant.

.