At 09:41 AM 10/2/2006, Robert McGwier wrote:
>I suggest that the code be left in the svn database but disabled with an
>#ifdef. Flex is not sending it out enabled as a scanner but you enable
>those with compilers to enable it.
>
>This will put a real damper on cognitively defined radio work since
I suggest that the code be left in the svn database but disabled with an
#ifdef. Flex is not sending it out enabled as a scanner but you enable
those with compilers to enable it.
This will put a real damper on cognitively defined radio work since one
way to look at it is a scanner with the abi
Hello all,
Let me see if I can insert a few facts to dispel some of the speculation.
Here goes:
1) Amateur radio transceivers fall under FCC Part 97 rules for the Amateur
Radio Service in the USA, UNLESS they provide a scanning receiver function.
The scanning function throws a radio into Part 15
When scanners are outlawed,
only outlaws will have scanners.
Jerry Sharp wrote:
> It does seem kind of funny that the removal of function remains
> "hush-hush" so far. What next, portions of HF that are used by
> the government and military will be blocked from receive?
>
> Jerry Sharp, KD0GS
>
It does seem kind of funny that the removal of function remains
"hush-hush" so far. What next, portions of HF that are used by
the government and military will be blocked from receive?
Jerry Sharp, KD0GS
Bill Tracey wrote:
> What was the FCC reg the scanning function had a problem with? Don't
What was the FCC reg the scanning function had a problem with? Don't
think there was an answer as to the specific reg that is a problem. Is
this a hardware of software issue? Could the software be 'dumbed down' to
make it compliant with the reg in question?
Regards,
Bill
At 10:49 AM 7/3/
At 04:50 AM 7/4/2006, Philip M. Lanese wrote:
>Dan
>
>If you look in the center of the rear panel of your icom you will see a
>sticker
>"This device complies with...".
>
>All you have to do is expend large amounts of cash to provide the FCC with
>evidence demonstrating that, with all the "bells &
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlexRadio" ; "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Flexradio] Scanning function removed
> Mel,
>
> Can't be the FCC. I am looking right at an Icom IC-746
ssage -
From: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FlexRadio"
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Flexradio] Scanning function removed
> I am also curious as to the FCC ruling. This was a nice feature.
>
> Jerry, WB0UZW
>
> At 10:49 AM 7/3/200
I am also curious as to the FCC ruling. This was a nice feature.
Jerry, WB0UZW
At 10:49 AM 7/3/2006, Mel Whitten wrote:
>Re: Scanning Function removed v1.6.3 svn 566
>
>What "is" the FCC ruling regarding SDR scanning? I did not think I
>would miss it, but I found I used it often to scan HF DRM
Re: Scanning Function removed v1.6.3 svn 566
What "is" the FCC ruling regarding SDR scanning? I did not think I would miss
it, but I found I used it often to scan HF DRM freqs that have have a history
of propagation at my QTH prior to zSDR set up and loading for DREAM.
Mel, K0PFX
-
11 matches
Mail list logo
