Thanks you Tom, that's good news!
73 de Jack - N7OO
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Oliver
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Syntor X receiver preamp?
They work just fine as is.
tom-n8ies
Presented by eham.net
Sorry, couldn't help myself. :)
Chris
N9XCR
- Original Message -
From: Dave
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 7:23 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Rule on tampering with a FCC licensed
transmiter
>
> The com
>
> The comments on applicable laws are both more interesting and more
> instructive than your insulting diatribe. At your first opportunity,
you should get a
> life.
>
A prime example of the type of gomeril I am refering to with my
statement...
>... BS, Big heads, and everyone is inferior
They work just fine as is.
tom-n8ies
- Original Message -
From: Jack Taylor
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 12/9/2006 5:31:36 PM
Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Syntor X receiver preamp?
Does anyone know if the receiver preamp in the high VHF Syntor X will work
without
modif
In a message dated 12/9/2006 2:28:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There was an incident in my area about 10 years ago where an individual had
interfered with the local sheriff's department. The individual was charged by
the county. I don't know what the charge was
Does anyone know if the receiver preamp in the high VHF Syntor X will work
without
modification at 144 MHz? If not, what needs to be changed?
73 de Jack - N7OO
There was an incident in my area about 10 years ago where an individual had
interfered with the local sheriff's department. The individual was charged by
the county. I don't know what the charge was exactly, but I believe the
individual was charged with a mis-demeanor.
Chris
N9XCR
- Orig
In a message dated 12/9/2006 1:34:14 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I seem to recall there is a hook in the CB rules that allows the locals
to cite for certain offenses that are blatantly obvious.
It comes down to this: intentional interference with radiation fr
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, mch wrote:
> As an aside, not necessarily having anything to do with any previous
> postings on the list, if a local or state police officer tries to
> regulate your radio activities or takes action against someone else
> doing the same, he/she is impersonating a federal agen
In a message dated 12/9/2006 8:58:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As the Groups from page says... "This list is not for discussing FCC
rules, proper operating practices...rules, proper operating practices.
not to discuss laws as well.
We all know everybody on the gr
Thanks Niel, I will look under the bottom, I took the top off thinking it might
be behind the connector, no such luck. I can see it on the schematic, it just
does not tell where it is located.
Mathew
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was, I believe, a Cushman CE - something
There was, I believe, a Cushman CE - something that had
that tiny pico fuse mounted behind the front panel connector.
You had to remove the bottom cover to access it.
Neil
- Original Message -
From: n9lv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, December 9, 2006 9:14 am
Subject
Does anyone know where I can find the pica fuse to the antenna input
on the CE-6030 service monitor. I think mine has blown since I cannot
get very good sensitivity from it. All help is appreciated.
Mathew
As the Groups from page says... "This list is not for discussing FCC
rules, proper operating practices" I think it should also say
not to discuss laws as well.
We all know everybody on the group is an attorney ... and a computer
expert ... and . well you all get the picture. BS, Big
There are some new laws (so I'm told) that have gone into effect since 9/11
that deal with terroristic acts as related to broadcast stations, antenna
structures, etc. Sorry, I can't cite any rule, but I can tell you that both
local and federal authorities were involved in one such investigation
l
I think Jeff has it right. I searched the United States Code, and Title 47
in particular, to find "damage" or "tamper" in conjunction with "radio" or
"communication" and found nothing that fits the situations we are
discussing. There are Federal issues about eavesdropping or hacking into
computer
>From WWII onward it was a federal crime to tamper with a licensed
radio station of any kind. It was a matter of national security.
But, about 10 or 15 years ago someone noticed that the rule hadn't
been used in decades and it was dropped. The only remaining recourse
is under local property laws
When I got my FCC First Class Radiotelephone license
in 1969, I remember there were rules and questions
related to requirements of being licensed in order to
tune or adjust a lot of radio transmitting equipment,
such as broadcast, marine, and two-way. This was
considered maintenance, not necessaril
Well, whatever you call that box that has components that emit
significant amounts of RF energy under the authorization of whomever
grants whatever paper, I'm sure there are laws against tampering with
it. And they won't be laws enforced by the local or state entities
(whatever you want to call tho
19 matches
Mail list logo
