Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/IYHEYFPCRYB73APBGBOOLPBWJHOBRNKC/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "IYHEYFPCRYB73APBGBOOLPBWJHOBRNKC",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/U4XUMHNHFSCFRLZOVX4HNFKQ3YGLCD67/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "eric.fort (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": "2b2633ba6515405baf7680ea3c20a9ef",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/2b2633ba6515405baf7680ea3c20a9ef/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Eric Fort",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Illegal - for U.S. - Commercial Equipment",
    "date": "2009-06-11T21:46:47Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/HT7ELY6RZZN4WBM5XICEP2WY6LPAACSS/?format=api",
    "children": [],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "actually the whole of\nhttp://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr2.1204.htm seems like an\nexcellent citation to consider and I would hope it is addressed in clint's\nfindings.  47cfr2.1204(a)(3)(i) also seems interesting as it specificly\naddresses, \"operation within one of the Commission's authorized radio\nservices for which an operating license is required to be issued by the\nCommission\".\n\n47cfr2.1204(a)(7) would also seem to allow , \"Three or fewer... being\nimported for the individual's personal use and are not intended for sale.\"\nThis however leaves out what may be an importaint clause, \"radio receivers,\ncomputers, or other unintentional radiators as defined in part 15 of this\nchapter\".  I see nothing in this section referring to transmitters and\nintentional radiators and that could be a problem as most of us are\ncommunicators not just listeners on the ham bands.  Again clarification of\nthe rules here would be a good thing and I look forward to Clint's comments\nboth commercially published and blogged when they are available.\n\nEric\nAF6EP\n\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) <\[email protected]> wrote:\n\n> Hi Clint.\n>\n> > Wow .. sure have faced a bunch of hostility from \"friends\" here (grin).\n>\n> Friends can disagree on different topics.  As for hostility, I\n> am only trying to get you to answer a question that you have\n> been avoiding.\n>\n> > No one has cited any specific US/FCC Code on any aspect of the matter\n> > - except for me, of course.\n>\n> I guess you're overlooking my repeated citations from Part 97 -\n> the two specifically related to HF/6m amplifiers requiring\n> certification before marketing/sale in the US, and all of the\n> technical requirements in Subpart D.  Remember that my\n> posts - and those of several others - came after your blanket\n> statement regarding the use of the non-certified commercial\n> radios by hams being illegal, without any offer of rules or\n> laws to back that up.\n>\n> > I have a conference call set up for Tuesday with the FCC's OET and\n> > another department. We all can agree that \"pure amateur radios\" are\n> > exempt from Part 97 certification procedures. But I will be\n> > documenting - with facts and direct legal citations - whether or not\n> > U.S. hams can use non-certified commercial gear (HTs that cover\n> > 138-170 and/or 400-470) on the amateur bands in the U.S.\n> >\n> > I will not be reporting my findings here. I'll post it on my amateur\n> > site's blog. And  have been approached by two publications (well, two\n> > print mags and one online mag) to write an article on this, which is\n> > in the works.\n>\n> Since you made the blanket statement that the use of the non-\n> certified gear by hams is illegal, please let us know at least when\n> you post that on your blog.\n>\n> I saw your other post about some rules. Again, most of your citations\n> avoid the matter of using the radios - they deal with the import and\n> marketing of them.  One that seems to cut to the heart of your\n> argument related to the import of these radios is found in 2.1204(a)(7):\n>\n> (a) Radio frequency devices may be imported only if one or more of\n> these conditions are met:\n>\n> ... (skipping 1 through 6 - see them all at the link below)\n>\n> (7) Three or fewer radio receivers, computers, or other unintentional\n> radiators as defined in Part 15 of this chapter, are being imported\n> for the individual's personal use and are not intended for sale.\n>\n> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr2.1204.htm\n>\n> This appears to allow us to order up to 3 of these radios from\n> overseas, as long as we are not going to sell them.  This seems\n> to be the way hams (and others) are getting these non-certified\n> radios - and the way that California guy was busted by the FCC\n> for selling those radios through his eBay page.  I know that some\n> have used this rule - loophole? - to get wide-band VHF/UHF\n> receivers from non-US shops that do not have the FCC-mandated\n> gaps in reception at 800 MHz for many years.  One Toronto radio\n> shop used to have a section on their web page specifically\n> related to selling those non-FCC-certified receivers to those\n> living in the US.\n>\n> 73!\n>\n>\n>\n> Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK\n> http://www.wd9ewk.net/\n>\n> _______________________________________________\n> Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.\n> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!\n> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb\n>\n",
    "attachments": []
}