Noggy

All,

I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets
on what their answers are (if any)?

1. Given that full licence holders may legally construct, test and
operate their own transmission equipment, is it legal to modify old
ex-CB equipment (type approved or otherwise) for amateur use in the
designated amateur bands?

2. Is it legal for either a full amateur radio licence holder, or an
unlicenced individual to possess non type approved CB transmission
equipment? This scenario does not include the installation or operation
of such equipment when in an unmodified state, but presumably, if Q1 is
legal, there must be some time when the equipment is in the possession
of an individual, but in an unmodified state.

3. If Q1 and Q2 are legal, is there any process for the radio to be
assessed by Ofcom, or does the amateur operator have to obtain any
exemption certificate relating to the converted equipment? Or is the
onus on the individual to prove (if required) that the equipment is
operating withing the technical performance of the licencing conditions?

In relation to the repair and servicing of type approved CB radios, I
have the following questions:

4. Are there any technical restrictions on individuals from undertaking
their own repairs to type approved CB equipment? Assuming the repairer
is competent and technically qualified to perform the repair, is there
any requirement to have the equipment 're-type approved'?

5. To what level can type approved equipment be modified and remain
legal? Modification in this scenario is restricted to cosmetic changes,
such as changing worn knobs, fascias or cases rather than technical
changes that might affect the performance of the equipment.

6. If Q4 and Q5 are in any way legal (perhaps by individuals who can
prove themselves to be competent), can 'refurbished' type approved CB
equipment (with the same original internals) be legally sold, with a new
27/81 (or similar) stamp added to the front?

7. What is the procedure for getting type approval for new designs of CB
equipment?

Background on this, is that I have a few ideas for making use of old CB
equipment, but obviously want to make sure it's legal before I start. It
would be nice if any resulting thread doesn't resort to a
ham/cb/foundation type slagging match..

Laters,
Nog.

mikeFNB

if you hold a full licence you can do everything you indicate to below.
it is up to you to make sure it is not causing interference.
modify at will

mike

"Noggy" <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:454e216b@news.greennet.net...
> All,
>
> I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets on
> what their answers are (if any)?
>
> 1. Given that full licence holders may legally construct, test and operate
> their own transmission equipment, is it legal to modify old ex-CB
> equipment (type approved or otherwise) for amateur use in the designated
> amateur bands?
>
> 2. Is it legal for either a full amateur radio licence holder, or an
> unlicenced individual to possess non type approved CB transmission
> equipment? This scenario does not include the installation or operation of
> such equipment when in an unmodified state, but presumably, if Q1 is
> legal, there must be some time when the equipment is in the possession of
> an individual, but in an unmodified state.
>
> 3. If Q1 and Q2 are legal, is there any process for the radio to be
> assessed by Ofcom, or does the amateur operator have to obtain any
> exemption certificate relating to the converted equipment? Or is the onus
> on the individual to prove (if required) that the equipment is operating
> withing the technical performance of the licencing conditions?
>
> In relation to the repair and servicing of type approved CB radios, I have
> the following questions:
>
> 4. Are there any technical restrictions on individuals from undertaking
> their own repairs to type approved CB equipment? Assuming the repairer is
> competent and technically qualified to perform the repair, is there any
> requirement to have the equipment 're-type approved'?
>
> 5. To what level can type approved equipment be modified and remain legal?
> Modification in this scenario is restricted to cosmetic changes, such as
> changing worn knobs, fascias or cases rather than technical changes that
> might affect the performance of the equipment.
>
> 6. If Q4 and Q5 are in any way legal (perhaps by individuals who can prove
> themselves to be competent), can 'refurbished' type approved CB equipment
> (with the same original internals) be legally sold, with a new 27/81 (or
> similar) stamp added to the front?
>
> 7. What is the procedure for getting type approval for new designs of CB
> equipment?
>
> Background on this, is that I have a few ideas for making use of old CB
> equipment, but obviously want to make sure it's legal before I start. It
> would be nice if any resulting thread doesn't resort to a
> ham/cb/foundation type slagging match..
>
> Laters,
> Nog.

Walt Davidson

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:41:55 +0000, Noggy <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote:

>All,
>
>I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets
>on what their answers are (if any)?

If you have asked the licensing authority, what benefit do you expect
to gain by repeating your questions here? Whatever anyone says here,
the ruling of Ofcom is the only thing that matters.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

Norm

"Noggy" <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:454e216b@news.greennet.net...
> All,
>
> I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets on
> what their answers are (if any)?
>
How about waiting until you get a reply, posting that and making the post a
bit more interesting.

Noggy

Walt Davidson wrote:
> If you have asked the licensing authority, what benefit do you expect
> to gain by repeating your questions here? Whatever anyone says here,
> the ruling of Ofcom is the only thing that matters.

Norm wrote:
> How about waiting until you get a reply, posting that and making the
> post a bit more interesting.

Walt and Norm, I was curious to see if anyone else was interested, and
also whether general opinion matched the official line. Had I posted
their answers, I probably would just have got a "I knew that" response.
Ofcom's ruling might be the only thing that matters to you, but general
perception is also valuable to me.

I have not yet had any response from Ofcom, but I will post it here
when, or if I receive it.

Nog.

§|ª®T?ߪRt?@$t

Wlat, the voice of reason, even if he does come from Tewksbury!


"Walt Davidson" <g3nyy@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:gfmpk25t1uu0bt3uarime6e85sk0u6kfh9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:41:55 +0000, Noggy <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>All,
>>
>>I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets
>>on what their answers are (if any)?
>
> If you have asked the licensing authority, what benefit do you expect
> to gain by repeating your questions here? Whatever anyone says here,
> the ruling of Ofcom is the only thing that matters.
>
> 73 de G3NYY
>
> --
> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

§|ª®T?ߪRt?@$t

Silly name to use on this NG!

No one normal on here!

"Norm" <jada@norm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:454cdb9d_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Noggy" <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:454e216b@news.greennet.net...
>> All,
>>
>> I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets on
>> what their answers are (if any)?
>>
> How about waiting until you get a reply, posting that and making the post
> a bit more interesting.
>
>

Dave

Noggy wrote:

> All,
>
> I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets
> on what their answers are (if any)?
>
> 1. Given that full licence holders may legally construct, test and
> operate their own transmission equipment, is it legal to modify old
> ex-CB equipment (type approved or otherwise) for amateur use in the
> designated amateur bands?
>
> 2. Is it legal for either a full amateur radio licence holder, or an
> unlicenced individual to possess non type approved CB transmission
> equipment? This scenario does not include the installation or operation
> of such equipment when in an unmodified state, but presumably, if Q1 is
> legal, there must be some time when the equipment is in the possession
> of an individual, but in an unmodified state.
>
> 3. If Q1 and Q2 are legal, is there any process for the radio to be
> assessed by Ofcom, or does the amateur operator have to obtain any
> exemption certificate relating to the converted equipment? Or is the
> onus on the individual to prove (if required) that the equipment is
> operating withing the technical performance of the licencing conditions?
>
> In relation to the repair and servicing of type approved CB radios, I
> have the following questions:
>
> 4. Are there any technical restrictions on individuals from undertaking
> their own repairs to type approved CB equipment? Assuming the repairer
> is competent and technically qualified to perform the repair, is there
> any requirement to have the equipment 're-type approved'?
>
> 5. To what level can type approved equipment be modified and remain
> legal? Modification in this scenario is restricted to cosmetic changes,
> such as changing worn knobs, fascias or cases rather than technical
> changes that might affect the performance of the equipment.
>
> 6. If Q4 and Q5 are in any way legal (perhaps by individuals who can
> prove themselves to be competent), can 'refurbished' type approved CB
> equipment (with the same original internals) be legally sold, with a new
> 27/81 (or similar) stamp added to the front?
>
> 7. What is the procedure for getting type approval for new designs of CB
> equipment?
>
> Background on this, is that I have a few ideas for making use of old CB
> equipment, but obviously want to make sure it's legal before I start. It
> would be nice if any resulting thread doesn't resort to a
> ham/cb/foundation type slagging match..
>
> Laters,
> Nog.

You are posting to two very different groups. Please define to which
group you are posting. It does make a very big difference to the answer.

Dave

Noggy

Dave wrote:
> You are posting to two very different groups. Please define to which
> group you are posting. It does make a very big difference to the answer.

Both. Put an answer on each if you wish.

Nog.

Roger Muggleton

Dave <davenpat@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> You are posting to two very different groups. Please define to which
> group you are posting. It does make a very big difference to the answer.

And please be careful what you ask of Ofcom. There is always a danger
that they might introduce some new regulation that will be detrimental
to amateurs in general. If something in the licence is vague or unclear,
let it remain that way, so that we can interpret it to our advantage.

--
Roger.

Ian Jackson

In message <1hoayvb.x72i1l61f796N%muggers@gmail.com>, Roger Muggleton
<muggers@gmail.com> writes
>Dave <davenpat@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> You are posting to two very different groups. Please define to which
>> group you are posting. It does make a very big difference to the answer.
>
>And please be careful what you ask of Ofcom. There is always a danger
>that they might introduce some new regulation that will be detrimental
>to amateurs in general. If something in the licence is vague or unclear,
>let it remain that way, so that we can interpret it to our advantage.
>

I'd second what Roger says. Best let sleeping dogs lie.

Back in the 80's, a special clause was introduced into the licence,
which was intended specifically to forbid the modification of illegal
(non-CB/81) for amateur use without first obtaining permission to own
it. You were also forbidden to dispose of it unless to another licensed
amateur (who also was supposed to get permission etc). This was, of
course, a totally stupid regulation. It opened a whole can of worms, and
missed the whole point of amateur radio. I did ask the DTI whether I
could still use the individual parts from an illegal unit, and they said
I could, so presumably I could have dismantled an illegal unit, then
re-assembled it, incorporating the required modifications.

So far, no-one has been prosecuted for walking on the cracks in the
pavement. However, don't ask your local council. With one CCTV camera to
every 14 people, they will realise that this could be a great revenue
raiser. If you know that are not going to do anything really illegal,
just use your common sense, keep your mouth shut, and just do it.

Ian.
--

Brian Reay

"Walt Davidson" <g3nyy@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:gfmpk25t1uu0bt3uarime6e85sk0u6kfh9@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:41:55 +0000, Noggy <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>All,
>>
>>I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets
>>on what their answers are (if any)?
>
> If you have asked the licensing authority, what benefit do you expect
> to gain by repeating your questions here? Whatever anyone says here,
> the ruling of Ofcom is the only thing that matters.
>

Well said Walt. One assumes you now accept the various licence changes in
recent years. It took you awhile but even you had to come around ;-)

--
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

Jeff

"> 1. Given that full licence holders may legally construct, test and
> operate their own transmission equipment, is it legal to modify old ex-CB
> equipment (type approved or otherwise) for amateur use in the designated
> amateur bands?

As far as I am aware the Wireless Telegraphy (Citizens' Band and Amateur
Apparatus) (Various Provisions) Order 1998, as amended, is still in force.

This basically prohibits the possession, sale, hire, manufacture or
importation of CB radio equipment that is not UK or EU type approved that
operates in the band
26.1 to 28MHz. (The restriction that was on 10m only Amateur sets has been
removed).

So I far as I can see it would be ok to modify 'legal' CB sets to 10m, but
not others, as it would be illegal to possess them before you modified it.

> 2. Is it legal for either a full amateur radio licence holder, or an
> unlicensed individual to possess non type approved CB transmission
> equipment? This scenario does not include the installation or operation of
> such equipment when in an unmodified state, but presumably, if Q1 is
> legal, there must be some time when the equipment is in the possession of
> an individual, but in an unmodified state.

No; see above.

> 3. If Q1 and Q2 are legal, is there any process for the radio to be
> assessed by Ofcom, or does the amateur operator have to obtain any
> exemption certificate relating to the converted equipment? Or is the onus
> on the individual to prove (if required) that the equipment is operating
> withing the technical performance of the licencing conditions?

No, since it was not legal to have it in the first place!

> In relation to the repair and servicing of type approved CB radios, I have
> the following questions:
>
> 4. Are there any technical restrictions on individuals from undertaking
> their own repairs to type approved CB equipment? Assuming the repairer is
> competent and technically qualified to perform the repair, is there any
> requirement to have the equipment 're-type approved'?
>
> 5. To what level can type approved equipment be modified and remain legal?
> Modification in this scenario is restricted to cosmetic changes, such as
> changing worn knobs, fascias or cases rather than technical changes that
> might affect the performance of the equipment.

Ofcom's reply will be interesting on this one.

> 6. If Q4 and Q5 are in any way legal (perhaps by individuals who can prove
> themselves to be competent), can 'refurbished' type approved CB equipment
> (with the same original internals) be legally sold, with a new 27/81 (or
> similar) stamp added to the front?

I would not have thought so, the equipment would retain its original
approval.

> 7. What is the procedure for getting type approval for new designs of CB
> equipment?

There is a well defined procedure for getting type approval, there are
several routes that this can take, one being testing by an outside Test
House (very expensive). In-house testing and the Design File approach is
much cheaper but it does leave the manufacturer open to more problems should
the equipment be found later to be non compliant.

Regards
Jeff

Walt Davidson

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 10:02:33 GMT, "Brian Reay" <see@website.invalid>
wrote:

>Well said Walt. One assumes you now accept the various licence changes in
>recent years. It took you awhile but even you had to come around ;-)

It is one thing to accept them as a fact of life. It is an entirely
different thing to agree with them. Most bad things can be changed.
It may take a while, but ....

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

Malkavian

"Noggy" <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:454e216b@news.greennet.net...
> All,


Question have been put by amateur radio operators as to whether it will ever
be legal for amateur radio licence to be extended to 11 metres with all the
privileges such as repairing constructing transceivers etc.

Trevor Day

In message <gfmpk25t1uu0bt3uarime6e85sk0u6kfh9@4ax.com>, Walt Davidson
<g3nyy@despammed.com> writes
>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:41:55 +0000, Noggy <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>All,
>>
>>I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets
>>on what their answers are (if any)?
>
>If you have asked the licensing authority, what benefit do you expect
>to gain by repeating your questions here? Whatever anyone says here,
>the ruling of Ofcom is the only thing that matters.
>
>73 de G3NYY
>
I would add that asking a question, the answer to which is not
immediately obvious, is likely to produce an answer you don't want to
hear.

Trev G3ZYY

(YYURYYUBICURYY4ME) :-)
--
Trevor Day
Sunny Saltash

Noggy

Jeff wrote:
> So I far as I can see it would be ok to modify 'legal' CB sets to 10m, but
> not others, as it would be illegal to possess them before you modified it.

Thanks for your comments Jeff. I understand your point, but there is
evidence to suggest that this isn't the case. See this item for sale on
Ebay for example: http://tinyurl.com/yhjd8m

This implies that there IS a route that receives RA/Ofcom's blessing..

>> 7. What is the procedure for getting type approval for new designs of CB
>> equipment?
>
> There is a well defined procedure for getting type approval, there are
> several routes that this can take, one being testing by an outside Test
> House (very expensive). In-house testing and the Design File approach is
> much cheaper but it does leave the manufacturer open to more problems should
> the equipment be found later to be non compliant.

I'll have to investigate this. Thanks.

Nog.

Noggy

Roger Muggleton wrote:
> And please be careful what you ask of Ofcom. There is always a danger
> that they might introduce some new regulation that will be detrimental
> to amateurs in general. If something in the licence is vague or unclear,
> let it remain that way, so that we can interpret it to our advantage.

I see your point, but IMHO ignoring vague legalities would be foolhardy.
Much better to seek clarification before the line is crossed - even if
the clarification results in the confirmation of vagueness!

The inference from what you say that there may well be a number of
amateurs currently taking advantage of vague licencing conditions. I
would suggest that they lobby to get those rules clarified, with the
evidence of there being no current problems to their activities adding
weight to their argument. Surely better that than being taken to court,
loosing your licence and perhaps even your job...

Nog.

Jeff

">> So I far as I can see it would be ok to modify 'legal' CB sets to 10m,
but
>> not others, as it would be illegal to possess them before you modified
>> it.
>
> Thanks for your comments Jeff. I understand your point, but there is
> evidence to suggest that this isn't the case. See this item for sale on
> Ebay for example: http://tinyurl.com/yhjd8m
>
> This implies that there IS a route that receives RA/Ofcom's blessing..
>

Firstly I would not take anything that you see on e-bay as evidence!! If you
look closely at the picture you will see that the RA headed paper has been
placed behind the piece of paper with the text on it, making it appear as
though the letter is on RA headed paper!!

There are legal ways around the regulations, such as converting the
equipment to 10m outside of the UK (the IoM is not covered by these
Regulations), but the way the regulations stand it is quite clear that it
is still illegal to "have in one's custody or control; manufacture (whether
or not for sale), sell or offer for sale, let on hire or offer to let on
hire, or indicate (whether by display of the apparatus or by any form of
advertisement) one's willingness to sell or let on hire; and import" 27 MHz
CB radio equipment that does not meet EU or UK type approval.

That would seem to place a blanket ban on doing anything with illegal CB
sets, since you must have it in "one's custody or control" before you can
modify it. The regulation and the subsequent amendments are all available to
view on the opsi.gov.uk website. They are:
The Wireless Telegraphy (Citizens' Band and Amateur Apparatus) (Various
Provisions) Order 1988

The Wireless Telegraphy (Citizens' Band and Amateur Apparatus) (Various
Provisions) (Amendment) Order 1995

The Wireless Telegraphy (Citizens' Band and Amateur Apparatus) (Various
Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2000

None of these seem to have any 'get outs'.

Regards

Jeff

Cubwolf

"Jeff" <jeff@local.host> wrote in message
news:454df1fa$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
>
If you
> look closely at the picture you will see that the RA headed paper has been
> placed behind the piece of paper with the text on it, making it appear as
> though the letter is on RA headed paper!!

I think thats just the way that its folded.

Jeff

"Cubwolf" <cubwolf@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:HZidneasrMnGZNDYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Jeff" <jeff@local.host> wrote in message
> news:454df1fa$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
>>
> If you
>> look closely at the picture you will see that the RA headed paper has
>> been placed behind the piece of paper with the text on it, making it
>> appear as though the letter is on RA headed paper!!
>
> I think thats just the way that its folded.


It that is the case then the "Dear..." is an awfully long way down the page!

Jeff

Cubwolf

"Jeff" <jeff@local.host> wrote in message
news:454dfcf2$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...>
>
> It that is the case then the "Dear..." is an awfully long way down the
> page!
>
> Jeff

Would someone really fake up a letter and use the RA logo then state its got
an Ofcom letter of approval?

Jeff

> Would someone really fake up a letter and use the RA logo then state its
> got an Ofcom letter of approval?
>

It does seem a little pointless because once the set is modified it no
longer falls under the regulations, therefore no approval is required!! It
was only illegal up until the point that it was modified. So it is perfectly
legal to sell it with or without a letter. Offences were only committed
before it was modified!!

Regards
Jeff

Cubwolf

"Jeff" <jeff@local.host> wrote in message
news:454e014b$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
> It does seem a little pointless because once the set is modified it no
> longer falls under the regulations, therefore no approval is required!! It
> was only illegal up until the point that it was modified. So it is
> perfectly legal to sell it with or without a letter. Offences were only
> committed before it was modified!!
>
> Regards
> Jeff


I agree.
I have asked him to scan it as i am interested to see what it says.

Jeff

">> It does seem a little pointless because once the set is modified it no
>> longer falls under the regulations, therefore no approval is required!!
>> It was only illegal up until the point that it was modified. So it is
>> perfectly legal to sell it with or without a letter. Offences were only
>> committed before it was modified!!
>>
>> Regards
>> Jeff
>
>
> I agree.
> I have asked him to scan it as i am interested to see what it says.
>

Yes, it will be interesting.

Jeff

Ian Jackson

In message <454e014b$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com> , Jeff
<jeff@local.host> writes
>> Would someone really fake up a letter and use the RA logo then state its
>> got an Ofcom letter of approval?
>>
>
>It does seem a little pointless because once the set is modified it no
>longer falls under the regulations, therefore no approval is required!! It
>was only illegal up until the point that it was modified. So it is perfectly
>legal to sell it with or without a letter. Offences were only committed
>before it was modified!!
>
>Regards
>Jeff
>
>

That seems to be a concise summing-up of the real situation.
The regulations against non-approved CB equipment relies (to a large
extent) on the fact that the owner of such equipment has smuggled the
goods into the UK, or is the recipient of smuggled goods. I have several
bits of equipment of foreign origin which MAY also have been smuggled
into the UK, eg a WW2 TCS10 transmitter, Yaesu FT400 and FT480, and a
Trio TS-520. I have no way of proving that these were imported
illegally. However, I can (and have) carried out various modifications
to them.
Ian.
--

Magnum M3

"Jeff" <jeff@local.host> wrote in message
news:454e014b$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
> > Would someone really fake up a letter and use the RA logo then state its
> > got an Ofcom letter of approval?
> >
>
> It does seem a little pointless because once the set is modified it no
> longer falls under the regulations, therefore no approval is required!! It
> was only illegal up until the point that it was modified. So it is
perfectly
> legal to sell it with or without a letter. Offences were only committed
> before it was modified!!
>
> Regards
> Jeff

I remember in the past part of the illegal issue was that Import duty had
not been paid on them as they were illegal radios to own in the UK and
smuggled into the country. I wonder if this has an Import duty paid
certificate or does that not matter these days?

73'
Graham
(have plastic spoon, will travel)
--
-- ...-- -.-- ... ..-

Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life...

73/51 - Hem-Free (www.open-channel.co.uk)

Brian Reay

"Magnum M3" <magnum@mag2781.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:454e180c$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
> "Jeff" <jeff@local.host> wrote in message
> news:454e014b$0$1344$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere. com...
>> > Would someone really fake up a letter and use the RA logo then state
>> > its
>> > got an Ofcom letter of approval?
>> >
>>
>> It does seem a little pointless because once the set is modified it no
>> longer falls under the regulations, therefore no approval is required!!
>> It
>> was only illegal up until the point that it was modified. So it is
> perfectly
>> legal to sell it with or without a letter. Offences were only committed
>> before it was modified!!
>>
>> Regards
>> Jeff
>
> I remember in the past part of the illegal issue was that Import duty had
> not been paid on them as they were illegal radios to own in the UK and
> smuggled into the country. I wonder if this has an Import duty paid
> certificate or does that not matter these days?

I'd suspect that the cost of collecting such duty these days is uneconomic.
That does not, of course, justify the original importation.

--
73
Brian, G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk

Spike

Noggy wrote:

>Roger Muggleton wrote:
>> And please be careful what you ask of Ofcom. There is always a danger
>> that they might introduce some new regulation that will be detrimental
>> to amateurs in general. If something in the licence is vague or unclear,
>> let it remain that way, so that we can interpret it to our advantage.
>
>I see your point, but IMHO ignoring vague legalities would be foolhardy.
>Much better to seek clarification before the line is crossed - even if
>the clarification results in the confirmation of vagueness!
>
>The inference from what you say that there may well be a number of
>amateurs currently taking advantage of vague licencing conditions. I
>would suggest that they lobby to get those rules clarified, with the
>evidence of there being no current problems to their activities adding
>weight to their argument. Surely better that than being taken to court,
>loosing your licence and perhaps even your job...

To those who don't know how to work the system, no clarification is
possible; to those who do know how to work the system, no
clarification is necessary.

--
from
Aero Spike

zpk

Walt Davidson <g3nyy@despammed.com> wrote:

> If you have asked the licensing authority, what benefit do you expect
> to gain by repeating your questions here? Whatever anyone says here,
> the ruling of Ofcom is the only thing that matters.

perhaps he has spotted a loophole and wishes to start a
group-letter-writing-scheme ?

Steve Terry

"Ian Jackson" <IanJacksonRemoveThisBit@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ICu1TBuMaTFFwRq@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1hoayvb.x72i1l61f796N%muggers@gmail.com>, Roger Muggleton
> <muggers@gmail.com> writes
>>Dave <davenpat@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Back in the 80's, a special clause was introduced into the licence, which
> was intended specifically to forbid the modification of illegal
> (non-CB/81) for amateur use without first obtaining permission to own it.
<sniip>
>
Haven't noticed anyone mentioned it, but last week was the 25th anniversary
of CB27/81

Depressing isn't it

Steve Terry

Roger Muggleton

Spike <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote:

> To those who don't know how to work the system, no clarification is
> possible; to those who do know how to work the system, no
> clarification is necessary.

Quite!
If Ofcom don't like the way we interpret their rules, then they will
tighten them. It's highly unlikely that any court action would be
involved unless there is clear evidence of fundamental rules being
broken.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/i...tats/stats0506
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/i...tats/stats0405

show that there were no prosecutions over the last two years.

Noggy mentions the possibility of "loosing your licence". The looser the
licence conditions, the more experimentation is possible.

--
Roger.

zpk

"Steve Terry" <g4wwk@tesco.net> wrote:

> Haven't noticed anyone mentioned it, but last week was the 25th anniversary
> of CB27/81
>
> Depressing isn't it

the rsgb did.

Peter

Cross-posing removed to avoid flame wars (it's always risky to cross-post between CB and
Amateur groups).

"Noggy" <noggy@nowhere.com> wrote...
>
> I recently posed these questions (and a few others) to Ofcom. Any bets
> on what their answers are (if any)?

My guesses would be...

> 1. Given that full licence holders may legally construct, test and
> operate their own transmission equipment, is it legal to modify old
> ex-CB equipment (type approved or otherwise) for amateur use in the
> designated amateur bands?

Type approved, yes.
However, as it is no longer as approved for CB, you cannot use it on
CB frequencies after conversion.

Non type-approved, NO.

> 2. Is it legal for either a full amateur radio licence holder, or an
> unlicenced individual to possess non type approved CB transmission
> equipment? This scenario does not include the installation or operation
> of such equipment when in an unmodified state, but presumably, if Q1 is
> legal, there must be some time when the equipment is in the possession
> of an individual, but in an unmodified state.

No.
Possession of non-approved CB equipment is illegal. A licensed Amateur
caught with illegal CB equipment risks losing his licence.

> 3. If Q1 and Q2 are legal, is there any process for the radio to be
> assessed by Ofcom, or does the amateur operator have to obtain any
> exemption certificate relating to the converted equipment? Or is the
> onus on the individual to p