[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <cu9152ta6bl7sttt102usl3k4i6scgq6h5@4ax.com> on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:19:10
-0400, Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:36:35 GMT, "BruceR" <br@NOhawaiiSPAM.com>
>wrote:

>Ahhh ok - I'd planned to do the work in the UK anyway so FCC wouldn't
>be involved. Certainly when I had the Pogo modified it was done in the
>UK, the hardware work was very simple - one chip was changed - and I
>took it to the USA and used it, no FCC involvement.

Gee, thanks.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:22:44 -0400, Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org>
wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:42:58 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <j30q42925d99n0gusa5cmikam4u1prb6r4@4ax.com> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:55:52
>>-0400, Mike Ross <mike@corestore.org> wrote:
>>
>>>I like the very early Motorola 'brick' GSM phones, like the 3200, 2500
>>>- this kind of thing:
>>>
>>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=9126815358
>>>
>>>I have a few. I actually use them - they're great when I'm in the
>>>Highlands - the extra power really does help the range. Unfortunately
>>>I spend most of the year in the USA. GSM came much later to the USA,
>>>and AFAIK these big old beasts were never sold here.
>>>
>>>What's the prospects of changing the frequency - actually getting in
>>>with a soldering iron and changing oscillators or whatever - on one of
>>>these to US frequencies? Or is there more to it - not just a frequency
>>>change but software too, different signalling protocols or something?
>>
>>It's neither legal nor practical to do that.
>
>I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't know if it
>was or wasn't, that's why I asked the question. I had hoped it would
>be practical - I have a Pogo which was modified to work on American
>frequencies. But why should it be illegal?
Because current FCC regulations prohibit anyone other than those
specically authorized from modifying mobile phones. It violates the
type acceptance. It also prevents cloning of AMPS phones.
>
>>>Or can someone tell me I'm wrong and there *were* 'brick' GSM phones
>>>sold in the USA?
>>
>>Why not simply use a current phone with a booster amp?
>
>Nostalgia.
>
>Mike

You could likely do the same thing if you can source the parts. While
it's illegal to use ANY transmitter in the US that doesn't have FCC
approval and generates more than 100mw, you would "get away with it" as
long as the device didn't cause any problems. The FCC finds it far more
profitable and entertaining to concern itself with millisecond glimpses
of nipples than milliwatts of radiated cellphone power.


> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 03:36:35 GMT, "BruceR" <br@NOhawaiiSPAM.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't know if it
>>> was or wasn't, that's why I asked the question. I had hoped it would
>>> be practical - I have a Pogo which was modified to work on American
>>> frequencies. But why should it be illegal?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> In the US the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not allow
>> modifications to transmitters without testing and approval. While
>> doing a one off wouldn't require that you go through ALL the hoops,
>> there would be enough to make it more expensive and inconvenient
>> than the nostalgia would likely be worth.
>
> Ahhh ok - I'd planned to do the work in the UK anyway so FCC wouldn't
> be involved. Certainly when I had the Pogo modified it was done in the
> UK, the hardware work was very simple - one chip was changed - and I
> took it to the USA and used it, no FCC involvement.
>
> Mike

"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:vh305212q26jl1n5b4h1ult1rlbo456kda@4ax.com

[snip]

> I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't
> know if it was or wasn't, that's why I asked the
> question. I had hoped it would be practical - I have a
> Pogo which was modified to work on American frequencies.
> But why should it be illegal?

Because messing with radio transmitters unless you are authorised to do so
is illegal. In the UK it comes under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. In the
US the FCC have similar legislation in place, but I don't know offhand
what it's called. It's why you need to take an exam to hold a radio
amateur licence.

Ivor

"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:cu9152ta6bl7sttt102usl3k4i6scgq6h5@4ax.com

[snip]

> Ahhh ok - I'd planned to do the work in the UK anyway so
> FCC wouldn't be involved. Certainly when I had the Pogo
> modified it was done in the UK, the hardware work was
> very simple - one chip was changed - and I took it to the
> USA and used it, no FCC involvement.

It's irrelevant where you *modify* a transmitter, it's very relevant where
you *use* it.

Only licensed radio amateurs are allowed to tinker with transmitting
equipment without submitting it for type approval, and even then only when
it operates on licensed amateur bands.

Ivor

BruceR wrote:
> While
> it's illegal to use ANY transmitter in the US that doesn't have FCC
> approval and generates more than 100mw,

except equipment used in the Amateur Radio Service,

> you would "get away with it" as
> long as the device didn't cause any problems.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:16:11 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
>news:cu9152ta6bl7sttt102usl3k4i6scgq6h5@4ax.com
>
>[snip]
>
>> Ahhh ok - I'd planned to do the work in the UK anyway so
>> FCC wouldn't be involved. Certainly when I had the Pogo
>> modified it was done in the UK, the hardware work was
>> very simple - one chip was changed - and I took it to the
>> USA and used it, no FCC involvement.
>
>It's irrelevant where you *modify* a transmitter, it's very relevant where
>you *use* it.
>
>Only licensed radio amateurs are allowed to tinker with transmitting
>equipment without submitting it for type approval, and even then only when
>it operates on licensed amateur bands.

Interesting. The Pogo was modified by the manufacturer so that was
probably OK, but the Motorola I would do myself.

My background is computing, not communications... the concept of
requiring a 'license to hack' is foreign and offensive to me!

Thanks to all those who have replied.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:13:29 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>
>
>"Mike Ross" <mike@corestore.org> wrote in message
>news:vh305212q26jl1n5b4h1ult1rlbo456kda@4ax.com
>
>[snip]
>
>> I'm quite prepared to believe it's impractical - I didn't
>> know if it was or wasn't, that's why I asked the
>> question. I had hoped it would be practical - I have a
>> Pogo which was modified to work on American frequencies.
>> But why should it be illegal?
>
>Because messing with radio transmitters unless you are authorised to do so
>is illegal. In the UK it comes under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. In the
>US the FCC have similar legislation in place, but I don't know offhand
>what it's called. It's why you need to take an exam to hold a radio
>amateur licence.
>
>Ivor
>

Virtually all FCC authority comes from the Communications Act of 1934.
It has been amended a few times, but that's where it all came from in
the first place. As a result most Transmitter operations are
controlled by Part `15 of the FCC regulations.

>
> My background is computing, not communications... the concept of
> requiring a 'license to hack' is foreign and offensive to me!
>
> Thanks to all those who have replied.
>
> Mike

The reason for it is that someone who dosen't know what they're doing
could very well cause disruption and interference to others users.
Hacking your own computer or toaster won't affect others but hacking RF
transmitters could cause serious disruption to critical communications.
If you DO know what you're doing, then getting the license should be no
problem.

"BruceR" <br@NOhawaiiSPAM.com> wrote in message
newsTu4g.3536$yM.998@tornado.socal.rr.com
> > My background is computing, not communications... the
> > concept of requiring a 'license to hack' is foreign and
> > offensive to me! Thanks to all those who have replied.
> >
> > Mike
>
> The reason for it is that someone who dosen't know what
> they're doing could very well cause disruption and
> interference to others users. Hacking your own computer
> or toaster won't affect others but hacking RF
> transmitters could cause serious disruption to critical
> communications. If you DO know what you're doing, then
> getting the license should be no problem.

He still wouldn't be allowed a licence (license in the US) to use
non-type-approved equipment outside of amateur bands though.

Ivor