Somebody here, who I won't identify, chose to tear me apart on quibbles. Too bad that their quibbles are questionable...
Well I'm sorry to have offended you. Since you repeated many of the points I had previously made with some new inaccuracy I felt it was appropriate to weigh back in again. I didn't feel I was tearing you apart at all, in fact there were a number of your points that I explicitly supported.
-...Certain RF Frequency _Ranges_...
"Since we are dealing with vocabulary (and I love vocabulary) ranges of frequencies are called bands. Thus "the ham bands," "the marine bands," "the air bands," etc."
That was a doozy. The original wording in the the first documentation _was_ Ranges. Mainly everything above 200 Meters, near the top of what is _currently_ known as the "AM Broadcast Band". That limit got pushed up over time. Harmonically related "Ham Bands" came about much later than Marconi and his fixed frequency Commercial Stations, and no longer apply anyway; harmonically related RFI is no longer much of an issue in HF.
I would be grateful for a footnote or other reference on the official use of "Ranges" as other than a convenience. Perhaps the terminology was edited in my reference documents which date back only to 1932.
My reference to the harmonic relationship of pre-WARC ham bands was historical context for the tremendous freedom that hams have for construction and experimentation. I agree with you that harmonically related RFI is rarely an issue.
-The FCC keeps a loose eye on who uses what and where. They issue a "Type Acceptance" for a Transmitter or Transceiver that acknowledges that the Gear operates Legally on permitted frequencies, and that will not bother others too much off-frequency. The Reception parts aren't "Type Accepted" because simple Listening, with certain obscure exceptions, doesn't require Licensing.
"In most countries receiving is legal anywhere. In the US there are limitations on receiving cell phone communications. In the UK there are taxes on certain radio reception. In other countries there are outright proscriptions."
Yes, dammit. _Read_ what I said, especially that bit about "...with certain obscure exceptions...". Intercepting Cell Phone Communications _is_ obscure. I was giving historical context. There were reasons _why_ things are the way they are. Understanding those reasons makes understanding the underlying Regulations easier. As for what happens in other Countries... I will quote myself:
-Learn and abide by the applicable FCC Regulations, and when in Foreign Waters, learn those Regulations as well.
Ignoring the transition from Type Acceptance to Certification or a Declaration of Conformity (hardly a quibble but I didn't poke a stick at that) I was attempting to make several points that I clearly failed to make. First the rules vary from country to country which is important to a community that while dominated by Americans is quite international and which has members who sail in many places.
I suggest that the proscription on receiving cell phone transmissions is hardly obscure (although breaking that law has been difficult and expensive since the demise of AMPS). Now the National Radio Quiet Zone is obscure. *grin*
I was also taking exception to your statement that there is no certification of receivers and pointed to the labeling on many electronic devices including radio receivers, television sets, computers, microwave ovens (technically transmitters) and more.
-There are no Transceivers that are "Type Accepted" for both Marine and Ham usage in the US.
"This is disingenuous. There are marine MF/HF SSB(/CW/FSK/AM) type accepted radios that can be "opened" for use on the ham bands without subverting the type acceptance on the marine bands. The Icom IC-M802 is a good example."
This is _not_ disingenuous and again, taken out of Context. You are _not_ permitted to "open" up for Ham use. An FCC Licensed Technician _is_ permitted, as I implied elsewhere, but the process is more involved than snipping a Diode. To maintain "Type Acceptance", the Technician must _prove_ that the original specifications aren't degraded; his professional reputation depends on it. And this makes it Expensive. It is cheaper to buy a used Ham transceiver.
I really like ICOM gear; I have three of their Transceivers. The M802 is a ducky Rig, for Marine Frequency usage. For Ham Band usage, it's a turtle, limited in ability. I just don't get this "one box" attitude; these Rigs are now smaller than a Toaster. Have both. Horses for courses.
With the advent of microprocessor controlled radios sold internationally with somewhat different functionality the "snip a diode" approach or--in the case of newer radios like the M802--front panel control greatly eased the standard of proof that operation to specification in the certified service was not affected by a modification. I can't lay my hands on the FCC position paper on the subject at the moment so we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter until I can put a footnote on the reference.
-An Operator's Permit is required to use it. Only one Permit is required; anybody on board can share it.
"Also not strictly true. The RP license is not shared. The presumption is that the license holder is supervising operation. This is exactly analogous to the situation with supervised use of an Amateur Radio station."
Yup, strictly true. A good example is Ham Radio Clubs, where newbies are allowed to Operate under Direct Supervision. In Commercial Operations, say on the Marine Frequencies, (There are other Operations on other Frequencies...), there needs to be a Station License, and an Operator's Permit. The two are distinct, for a reason. Note that the Operator's Permit can cover an unlimited number of Installations, at an unlimited number of locations. Direct Supervision is _not_ required here. (I once held an Operator's Permit for a few dozen Transceivers; my main responsibilities were making sure that the Installations were done correctly, and that Maintenance was done on a regular basis, and that the paperwork was in order. I was not required to be a Nanny.)
I infer your cited experience was in broadcast. I don't believe that applies in the marine service. The restricted radio operators permit (RP) is supposed to be held by a present operator. It is certainly not shared, it is entirely the authority for the licensee. Now that doesn't mean that other people can't use the radio. They can, just as they can in the amateur radio service, when supervised. I will also strongly agree that the application of a license with no exam is silly but there are many silly laws and regulations. They are what they are.
I will also agree that in practice the presence of the RP holder is not something that is likely to be enforced against a recreational boater. You will note however that in the Merchant Service (to which marine radio service law and regulations apply) all deck officers have an RP. There is a similar requirement in the aeronautical service.
I chose to get an RP for my wife for Valentine's Day one year. She wasn't amused. Fortunately there were flowers and chocolate as well.
I will say that I have never despite a great many entries and exits to a wide range of countries and a lot of operating been asked to see any radio license. I know people look up my ham license on QRZ.com but that is not enforcement related. I suspect that the chances of getting a speeding ticket for driving 2 mph over the speed limit are higher than an enforcement action (outside amateur radio service which is quite self regulating) for not having radio licenses for recreational boating in order.
"Your historical perspective on Marconi is a bit off the mark. Selectivity at the time was a real issue (it didn't exist) and the wideband characteristics of spark gap transmitters (remember everything was CW (Morse Code) at the time) were extreme."
CW didn't stand for Morse Code, (Which wasn't Morse's Code anyway...), but for "Continuous Wave". With CW, you don't hear buzz-bi-buzz-buzz, but perhaps boop-bip-boop-boop. Most, but not all of the early Spark stations... buzzed. Quite good Selectivity existed pre-WWI, but the hash created by Spark Stations made it _relatively_ unimportant. Moderate Selectivity in a TRF Receiver sufficed. In any event, hundreds of Stations could operate at the same time in the range of frequencies then available, and experimental Voice Broadcasts by "Doc" Herrold started in 1912, using a variation of the Poulsen Arc _CW_ Transmitter, which was "Clean".
What made thousands, and then tens of thousands, simultaneous communications possible was Fleming's _Electron_ Valve, and the incredibly rapid advances in the new field of _Electronics_ that followed.
Of course CW isn't Morse Code. I was taking a short cut for those in the cheap seats. *grin* Equating them is like the inappropriate equating of the term "SSB" for marine MF/HF bands, even when using CW or FSK on those bands. "Please fax this manifest to the home office on the SSB." Ha!
I suspect however that you have a better grip on some of the historical details of radio than I. I detect some usage patterns that make me think of RTTY using Model 33 teletypes (I had one but I was 15) and perhaps a license history that includes license exams that required drawing circuits (did that) and short essays (heard about that).
I don't think we are actually that far apart. Ultimately we both intend to help others, and I believe we both want to have our facts straight. We all take shortcuts in communication and which are "okay" and which are "wrong" is a judgment call.
I ask you to take on faith that I bear no personal animus and am only motivated to get good information out to the cruising community. I know I have a tendency to be pedantic. Ask me what time it is and before I tell you how to build a watch I will talk about mining the ore and machining an appropriate timing crystal.
Once again I meant no offense and apologize for that taken.
Now if you would like to open a summer school we could work together on that. *grin*