Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Message-ID: <1850@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 89 02:45:24 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: very little
Lines: 40
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 553, message 9 of 9


In article <1781@accuvax.nwu.edu>, tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) writes:
 
> Regarding Doug Davis's comments, I am not aware of any scanner
> receiver manufacturers that limit coverage in the 46-49 MHz region.
 
> Also, Doug says that Radio Shack does not limit coverage in the 800
> MHz celluar area on their scanners.  Not true.  They started blocking
> these frequncies in their scanners even before passage of the ECPA,
> although the radios can be modified back to full coverage.  Some
> owners have reported that Radio Shack has refused to service these
> radios after the cellular mod has been made!  The mod consists of one
> clipped diode.
 
> [Moderator's Note: Actually, one diode (from D-12, I think) is clipped
> and re-inserted at D-9 to gain full 800 coverage as well as 68-88
> megs.  Unfortunatly, the scanner loses 30-50 megs in the process; but
> who cares?  And even losing 30-50, you can use the 'magic number'
> calculation to bring 46.61 => 46.97 back at 68.01 => 68.37 and 49.67
> => 49.99 back at 71.07 => 71.39. The IF is 10.7; just double it (21.4)
> and add to the desired frequency.  It isn't the best reception, but it
> works.  PT]

Followup note:  Not true!  In the PRO2004, all it took was a clipped diode
to restore cellular.  If it was re-inserted at D9, then you get 100
more memories.

I have the PRO2005, which just takes one clipped diode...nothing inserted
to get the cellular restored.

Neither mod causes you to lose any coverage in the 30-50 MHz range, or
anywhere else.


Tad Cook
tad@ssc.UUCP

 
[Moderator's Note: I was discussing the PRO-34; sorry this was not
made clear in the original message.   PT]