Which assertion is that? My contention since my very first comment has always been that messing around with radio transmission when you don't know what you're doing is dangerous. My anecdote was an illustration of what actually happened when incorrect transmission broke a system for real, how dangerous the situation became, and how difficult it was to fix.

Maybe you disagree but I think the fact that the cause of the incorrect transmission was a hardware fault in that particular anecdote is relevant only if we don't think a user with the ability to freely modify firmware as we were discussing could cause exactly the same effect either negligently or maliciously. Otherwise, the argument being made is merely that not many people actually modify firmware in dangerous ways, in which case I refer you to the nuclear analogy in my original comment.

The problem is, the kinds of problems caused by modification of the radio and a manufacturing mistake can be totally different and so things that you encountered you wouldn't see if someone simply modified it to operate on a different frequency. Therefore, your story which hinges on this difference not existing doesn't hold up.

Actually, if you had reconfigured a device badly and it had ended up signalling incorrectly on a network's control channel as a result, the situation I encountered is exactly what you would have seen on that day. Do you understand what a control channel is and why it is relevant here?

I'm thinking of if the radio had a component failure/missing and the wave it produced was either amplified or modified to be something like a square wave. It would be hard to do the latter with a simple software mod but easy with hardware.