FCC ISSUES $18,000 NAL TO KC5CSG

OUCH !
Laissez les bon temps roulez

But he kept his license

 

So far...

 

Status is "Active" according to the FCC info... why is it "Not listed by QRZ"?

 

Do we really want his type here on the "Zed" ?

 

Guilty until proven innocent eh? Even the FCC isn't sure enough to avoid the word "apparently" at least a dozen times in the NAL.

Sounds like comparing apples to bricks. Just because someone's a dick on the air doesn't automatically make them one in the forum.
Or, as we all know by now, vice-versa.

 

OT: "CW only since 1961"????

Well, how terribly terribly limiting.

I operated Morse code in the Army, and I was bored within a month.

It's a huge buffet, amateur radio. Don't restrict yourself to just one dish!

 

That's just the way they are phrased: all NALs are phrased that way. Heck, even the name is Notice of Apparent Liability. It wouldn't have gotten this far if they didn't have the evidence.

 

Which, by it's very nature, means he's not guilty until proven otherwise.

Why would a handful of people who have the power to kill a bio page even get involved? No amount of evidence matters if the end result is "Not Guilty" or a lesser charge.

 

We're you with the ASA ? - if so,... you must not have been a very competent intercept operator to have been bored after just a month. What did you do after they dumped you ? or,... maybe you didn't get your "Final TS/SI clearance"

 

If you want that person's address just go thru ULS.

If FRED and crew want to have the info off QRZed, and you feel otherwise, then show us why that judgement call is NOT correct.

Jamming is just unacceptable and the evidence is, as shown, overwhelming.

Fred made the right call.

 

If you don't have the volition to read that document, then at least consider this telling excerpt:

"At approximately 7:25 p.m. that day, the agent observed Mr. Materne enter his vehicle and drive to a location near a local amateur repeater, W5BII. At that location, Mr. Materne parked his car, and for the next 30 minutes began transmitting an amateur digital radio signal from a hand-held radio in his vehicle. The digital signal caused interference to W5BII and the ongoing net. 8 During this transmission, Mr. Materne did not provide his FCC-issued call sign. At approximately 8:00 p.m., the agent, accompanied by a deputy from the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office, approached Mr. Materne’s vehicle and asked to inspect his radios. The agent then interviewed Mr. Materne and inspected Mr. Materne’s amateur radio station. The agent confirmed that Mr. Materne had in his possession an amateur radio station capable of operating on 146.130 MHz. Audio recordings captured by the agent demonstrate that the intentional interference ceased as the agent and the Sheriff’s deputy approached Mr. Materne’s vehicle."

What's amazing to me is that we've been hounding the FCC to get rid of the jammer-trash. Now that the FCC is doing just that, we see complaints of due process and rush to judgement.

Ugh!

 

This reaction does not, unfortunately, surprise me. I, for one, am quite pleased by this NAL. We have had some issues here in central Indiana that would benefit from action such as this.

Frank

 

Alledgedly there is no other word in our vocabulary quite as vague as 'apparently'.

 

$18,000 ?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet ! ! !