Glenn Baxter, K1MAN Fined $21,000

Chip did not do any name calling. He did not call you stupid.

For heavon sake, when Chip said "That is stupid", he was just thinking out loud. You should know that by now.

Actually, it was a complement. Relax. You made Chip think.

 

Really?

Does this help?

Lee
W6EM

 

Ya I heard that.

You bit, didn't you.

Don't do that. You did exactly what he wanted you to do.

Chip is a good guy. I don't particularly like him, but I am sure that does not bother him much.

And believe me, I have bit myself.

 

Heh heh...gotta love it!

Give it time, we may be headed that way.

 

Brian,

I think we are heading into a new era of (reasonable) enforcement.

The world being what it is, today, radio, wireless and the ham bands pose tough challenges for keeping people and things safe.

The NICE thing about the ham bands--one of many--is that we are self-policing and very self-reporting. We are basically thousands of sets of ears cruising to report infractions. It is a useful speculation that this has prevented the ham bands from being used in, well, nefarious ways.

However, without some muscle, it's pretty easy for us to get discouraged in this 'self-' process, and I think the FCC understands this.

I know it's frustrating to **lead** them to enforcement, but I feel that these efforts--including your efforts--will bear fruit in ways we aren't anticipating in the coming years...

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Brian:  At least the Petition is on the FCC's ECFS.  Here's the link:W5YI-Petition to Eliminate HF Broadcassting

Here is his response to ARRL and other Commenters:W5YI-Reply Comments


One of genuine interest and relevance to the matter-at-hand.  My purposeful misspelling conveys how I feel about the subject.  Brian, you certainly know my thoughts.

Without yet having read the ARRL or Baxter Comments, I fully agree with W5YI's Petition.  Broadcasting should have been eliminated below 30MHz, for the examples he offered in the brief.  Now, those examples take on even more relevance.  And, this item will no doubt be of interest to any Courts considering the Forfeiture Order.

The examples that Baxter has provided the FCC, together with the ARRL's mention of its website in its broadcasts provide yet another dimension to the argument to restrict broadcasting of anything, including, sadly, code practice.  Even that activity can be, strike that, has been demonstrated to be, I believe, a bit abusive.  All in the interest of  "education" of the amateur population.

As Maia stated in his Petition, the Internet and computer software now provide convenient and efficient means for learning the Morse Code, for those that desire to do so and may not yet have a license permitting on-air transmissions.

I'd even propose going one step further than Maia did:  Strike 97.113(d), the clause that permits club station operators to be paid for broadcasting operation.  If ARNewsline can be shared on VHF and UHF repeaters without any operators being paid, then, so can code practice and anything else relevant as an Information Bulletin.  W1AW should be a club station for visiting members to operate should they drop by Newington.

Now, how can this Petition be introduced to the Court in its consideration of the definition of broadcasting should Baxter apppeal his monetary extraction?

Lee
W6EM

 

Lee,

Thanks for finding Fred's petition online! As you can see, not only was Fred correct vis a vis the arguing and mess involved with the bulletin in question, but the problems he discussed continued for another 11 years before Baxter finally received his Forfeiture Order. Baxter's NAL's in 1990 and 1991 were dismissed because they were incorrectly calculated. It's interesting to note they were never correctly recalculated and reinstated. Why... Who knows?

The ARRL's comments on Fred's petition were particularly instructive. They mentioned the FCC's dismal enforcement record and said that if the FCC would simply enforce the rules, the problems Fred mentioned in his petition would not exist. They went on to defend W1AW's history of helping amateurs learn Morse code and the fact that W1AW's bulletins were not the subject of a single complaint.

Baxter was his usually charming self in his comments. His thought process was "interesting" to say the least.

Chip,

From what I've been able to discern from public records, the enforcement success Riley has been able to achieve is due to his proven ability to negotiate compliance. It's certainly not due to an efficient, or particularly organized, or effective process at the FCC. I think we can safely say the improvements in enforcement have come about as a result of Riley's talent, combined with the omnipresent threat of very large fines.

By negotiation, I mean that Riley has been able to contact alleged violators directly, effecting a compromise. Typically it goes like this: "We have monitoring evidence that you've done thus and such. Fines usually range in the $10,000 range, however, we would be willing to accept a period of 3 years off HF, or 5 years off the XYZ reeater system, or the cancellation of your license as a means to resolve this matter."

Most people have responded favorably to this kind of negotiation process. Riley's methods have probably saved the taxpayer a ton of $$$ in court costs since he became the "Enforcer" and the bands are noticeably better off since he took his current position.

However, when faced with a Glenn Baxter, Jack Gerritsen, William Flippo, Kevin Mitnick, or a Herb Schoenbaum, the FCC is forced to use the court system to regulate behavior. At that point, the matter is out of Riley's hands and the "process" begins. Herb was on the air for years while the matter was in the courts and he ended up with his license in the end, despite a felony conviction, because he devoted time and a considerable amount of money to the battle. Mitnick also had a felony conviction. He spent $16,000 in legal fees, and he prevailed and was able to retain his license by showing (like Schoenbaum) that he had rehabilitated himself.

My point is, the NAL and Forfeiture collection procedure can take a very long time, and the FCC has the ability to reduce the fine or negotiate a settlement at any point, right up until the moment a jury makes a decision. After that it's all over, but getting to that point is a long and arduous process.

I'd like to find out how often the actual Forfeiture amounts are collected, how often they're reduced, and how often the matters go to court. I'd also like to find out how often the FCC prevails when it does go to court.

 

I keep trying to back out of this thing, but I still feel somewhat misunderstood. For K3VR, your analogies of Glen's thought processes, extreme as they may be, actually support my statement. Case and point: Did Hitler one day sit down and say, "I want to destroy Germany, Europe and someday the world, and be remembered as the biggest b*stard in history!" ? The jammers, however, suffer from no such sense of self-delusion. They are clearly aware of what they are doing. That is why I hold them in less esteem than I ever would for Glen. And as far as jaaming the boy scouts, were they not aware of the eventuality of the K1MAN transmissions? There are other frequencies on 20 meters beside 14.275.

73

 

One would hope that the process will be streamlined, and allow for immediate incarceration for some obvious violations. Extrapolating from what one sees on the daily news, I suspect that we will see that happen (that is, the violations). But I hope I'm wrong.

The transgressions you mention might be considered as 'test cases' for future enforcement. Basically, you've made it easier to justify the streamlining, IMO.

Congrats."-)

BTW, if one wants the 'thousand sets of ears', one has to make sure the follow-through works.

 

Frank,

I agree with you. I think we all do. The jammers are violators and they know they are breaking the rules when they jam. No arguments there.

Do you still feel misunderstood?

 

Chip,

Key words: "One would hope." Rules changes require a NPRM and a comment period, etc., ad nauseum. And for streamlining to take place there would have to be a public outcry for reform, backed by Congress. In fact, I think Congress asked the FCC to downsize and modernize several years ago. They're probably still performing the time study.

You said, "If one wants the 'thousand sets of ears', one has to make sure the follow-through works." That's for sure. I've spoken to many, many hams who told me, we've been complaining for 20 years, nothing has happened and nothing will happen, but feel free to write and monitor and send in tape recordings and signed complaints. I first contacted Riley in 2002. He was receptive. Four years later we're finally at a place where something seems to be happening.

What's required is a cultural change at the FCC. First, they'd have to decide a faster pace would be worth it, then they'd have to allocate resources to study the problems and come up with suggestions to resolve those problems. Actually, strike that last; first they'd need to acknowledge a problem.

You've worked with large bureaucratic institutions so you know the Herculean effort required to get a water cooler installed. Streamlining a process in an organization as big as the FCC, in a low priority area like ham radio, where no real money is involved -- I think the chances of seeing change is about as likely Santa bringing me one of those big new Alpha amplifiers next Christmas. But, you're right, one can always hope.

 

Misunderstood? Always was and probably always will be, OM, but that's another story. lol.

To wrap up, all I was saying is it's one thing to think you are doing something constructive even if it backfires, and knowing that what you are doing is simply dead wrong. I am well aware of the rules of the amateur radio service regarding the fact that NOBODY owns any band, frequency, or time slots therein. Somebody needs to get this fact through to the jammers. It would not surprise me if these were some of the same people who jam the hurricane emergency nets, the maritime nets, etc., just because such operations dare to do something they don't like on "their" frequencies.

Anyway, 73, all. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this affair.

 

Frank,

Agreed. If we knew who the jammers were, we might be able to do something about them, but since they don't identify themselves, it's up to the FCC (or volunteers) to use direction finding equipment to track them down. They might not even be licensed hams for all we know.

Listen to 14.275 at around 6 PM Eastern time daily. A Canadian station (Baxter's co-host) frequently uses obscene language. His station sounds like hammered rat crap and he talks about the "Faggot Communications Commission" and "Riley's Bath House" a lot.  He also makes frequent references to "sucking" and "kneeling." He's usually on the air less than 5 minutes before the music and the white noise and the unidentified comments begin.

I understand the motivation behind the jamming. People want to prevent his idiocy from being heard so they try to drown him out. It's not right that the jammers do this, in fact it's illegal, but it is understandable. I liken it to a group of citizens shouting down a Klan spokesman at a public rally, except that it's happening on the radio. Again, I'm not saying I condone it, but I think I understand it.

 

Okay, well, anyway thanks for an interesting exchange of views on this thing. Didn't catch the handle. If I were in Glenn's shoes, I would have given up years ago. Even if my actions were 100 percent legal, if something I did generated such a firestorm, I would still cease and desist for the greater good of the amateur radio service. But that's just me.

73'

 

I agree Frank. If something I was doing generated dozens of complaints, or even a few legitimate complaints, I'd have to look at what I was doing -- and I surely wouldn't continue doing it after being contacted by the Commission. That's just asking for trouble.

Brian