Glenn Baxter, K1MAN Fined $21,000

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by AA7BQ, Mar 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: FBNews-1
  1. AB8MA

    AB8MA Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    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. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  2. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Really?

    Does this help?

    Lee
    W6EM
     
  3. AB8MA

    AB8MA Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    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.
     
  4. N7YA

    N7YA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Heh heh...gotta love it!

    Give it time, we may be headed that way.
     
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    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
     
  6. W6EM

    W6EM Ham Member QRZ Page

    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
     
  7. K3VR

    K3VR Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  8. W4FJM

    W4FJM Ham Member QRZ Page

    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
     
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  10. K3VR

    K3VR Ham Member QRZ Page

    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page