Paul W. Schleck wrote:

With respect to the previous question about "Who cares?" I, and many
others, care about protecting public resources like radio spectrum. I,
and many others, are greatly concerned that public safety officials and
auxiliary volunteers are able to do their jobs, and make use of vital
tools like communications equipment, without interference.

I'm one of those concerned others.

The
individual being sentenced was a persistent, serious, repeat offender
who targeted both amateur and professional radio frequencies, likely
with a drug or alcohol problem considering the judge's order for him to
enter rehab. Taking a radio microphone out of his hands for at least
another 7 years should be good news to any serious, law-abiding, radio
amateur, as well as any other concerned citizen.

To me it's a mixed bag...

It's definitely good news that such an offender has been taken off the
air and received serious penalties.

But it's less-than-good news that it took so long for it to happen. The
deliberate and malicious interference to amateurs was going on for
*years*, and was extensively documented and reported. The interference
to other radio services was, IMO, the last straw - but even those
incidents weren't recent. Perhaps the FCC and law enforcement proceeded
as slowly and carefully as they did in order to build an absolutely
air-tight case, with stiff penalties and a clear precedent. I hope that
is the case.

It's also less-than-good news that the offender was a licensed radio
amateur. While *we* all know that he's a rare case, and that the
efforts of other radio amateurs were a big part of getting him
convicted, the general image to the public may be less clear. We need
good publicity for amateur radio, not 'Radio Ham Runs Amok On The Air,
Interferes With Army and Police' headlines. (not an actual headline,
but you see the point).

How do we deal with similar cases in the future?

73 de Jim, N2EY