Amateur radio operator charged
Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Press Release: New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development


Amateur radio operator charged

Radio Spectrum Management recently prosecuted Amateur Radio Operator Alan
Potter, ZL3II, for transmitting outside the terms and conditions of the
General User Radio Licence for Amateur Radio Operators.

The radio spectrum is an important resource for New Zealand and a key part
of Radio Spectrum Management's work is to ensure responsible use of the
radio spectrum in a way that doesn't cause interference to other users.


All amateur radio operators are required to gain a qualification that covers
the risks and harmful effects of interference from their transmitting
equipment. This includes the risks associated with transmitting at high
power levels.
"As a qualified amateur operator, Mr Potter is well aware of the risks but
has chosen to ignore them", says Chris Brennan, Compliance Manager for Radio
Spectrum Management.

"This behaviour is unacceptable. Radio Spectrum Management are serious about
protecting the radio spectrum for all users; we are continually monitoring
and enforcing radio spectrum compliance, which includes prosecution when
necessary".

Radio Spectrum Management was alerted to a video Mr Potter posted on 'You
Tube', a well known online video sharing site, which showed his transmitter
operating at 3100 Watts. Operating at such high transmitting power is likely
to cause interference to, and disruption of, a range of other licensed radio
services in the local area.

Radio Spectrum Management's role is to protect the public good by ensuring
equipment capable of transmitting radio waves complies with the terms,
conditions and restrictions of radio licences and International standards
applicable in New Zealand.

Conviction and charge

Mr Potter was charged in the Christchurch District Court on 14 April. He was
found guilty of breaching section 113 of the Radiocommunications Act 1989.
He was fined $1,750 and $130 for costs, plus he has been required to forfeit
his radio equipment.

For the purposes of section 113, any person who erects, constructs,
establishes, maintains, or is in possession of any radio transmitter is
presumed to have used the radio transmitter. In this case, Mr Potter was
found in possession of radio transmitting equipment that was capable of
operating at a significantly higher power than the Amateur Radio Operators
General Licence allows.




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On May 25, 10:08�pm, K�HB wrote:
Amateur radio operator charged

Not just charged. He was found guilty, and fined almost $2000, plus
the equipment.

What I found most interesting was this:

For the purposes of section 113, any
person who erects, constructs,
establishes, maintains, or is in
possession of any radio transmitter is
presumed to have used the radio transmitter.
In this case, Mr Potter was
found in possession of radio transmitting
equipment that was capable of
operating at a significantly higher power
than the Amateur Radio Operators
General Licence allows.

They didn't have to prove he used it, just that he had it.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 5/27/2010 7:53 AM, N2EY wrote:
On May 25, 10:08�pm, wrote:
Amateur radio operator charged

Not just charged. He was found guilty, and fined almost $2000, plus
the equipment.

What I found most interesting was this:

For the purposes of section 113, any
person who erects, constructs,
establishes, maintains, or is in
possession of any radio transmitter is
presumed to have used the radio transmitter.
In this case, Mr Potter was
found in possession of radio transmitting
equipment that was capable of
operating at a significantly higher power
than the Amateur Radio Operators
General Licence allows.

They didn't have to prove he used it, just that he had it.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Though under the law there, and under selected laws here, possession is,
as they say 9/10ths (And enough to get conviction) (I might add the laws
here are not, far as I know, radio laws)

They had a You Tube Video of him actually using the transmitter at
several thousand watts..

Given that video,, Were I on a jury.. I'd say "Proved".. Even though I
know You Tube Videos are often faked.

On May 27, 7:53 am, N2EY wrote:
On May 25, 10:08 pm, K HB wrote:

Amateur radio operator charged

Not just charged. He was found guilty, and fined almost $2000, plus
the equipment.

What I found most interesting was this:

For the purposes of section 113, any
person who erects, constructs,
establishes, maintains, or is in
possession of any radio transmitter is
presumed to have used the radio transmitter.
In this case, Mr Potter was
found in possession of radio transmitting
equipment that was capable of
operating at a significantly higher power
than the Amateur Radio Operators
General Licence allows.

They didn't have to prove he used it, just that he had it.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

It's part of the spectrum between the non-type accepted equipment sold
at truck stops, and his amp. And since they did have proof, I'm cool
with that. I suppose that he could have faked the meter reading, but
then I'd also expect that he could show the method in which he faked
it. Either way, he's really not that clever a person.

This reminds me a bit of those guys that took their sports cars out on
the freeway with a video camera looking out the front window, showing
them cruising at 160 miles per hour or so. And that was the evidence
at their arrest hearing.

It's also why I'll never understand the criminal mind. In addition to
whatever thrill this guy got by operating well past the legal power
limit, he apparently has an equal need to provide the evidence against
himself to the world.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On 6/9/2010 9:15 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

It's part of the spectrum between the non-type accepted equipment sold
at truck stops, and his amp. And since they did have proof, I'm cool
with that. I suppose that he could have faked the meter reading, but
then I'd also expect that he could show the method in which he faked
it. Either way, he's really not that clever a person.

In Detroit, some years ago, there was a Mini Riot celebrating a win
(World Serries) by the Detroit Tigers (Baseball club)

A police car was overturned and as I recall (May be wrong) Set fire

A teen took a photo op, Him in a "Victory" stance either on or in front
of the police vehicle.

He was charged with damage to the patrol car, a Felony, and his defense
was "I just took advantage of the photo op, I had no part in the damage
to the car,, It was there and I just posed for the photo"

The judge said "You clame the fame, you get the blame" or words to that
effect and sentenced him to time for the crime.

(And yes, I like rhyme)

So, if he faked the meter reading.. Justice was served
IF he did not fake the meter reading, Justice was served.

In either case.. He clamed the fame, so he gets the blame.