"Splinter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:36:37 -0500, QrZdoTKoM QrZdoTKoM@QrZdoTKoM
wrote:

. . . ., and that Glen Baxter should take a hike.
--
Dan, KD8AGU


Dan - While I agree with the thought, I do need to correct you. Baxter's
affected first name is spelled "Glenn." I.'m sure all the Glen's of this
world would appreciate the disassociation of their name with this rascal and
would like you to use the correct spelling of his name. Rest assured, we all
know of whom you are discussing, so the spelling is a trivial matter. I hope
this doesn't start a large number of court petitions for name changes from
Glenn to Glen after the FCC finally takes action and Baxter makes the news.

ak

If the FCC does that, then they need to head directly on over to W1AW,
and do the exact same.


Maybe I'm nieve(sp), but I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone
(that they can hear, there is a rule saying "listen before
you transmit"). Hams know to look up or down the band
if they don't find W1AW on the expected frequency.

Robert Casey wrote:


If the FCC does that, then they need to head directly on over to W1AW,
and do the exact same.


Maybe I'm nieve(sp), but I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone
(that they can hear, there is a rule saying "listen before
you transmit"). Hams know to look up or down the band
if they don't find W1AW on the expected frequency.

I've been in RTTY QSO, when W1AW came on, and wiped us out, so no, they
don't always listen.

The problem I have is there are about 3 to 6 so called "hams" that hang
around MAN's published frequencies waiting for his broadcast to start.
Then they start bitching about MAN QRM'ing them.

The main problem on 20M is Fat Ass Mikey ND8V, and dumb ass Bobbie
WD4AWO, not K1MAN.

Keep in mind, I DO NOT support K1MAN, but at the same time I damn sure
DO NOT support what the Tennessee Toilet Tick (WD4AWO) and the Kalamazoo
Cuckoo (ND8V) are doing either. If Mikey and friends don't like what is
going on, on 14.275, well like Fat Ass Mikey likes to say, "Turn the
damn dial".

In article et, Robert Casey
writes:

I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone

Look at the W1AW weekday schedule:

Simultaneous CW bulletins on 8 different frequencies 3 times a day

Simultaneous RTTY bulletins on 7 different frequencies twice a day

Simultaneous SSB bulletins on 8 different frequencies once a day

Simultaneous CW code practice on 8 different frequencies 4 times a day (except
Monday when it's only 3 times a day)

W1AW has scheduled transmissions for 44 hours a week.

73 de Jim, N2EY



W1AW transmits CW, RTTY and SSB bulletins

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
nk.net...


If the FCC does that, then they need to head directly on over to W1AW,
and do the exact same.


Maybe I'm nieve(sp), but I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone
(that they can hear, there is a rule saying "listen before
you transmit"). Hams know to look up or down the band
if they don't find W1AW on the expected frequency.

Bob - Perhaps the ARRL has an update to their position in 1988.
ak
-------------------------------
From ARRL to the Bermuda ham representative,
copied to Baxter, the IARU Secretary, and the FCC.

May 13, 1988
----------------------

Rather than wait to have you ask, I thought I should provide some
clarification of the letter dated May 4 that you have been sent by Glenn
Baxter, K1MAN.

Mr. Baxter states, "Our amateur broadcast practice 1s Identical to that of
W1AW." I believe he is referring to the practice of transmitting bulletins
without first ensuring that the frequencies to be used are clear of other
amateur communications. As has been discussed on occasion In QST, W1AW
transmits simultaneously on eight frequencies 1n as many amateur bands. The
bulletin transmitters are crystal-controlled, a limitation we hope will be
remedied shortly. The number of frequencies being used simultaneously, and
the technical limitations of the equipment now in use, make it impossible to
adjust the transmitter frequencies before a bulletin is to be transmitted;
the need to adhere to the published bulletin schedule precludes delaying the
broadcasts until the particular frequency is clear.

However, we are not unmindful of the need to minimize the impact of bulletin
transmissions upon ongoing amateur communications, particularly in the
crowded voice subbands. To that end, except in the event of a communications
emergency, voice bulletins are transmitted only twice a day by W1AW and are
limited to just a few minutes; the exact length of the bulletins depends on
the amount of news to be conveyed. Bulletins are not sent simply to fill out
a predetermined length of time.

I believe it 1s fair to say that our understanding of Section 97.113(d)(2)
of the FCC Rules is somewhat different from Mr. Baxter's. This Section,
which explains one of the exceptions to the general prohibition of
broadcasting in the Amateur Radio Service, provides that "Information
bulletins consisting solely of subject matter relating to amateur radio" are
not considered broadcasting. W1AW operations conform to a narrow
interpretation of this provision.

Accordingly, IARN and W1AW practice are far from "identical."

Finally, I should mention that there is no recent "FCC ruling" having any
relevance whatsoever to "frequency coordination" outside of the bands
available for repeater or auxiliary operation. It follows that no one has
"authority" to perform such coordination in the name of the FCC or, for that
matter, any other entity. Cooperation in the efficient use of the limited
amateur spectrum is essential, but by definition, cooperation is not a
one-way street.

73,
David Sumner, K1ZZ
ARRL Executive Vice President

I think James is saying that W1AW doesn't have to follow the rules;
too busy to be bothered.

IIRC there are special rules for club stations of clubs with
more than ten thousand members....

"Splinter" wrote in message
...
Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

(---cut)

A very good letter from RH to the AH in ME. (grin)

I get the distinct impression from reading
the letter that the Boston FCC Field Office will
be making a "dunkin doughnutz run" up to
Belgrade Lakes in the very near future.

Let's hope it's sooner rather than later and that they have
two or three U-Haul trucks in tow to collect some vintage
ham radio gear for bid a future GSA or similar auction venue.....

: )

"King Zulu" wrote in message
news:RLRmd.419221$D%.240350@attbi_s51...
-------------------------------
From ARRL to the Bermuda ham representative,
copied to Baxter, the IARU Secretary, and the FCC.

May 13, 1988
----------------------

Rather than wait to have you ask, I thought I should provide some
clarification of the letter dated May 4 that you have been sent by Glenn
Baxter, K1MAN.

Mr. Baxter states, "Our amateur broadcast practice 1s Identical to that of
W1AW." I believe he is referring to the practice of transmitting bulletins
without first ensuring that the frequencies to be used are clear of other
amateur communications.

For years I have observed/heard K1MAN transmit up to 30
Minutes prior to his "broadcast" using his unique brand
of "precursory frequency preemption". The specific method being
an announcement proclamation of: "IARN Bulletins, coming
up in 30 minutes...15 minutes...10 minutes....etc"
This practice noted above is nothing more than a thinly veiled
overt display of arrogant frequency capturing, performed by this
clown from Belgrade Lakes. (Baxter likely thinks that K1MAN
is a six-locomotive-on-the-point Norfolk Southern freight drag
with 400 coal cars in tow and he toots his big horn in advance
of every grade crossing. Perhaps this is not the best
example to equate him but U get the idea dear readers)

I believe it 1s fair to say that our understanding of Section 97.113(d)(2)
of the FCC Rules is somewhat different from Mr. Baxter's. This Section,
which explains one of the exceptions to the general prohibition of
broadcasting in the Amateur Radio Service, provides that "Information
bulletins consisting solely of subject matter relating to amateur radio"
are
not considered broadcasting. W1AW operations conform to a narrow
interpretation of this provision.

Accordingly, IARN and W1AW practice are far from "identical."

Agreed!

What many Hams / SWL's also curiously fail to
notice at first glance is that, on a consistent basis
greater than 50% (fifty percent!) of the 'program
content' of IARN H.F. Bulletin broadcasts consist
of material which is created by and produced by
sources OTHER THAN the IARN and k1man.

In any other media venue (apart from ham radio?)
this would be known as blatent plagiarism.

It really makes one wonder what Mr Baxter's true
alteriour motives are, concerning all this arcane
broadcasting he engages in. I seem to feel there
is more to this than just and over-inflated ego.
Who else or what other person in a healthy
mental mindset would pour so much
time and energy into such a goofy endeavor as
something like this?

Splinter wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:44:25 -0500, "Lloyd"
wrote:


"Splinter" wrote in message
. ..

Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

//drivelsnipped//




Are you familiar with USCFR 1011.4A sub r 8821.028b ?

Nevermind, it is obvious you are just another lightweight
who shoots his mouth on Usenet and doesn't have a clue.
ROTFLMAO!


73,

Lloyd


Excuse me, buddy...What you got against me? All I did was
post yet another enforcement letter from the FCC. That's in the
Public Record.

Keep posting them, it really gets ole lloyd's shorts in a knot.