|
FCC SHUTS DOWN the 'Boy Broadcaster" from ME
*** SAY GOODBYE TO K1MAN FOLKS !!!!! *** ENFORCEMENT: FCC SETS ASIDE K1MAN LICENSE RENEWAL (from the ARRL Letter ) The FCC has confirmed that the agency has set aside the license renewal application of Glenn Baxter, K1MAN, of Belgrade Lakes, Maine. This after routinely granting it on July 22nd. As previously reported, Baxter received a $21,000 Notice of Apparent Liability from the agency which has not yet been paid. His current license expires on October 18th. In years past, if a person contested fine and his or her license expired during the period when the matter was being adjudicted, that person could continue to operate until a final determination was made. That all changed in November of 2004 when the agency enacted the so-called "Red Light Rule" With the "Red Light Rule" in place, the FCC can decline to renew a license during the appeals process and order the person off the air once his or her current license expires. The agency's July 25th notice to K1MAN was signed by Tracy Simmons who is Associate Chief for Licensing Operations of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure. Division of the FCC. In it, the FCC says that the set aside is for enforcement review purposes. Whether or not the regulartory agency will invoke the Red Light rule in Baxter's case won't be known until after October 18th unless he pays the NAL or settles the matter in another way before that date. Back on November 1, 2004, the FCC's put its "Red Light" rule into effect. Under it, the agency must withhold action on applications and other requests for benefits when the applicant is shown in the FCC's database as being delinquent in non-tax debts owed to the Commission. This means that the regulatory agency will no longer accept applications from debtors, process their pending requests, or provide other benefits until the delinquency is resolved. To make this work the Commission checks its records against each application under that applicant's federal registration number. This, to determine if the applicant or any other entity using the same taxpayer identification number is delinquent in any debt owed to the Commission. If the Commission finds that the person to be a delinquent debtor, the request is "red lighted." The Commission then stops the processing and notifies the applicant that he or she has 30 days to either pay the debt or make arrangements for payment of the debt. If payment arrangements or correction of the records is not made, the Commission will dismiss the application or request. There are three extremely limited exceptions to this rule. First, if the applicant through an attorney files a timely administrative appeal or has contested the existence or amount of the debt, the debt will not be considered delinquent under the red light rule until the order in question is final. Also, the FCC will not consider it to be an immediate debt if the automatic stay provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code have been invoked and are deemed to be applicable in a given case. Lastly, the Commission will process applications for emergency or special temporary authority involving safety of life or property including national security emergencies. Other than these, the delinquent applicant either must pay up or take the chance of loosing his or her ability to continue on the air. ----------------------- "Herbie Baby is Number One !" |
"Maritime Phone Patcher" wrote in message roups.com... *** SAY GOODBYE TO K1MAN FOLKS !!!!! *** No one ever accused the FCC of acting hastily in this matter, did they? OM ================================================== = January 29, 2002 Mr. Glenn A. Baxter RR1 Box 779 Belgrade Lakes, ME 04918 Amateur Radio license K1MAN Dear Mr. Baxter: On May 14, 1999, after numerous complaints about your Amateur station regarding broadcasting, deliberate interference, failure to identify, poor signal quality and erratic starting and stopping times, personnel from the Boston office of the Commission monitored your station and attempted to inspect it. There was no one present at your station while it was transmitting on Amateur Service frequencies. The transmissions continued while Commission personnel went to your residence at 1 Long Point Road, but there was no one present there either. Again on May 15 while your station was transmitting, Commission personnel attempted an inspection but there was no one present. Since the Amateur Radio Service rules require that Amateur stations be under the control of a control operator, and that the control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the station, we requested by letter dated June 25, 1999, that you provide information to the Commission, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, regarding the operation of your Amateur station. You responded by letter dated July 25, 1999, but your response failed to provide the information we requested. We notified you of that fact by letter dated August 4, 1999, and detailed the inadequacies of your response. Specifically, you did not provide the name, address or phone number of the control operator for any of the "broadcasts" or "bulletins" such as prerecorded interviews, transmissions of answering machine responses, live interviews, or live, pre-recorded or automated station identifications transmitted by your station. Among other deficiencies of the response, you did not provide dates and times Amateur station K1MAN transmitted without a control operator. You also stated in your July 25, 1999 reply that you had not received our June 25 letter by certified mail and that our letter had "misrepresented itself as Certified Mail". We reminded you that you had signed the certified receipt for that letter, and we provided you with a copy of that certified receipt. You responded to our August 4 letter by letter dated August 24, 1999. During our review of the information you provided, your Amateur station ceased operation. As a result, we held our inquiry in abeyance. The U.S. District Court in Maine subsequently dismissed your lawsuit against the Commission, and dismissed your petition for reconsideration of that dismissal as well. You recently resumed operation of Amateur station K1MAN. In view of that resumption and the resulting complaints we are receiving about deliberate interference, threats against those who do not relinquish frequencies for your use or who would complain, or who have complained, erratic operation, broadcasting, unauthorized tape recording and broadcast of telephone conversations, business use of an Amateur station and lack of station control, we have resumed our inquiry into the operation of K1MAN. In reviewing your letter dated August 24, 1999, referenced above, and your actions subsequent to coming back on Amateur frequencies, it appears that your understanding of certain Amateur Radio Service rules may be incorrect. We will outline the apparent misunderstandings below. Amateur Station Control With regard to control of an Amateur station, your letter of August 24 indicated that the control device for your station was a "Radio Shack timer", and that the control points for the station were "the main power switch at the transmitter site" and at the location of the control operator, wherever that may be". You further stated that on the dates in question, May 14 and 15, 1999, you were the control operator and were in "both Belgrade Lakes and Augusta in either mobile or portable modes". Section 97.7 of the Commission's rules states that "when transmitting, each Amateur station must have a control operator". Section 97.105 states that "the control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the station, regardless of the type of control (emphasis added). Section 97.109 states that "each Amateur station must have at least one control point", and that the control operator must be at the control point when the station is locally controlled or remotely controlled. Section 97.7 further states that a control operator need not be at the control point if a station is automatically controlled. However, as Section 97.109 also explains, only stations specifically designated in Part 97, such as a space, repeater, beacon or auxiliary station, may be controlled automatically. There is no provision in Part 97 that allows an Amateur station transmitting information bulletins to be automatically controlled. In summary, your control of the station by a "Radio Shack timer" while you are absent from your Amateur station is a violation of the Commission's Rules. You were not in control of your station on May 14 and 15, 1999 while you were in "both Belgrade Lakes and Augusta in either mobile or portable modes". Your statement in your response that "K1MAN has never transmitted during the current license term without a control operator acting in full compliance with rules 97.105 and 97.109 as well as all other applicable FCC rules" is untrue. Simply put, to comply with Commission rules, you must be at the transmitter, or at the transmitter control point, every moment your station is transmitting, when your station is locally or remotely controlled. If the station is controlled by telecommand from the control point using a radio link, the frequencies used for telecommand must comply with the Section 97.201 requirements for an auxiliary station (may transmit only on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, except 219-220, 222-222.150, 431-433 and 435-438 MHz segments). Publishing a Transmitting Schedule & Interference It appears that you may be under the misconception that by publishing a transmitting schedule of K1MAN, you have certain rights under Commission rules regarding the control operator and frequency sharing requirements that you would not otherwise have. With regard to the requirement for a control operator, publishing a schedule does not relieve you of that requirement in any way whatsoever. Section 97.113(d) of the Amateur Radio rules states that by publishing a schedule of transmissions at least 30 days in advance, a control operator of a club station may accept compensation for the periods of time when the station is transmitting...information bulletins, providing certain additional conditions are met. Publishing a schedule of proposed transmissions, therefore, relates only to a club station control operator accepting compensation. We note that this is irrelevant to the operation of K1MAN because K1MAN is not a club station. Simply put, to the extent that you start your transmissions on top of ongoing communications of other amateur service stations, you will be engaging in deliberate interference, in violation of Section 97.101 of the Commission's rules. No amateur service frequency is assigned for the exclusive use of any station. Your publishing an intended transmission schedule does not exempt you from that rule. Threats to Complainants and Other Users Your sending "Felony Complaint Affidavits" to other Amateur Service licensees who complain or intend to complain of your operation, or who do not relinquish frequencies to you, was the subject of a Warning letter to you dated December 11, 2001. You have also been warned about such "Felony Complaint Affidavits" by the United States Attorney in Maine. The Commission will view any threats made by telephone, through the U.S. Mail or on radio frequencies to Amateur Radio licensees who file complaints with the Commission, or who do not relinquish frequencies for your use, as very serious. Broadcasting We also note that on your web site and in your radio transmissions, you refer to your transmissions variously as "broadcasts, programs, talk shows, bulletins, pre-recorded interviews" and so forth. We have received complaints that you have broadcast comedy shows and commercial messages. We caution you that Section 97.113(b) of the Amateur service rules prohibits amateur station from engaging in any form of broadcasting. Certain one-way transmissions, such as information bulletins, are allowed as specified in the rules. Tape Recording and Broadcasting Telephone Conversations We have received and have under review complaints that you have tape-recorded telephone conversations without the consent of the recorded party and that you have broadcast such tape recordings. We caution you that such recording without consent may be in violation of state or federal law. We will contact you under separate cover regarding those complaints. In summary, it is very important for you to understand that we will review all valid complaints concerning the operation of your Amateur station, and that Commission personnel will again inspect your station. The rules of the Amateur Service are straightforward and easy to understand. To the extent that you do not comply with Commission rules regarding the Amateur Radio Service, then to that extent enforcement action will be taken against your licenses. That enforcement action may include revocation of your station license, suspension of your operator license, a modification proceeding to restrict your operating privileges, or monetary forfeiture. It is also important for you to understand that if these matters are not resolved, your operator/primary station licenses will not be routinely renewed; but instead will be designated for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. In such a proceeding, you would have the burden of proof to show that your licenses should be renewed. |
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:44:43 -0400, "Maritime Phone Patcher"
wrote: As previously reported, Baxter received a $21,000 Notice of Apparent Liability from the agency which has not yet been paid. Of course it hasn't been "paid." You don't PAY an "apparent" liability. You pay it IF and WHEN when it becomes a fine. |
It ain't over until it's over.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 18:44:43 -0400, "Maritime Phone Patcher" wrote: *** SAY GOODBYE TO K1MAN FOLKS !!!!! *** ENFORCEMENT: FCC SETS ASIDE K1MAN LICENSE RENEWAL (from the ARRL Letter ) The FCC has confirmed that the agency has set aside the license renewal application of Glenn Baxter, K1MAN, of Belgrade Lakes, Maine. This after routinely granting it on July 22nd. As previously reported, Baxter received a $21,000 Notice of Apparent Liability from the agency which has not yet been paid. His current license expires on October 18th. In years past, if a person contested fine and his or her license expired during the period when the matter was being adjudicted, that person could continue to operate until a final determination was made. That all changed in November of 2004 when the agency enacted the so-called "Red Light Rule" With the "Red Light Rule" in place, the FCC can decline to renew a license during the appeals process and order the person off the air once his or her current license expires. The agency's July 25th notice to K1MAN was signed by Tracy Simmons who is Associate Chief for Licensing Operations of the Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure. Division of the FCC. In it, the FCC says that the set aside is for enforcement review purposes. Whether or not the regulartory agency will invoke the Red Light rule in Baxter's case won't be known until after October 18th unless he pays the NAL or settles the matter in another way before that date. Back on November 1, 2004, the FCC's put its "Red Light" rule into effect. Under it, the agency must withhold action on applications and other requests for benefits when the applicant is shown in the FCC's database as being delinquent in non-tax debts owed to the Commission. This means that the regulatory agency will no longer accept applications from debtors, process their pending requests, or provide other benefits until the delinquency is resolved. To make this work the Commission checks its records against each application under that applicant's federal registration number. This, to determine if the applicant or any other entity using the same taxpayer identification number is delinquent in any debt owed to the Commission. If the Commission finds that the person to be a delinquent debtor, the request is "red lighted." The Commission then stops the processing and notifies the applicant that he or she has 30 days to either pay the debt or make arrangements for payment of the debt. If payment arrangements or correction of the records is not made, the Commission will dismiss the application or request. There are three extremely limited exceptions to this rule. First, if the applicant through an attorney files a timely administrative appeal or has contested the existence or amount of the debt, the debt will not be considered delinquent under the red light rule until the order in question is final. Also, the FCC will not consider it to be an immediate debt if the automatic stay provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code have been invoked and are deemed to be applicable in a given case. Lastly, the Commission will process applications for emergency or special temporary authority involving safety of life or property including national security emergencies. Other than these, the delinquent applicant either must pay up or take the chance of loosing his or her ability to continue on the air. ----------------------- "Herbie Baby is Number One !" |
It isn't over yet, there is a long process that the FCC and K1MAN has
to go through. including a hearing before an administrative law judge and the US Court of Appeal. Todd N9OGL |
Quote:
J.J. |
"Steve Silverwood" wrote in message ... However, his "broadcasting" days are about to come to a close -- owing to the FCC "red light rule" discussed in other threads, the setting aside of his renewal application is going to put him off the air at the expiration of his present license. If he continues transmitting after that date, he'll start racking up more fines for unlicensed operation.... If/when MAN goes OTA, you MAN haters will have nothing left to obsess over in your pointless lives, at least until you find a new target to fill the void in your empty existence. |
"Little Al" wrote in message ... "Steve Silverwood" wrote in message ... However, his "broadcasting" days are about to come to a close -- owing to the FCC "red light rule" discussed in other threads, the setting aside of his renewal application is going to put him off the air at the expiration of his present license. If he continues transmitting after that date, he'll start racking up more fines for unlicensed operation.... If/when MAN goes OTA, you MAN haters will have nothing left to obsess over in your pointless lives, at least until you find a new target to fill the void in your empty existence. where is he on the air now? what frequencies and times???? sounds to me like he's been off the air for a while now already. |
However, his "broadcasting" days are about to come to a close -- owing
to the FCC "red light rule" discussed in other threads, the setting aside of his renewal application is going to put him off the air at the expiration of his present license. If he continues transmitting after that date, he'll start racking up more fines for unlicensed operation.... Forget soap operas and "reality shows." This stuff is =way= more interesting. -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz |
Steve Silverwood wrote: In article .com, says... It isn't over yet, there is a long process that the FCC and K1MAN has to go through. including a hearing before an administrative law judge and the US Court of Appeal. However, his "broadcasting" days are about to come to a close -- owing to the FCC "red light rule" discussed in other threads, the setting aside of his renewal application is going to put him off the air at the expiration of his present license. If he continues transmitting after that date, he'll start racking up more fines for unlicensed operation.... Forget soap operas and "reality shows." This stuff is =way= more interesting. you need to watch better TV then -- -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: |
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:11:29 -0400, "Little Al"
wrote: "Steve Silverwood" wrote in message ... However, his "broadcasting" days are about to come to a close -- owing to the FCC "red light rule" discussed in other threads, the setting aside of his renewal application is going to put him off the air at the expiration of his present license. If he continues transmitting after that date, he'll start racking up more fines for unlicensed operation.... If/when MAN goes OTA, you MAN haters will have nothing left to obsess over in your pointless lives, at least until you find a new target to fill the void in your empty existence. Gee, you must be the group existentialist. |
"N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... However, his "broadcasting" days are about to come to a close -- owing to the FCC "red light rule" discussed in other threads, the setting aside of his renewal application is going to put him off the air at the expiration of his present license. If he continues transmitting after that date, he'll start racking up more fines for unlicensed operation.... Forget soap operas and "reality shows." This stuff is =way= more interesting. -- //Steve// Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS Fountain Valley, CA Email: It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz Remind me not to ask you for any legal advise. Dan/W4NTI |
Why, it's the truth, if he goes on the air without the license the FCC
will file a paper in the courts to shut him down and then he can challenge the FCC in the courts. Todd N9OGL |
Maritime Phone Patcher wrote: *** SAY GOODBYE TO K1MAN FOLKS !!!!! *** ENFORCEMENT: FCC SETS ASIDE K1MAN LICENSE RENEWAL (from the ARRL Letter ) As much as I would like to think the FCC will shut this guy down permanently, I don't really think they have gotten that much closer. K1MAN seems to be relatively fast on his feet because he knows how to stretch the administrative process and just ignore rulings. The FCC on the other hand seems to personify the hidebound federal agency that is so tied up in its own administrative process that it can only react sluggishly to violations of the law. I've always wondered if Baxter sits up nights listening to himself rebroadcast over and over and over. |
As if you would know anything, Toad.
|
"N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz Wayne Green had by far the best solution to the problem back in 1992: Wayne Green W2NSD/1 WGI Center Peterborough NH 03458 Sep. 13, 1992 "While I can appreciate your frustration with Baxter, which I share, your approach to disenfranchising him seems to indicate that you either do not read my editorials or at least don't remember them. I've God knows how many times been quite blunt about NOT annoying the FCC with our problems. That's not only a waste of time, it's downright dangerous... and can cause far more trouble than poor little Baxter. Please remember that we keep trying to convince the FCC that we are self-regulating. Note the term "self." If a few hams ever want to get rid of Baxter that's not all that difficult... and you don't even have to pay a hit man to clean off 14,275. All it takes is a little creativity and some coordinated effort. As a matter of fact it would be fun to wipe out Baxter. And you wouldn't even have to have a small group of like-minded hams drive to Maine with hack saws for his coax and tower or a concentrated campaign to turn his neighbors against him with propaganda. No, all it would take is a few hams with good signals and some coordination. I'm sure you can come up with much more fitting tortures for Baxter than anything I could dream up, but my mind turns to getting the channel about ten minutes before his broadcasts with my own anti-IARN broadcasts. I'll bet I could come up with some material which would burn Baxter, yet would not quite be actionable. Or I might tape one of his broadcasts and just repeat it as a "service" right on top of him and wipe him out. I've got as good a signal as anyone and I'm only a couple hundred miles from him. Knowing the love they have for him in Maine I'm sure you can find one, two or even three strong stations fairly near him to join in the effort to "help" him get his broadcasts out. Of course if you don't know anyone capable of outsmarting Baxter, then you have no choice but to give up and take up stamp collecting. Baxter may be loud, but I haven't yet seen any signs of a three digit IQ behind the mess he's been making for several years. If you do decide to actually do something instead of wasting your time on the FCC and ARRL, please let me know. " Cheers ... Wayne |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:00:31 GMT, "AMEN" wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message roups.com... It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz Wayne Green had by far the best solution to the problem back in 1992: This just shows how Wayne contradicts himself. Remember how he used to bitch about the mess on 14.313? Yet, he's advocating creating another mess under the guise of "self-policing"...and this is all coming from a guy who believes crackpot pseudo-scince, like electro-shock therapy, can cure AIDS, cancer, and even re-grow severed limbs. |
"Uncle Ted" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:00:31 GMT, "AMEN" wrote: Wayne Green had by far the best solution to the problem back in 1992: This just shows how Wayne contradicts himself. Remember how he used to bitch about the mess on 14.313? Yet, he's advocating creating another mess under the guise of "self-policing"...and this is all coming from a guy who believes crackpot pseudo-scince, like electro-shock therapy, can cure AIDS, cancer, and even re-grow severed limbs. If the FCC could ever be decisive, I would have to agree with you. |
Uncle Ted wrote:
This just shows how Wayne contradicts himself. Remember how he used to bitch about the mess on 14.313? Yet, he's advocating creating another mess under the guise of "self-policing"...and this is all coming from a guy who believes crackpot pseudo-scince, like electro-shock therapy, can cure AIDS, cancer, and even re-grow severed limbs. ....not to mention that he thinks the Apollo moon landings were faked. |
"Carter-K8VT" wrote in message . .. Uncle Ted wrote: This just shows how Wayne contradicts himself. Remember how he used to bitch about the mess on 14.313? Yet, he's advocating creating another mess under the guise of "self-policing"...and this is all coming from a guy who believes crackpot pseudo-scince, like electro-shock therapy, can cure AIDS, cancer, and even re-grow severed limbs. ...not to mention that he thinks the Apollo moon landings were faked. Well, you have a point. But I still like his hacksaw idea. |
It's never a good idea to use vigilante tactics to solve a problem. There
are rules for which all of us must abide. One of those rules is that we must not intentionally block or interfere with another transmission that is in progress. We must all share the frequencies in an orderly fashion. These are the rules. If we were to all ignore these rules and transmit whenever, however, and wherever we pleased, there would be mass chaos on most bands. The rules are structured and enforced by the FCC. I cannot condone any other approach to eliminating unruly examples like K1MAN--as frustrating as that approach may be. Wayne P. Muckleroy (KC8UIO) "AMEN" wrote in message news:j5iYe.357189$_o.126093@attbi_s71... "N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz Wayne Green had by far the best solution to the problem back in 1992: Wayne Green W2NSD/1 WGI Center Peterborough NH 03458 Sep. 13, 1992 "While I can appreciate your frustration with Baxter, which I share, your approach to disenfranchising him seems to indicate that you either do not read my editorials or at least don't remember them. I've God knows how many times been quite blunt about NOT annoying the FCC with our problems. That's not only a waste of time, it's downright dangerous... and can cause far more trouble than poor little Baxter. Please remember that we keep trying to convince the FCC that we are self-regulating. Note the term "self." If a few hams ever want to get rid of Baxter that's not all that difficult... and you don't even have to pay a hit man to clean off 14,275. All it takes is a little creativity and some coordinated effort. As a matter of fact it would be fun to wipe out Baxter. And you wouldn't even have to have a small group of like-minded hams drive to Maine with hack saws for his coax and tower or a concentrated campaign to turn his neighbors against him with propaganda. No, all it would take is a few hams with good signals and some coordination. I'm sure you can come up with much more fitting tortures for Baxter than anything I could dream up, but my mind turns to getting the channel about ten minutes before his broadcasts with my own anti-IARN broadcasts. I'll bet I could come up with some material which would burn Baxter, yet would not quite be actionable. Or I might tape one of his broadcasts and just repeat it as a "service" right on top of him and wipe him out. I've got as good a signal as anyone and I'm only a couple hundred miles from him. Knowing the love they have for him in Maine I'm sure you can find one, two or even three strong stations fairly near him to join in the effort to "help" him get his broadcasts out. Of course if you don't know anyone capable of outsmarting Baxter, then you have no choice but to give up and take up stamp collecting. Baxter may be loud, but I haven't yet seen any signs of a three digit IQ behind the mess he's been making for several years. If you do decide to actually do something instead of wasting your time on the FCC and ARRL, please let me know. " Cheers ... Wayne |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:16:00 GMT, "AMEN" said in
rec.radio.scanner: Well, you have a point. But I still like his hacksaw idea. A straight pin through the coax is more subtle - and a lot more difficult to diagnose. |
Wayne P. Muckleroy wrote: It's never a good idea to use vigilante tactics to solve a problem. There are rules for which all of us must abide. One of those rules is that we must not intentionally block or interfere with another transmission that is in progress. We must all share the frequencies in an orderly fashion. These are the rules. If we were to all ignore these rules and transmit whenever, however, and wherever we pleased, there would be mass chaos on most bands. The rules are structured and enforced by the FCC. I cannot condone any other approach to eliminating unruly examples like K1MAN--as frustrating as that approach may be. Wayne P. Muckleroy (KC8UIO) The rules should also apply to W1AW who has also caused malicious interference. The problem is W1AW is allowed to interfere with on going transmissions and K1MAN isn't. the rules should apply to all. One final note, rules are only valid until a court says otherwise. Todd N9OGL THE N9OGL SHOW 14.321.00 |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:24:38 -0400, Al Klein
wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:16:00 GMT, "AMEN" said in rec.radio.scanner: Well, you have a point. But I still like his hacksaw idea. A straight pin through the coax is more subtle - and a lot more difficult to diagnose. Maybe at one time, but many radio operators have taken steps to discourage such vandalism, such as running the coax via a path that is difficult to get to without being noticed. Besides, Baxter is probably someone that has video security around his station. Do you really think pinning his coax is something you actually think can feasibly be accomplished? |
Uncle Ted wrote:
This just shows how Wayne contradicts himself. Remember how he used to bitch about the mess on 14.313? Yet, he's advocating creating another mess under the guise of "self-policing"...and this is all coming from a guy who believes crackpot pseudo-scince, like electro-shock therapy, can cure AIDS, cancer, and even re-grow severed limbs. Obviously it couldn't cure stupid, as Wayne was a shining example. |
N9OGL wrote:
The rules should also apply to W1AW who has also caused malicious interference. The problem is W1AW is allowed to interfere with on going transmissions and K1MAN isn't. the rules should apply to all. One final note, rules are only valid until a court says otherwise. Still stupid as ever. Will you ever grow up? |
"Uncle Ted" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:24:38 -0400, Al Klein wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:16:00 GMT, "AMEN" said in rec.radio.scanner: Well, you have a point. But I still like his hacksaw idea. A straight pin through the coax is more subtle - and a lot more difficult to diagnose. Maybe at one time, but many radio operators have taken steps to discourage such vandalism, such as running the coax via a path that is difficult to get to without being noticed. Besides, Baxter is probably someone that has video security around his station. Do you really think pinning his coax is something you actually think can feasibly be accomplished? How about a grapple hook tied to a good strong truck, thrown quickly to the tower and it yanked down? "Possibly" done rather quickly and easily if one has a good throwing arm. OR how about a laser beam fired from a car on the street - using an AC Inverter for the power? Seriously though - if someone wanted to "really" take him or his transmitter out - it could be done. No one is safe in this day and age. Hang in there, the FCC will do it..... I've seen them bust others and haul all the equipment away - towers included. jm |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:58:57 -0400, Uncle Ted
said in rec.radio.scanner: On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:24:38 -0400, Al Klein wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:16:00 GMT, "AMEN" said in rec.radio.scanner: Well, you have a point. But I still like his hacksaw idea. A straight pin through the coax is more subtle - and a lot more difficult to diagnose. Maybe at one time, but many radio operators have taken steps to discourage such vandalism, such as running the coax via a path that is difficult to get to without being noticed. Besides, Baxter is probably someone that has video security around his station. Do you really think pinning his coax is something you actually think can feasibly be accomplished? If cutting it with a hacksaw can, yes. |
grow up
Barry OGrady wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:11:13 GMT, "Wayne P. Muckleroy" wrote: It's never a good idea to use vigilante tactics to solve a problem. There are rules for which all of us must abide. One of those rules is that we must never top post. no such rule there may be a convention, but no rule One of those rules is that we must not intentionally block or interfere with another transmission that is in progress. We must all share the frequencies in an orderly fashion. These are the rules. If we were to all ignore these rules and transmit whenever, however, and wherever we pleased, there would be mass chaos on most bands. The rules are structured and enforced by the FCC. I cannot condone any other approach to eliminating unruly examples like K1MAN--as frustrating as that approach may be. A: Top posting Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? not even even close Wayne P. Muckleroy (KC8UIO) "AMEN" wrote in message news:j5iYe.357189$_o.126093@attbi_s71... cut |
OK, so let's idolize K1DUDE and follow his example. We'll all start ignoring
the rules and do as we please as long as we can get away with it. Before long, all amateur bands would be reduced to a bunch of "Citizen's Bands." "N9OGL" wrote in message ups.com... Wayne P. Muckleroy wrote: It's never a good idea to use vigilante tactics to solve a problem. There are rules for which all of us must abide. One of those rules is that we must not intentionally block or interfere with another transmission that is in progress. We must all share the frequencies in an orderly fashion. These are the rules. If we were to all ignore these rules and transmit whenever, however, and wherever we pleased, there would be mass chaos on most bands. The rules are structured and enforced by the FCC. I cannot condone any other approach to eliminating unruly examples like K1MAN--as frustrating as that approach may be. Wayne P. Muckleroy (KC8UIO) The rules should also apply to W1AW who has also caused malicious interference. The problem is W1AW is allowed to interfere with on going transmissions and K1MAN isn't. the rules should apply to all. One final note, rules are only valid until a court says otherwise. Todd N9OGL THE N9OGL SHOW 14.321.00 |
What's a "top post" and what section of the FCC codes is that rule found?
Once I know this information, I will comply fully with the regulation. "Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:11:13 GMT, "Wayne P. Muckleroy" wrote: It's never a good idea to use vigilante tactics to solve a problem. There are rules for which all of us must abide. One of those rules is that we must never top post. One of those rules is that we must not intentionally block or interfere with another transmission that is in progress. We must all share the frequencies in an orderly fashion. These are the rules. If we were to all ignore these rules and transmit whenever, however, and wherever we pleased, there would be mass chaos on most bands. The rules are structured and enforced by the FCC. I cannot condone any other approach to eliminating unruly examples like K1MAN--as frustrating as that approach may be. A: Top posting Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? Wayne P. Muckleroy (KC8UIO) "AMEN" wrote in message news:j5iYe.357189$_o.126093@attbi_s71... "N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz Wayne Green had by far the best solution to the problem back in 1992: Wayne Green W2NSD/1 WGI Center Peterborough NH 03458 Sep. 13, 1992 "While I can appreciate your frustration with Baxter, which I share, your approach to disenfranchising him seems to indicate that you either do not read my editorials or at least don't remember them. I've God knows how many times been quite blunt about NOT annoying the FCC with our problems. That's not only a waste of time, it's downright dangerous... and can cause far more trouble than poor little Baxter. Please remember that we keep trying to convince the FCC that we are self-regulating. Note the term "self." If a few hams ever want to get rid of Baxter that's not all that difficult... and you don't even have to pay a hit man to clean off 14,275. All it takes is a little creativity and some coordinated effort. As a matter of fact it would be fun to wipe out Baxter. And you wouldn't even have to have a small group of like-minded hams drive to Maine with hack saws for his coax and tower or a concentrated campaign to turn his neighbors against him with propaganda. No, all it would take is a few hams with good signals and some coordination. I'm sure you can come up with much more fitting tortures for Baxter than anything I could dream up, but my mind turns to getting the channel about ten minutes before his broadcasts with my own anti-IARN broadcasts. I'll bet I could come up with some material which would burn Baxter, yet would not quite be actionable. Or I might tape one of his broadcasts and just repeat it as a "service" right on top of him and wipe him out. I've got as good a signal as anyone and I'm only a couple hundred miles from him. Knowing the love they have for him in Maine I'm sure you can find one, two or even three strong stations fairly near him to join in the effort to "help" him get his broadcasts out. Of course if you don't know anyone capable of outsmarting Baxter, then you have no choice but to give up and take up stamp collecting. Baxter may be loud, but I haven't yet seen any signs of a three digit IQ behind the mess he's been making for several years. If you do decide to actually do something instead of wasting your time on the FCC and ARRL, please let me know. " Cheers ... Wayne Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og |
Thanks, Barry, for the reminder.
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:11:13 GMT, "Wayne P. Muckleroy" wrote: It's never a good idea to use vigilante tactics to solve a problem. There are rules for which all of us must abide. One of those rules is that we must never top post. One of those rules is that we must not intentionally block or interfere with another transmission that is in progress. We must all share the frequencies in an orderly fashion. These are the rules. If we were to all ignore these rules and transmit whenever, however, and wherever we pleased, there would be mass chaos on most bands. The rules are structured and enforced by the FCC. I cannot condone any other approach to eliminating unruly examples like K1MAN--as frustrating as that approach may be. A: Top posting Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? Wayne P. Muckleroy (KC8UIO) "AMEN" wrote in message news:j5iYe.357189$_o.126093@attbi_s71... "N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz Wayne Green had by far the best solution to the problem back in 1992: Wayne Green W2NSD/1 WGI Center Peterborough NH 03458 Sep. 13, 1992 "While I can appreciate your frustration with Baxter, which I share, your approach to disenfranchising him seems to indicate that you either do not read my editorials or at least don't remember them. I've God knows how many times been quite blunt about NOT annoying the FCC with our problems. That's not only a waste of time, it's downright dangerous... and can cause far more trouble than poor little Baxter. Please remember that we keep trying to convince the FCC that we are self-regulating. Note the term "self." If a few hams ever want to get rid of Baxter that's not all that difficult... and you don't even have to pay a hit man to clean off 14,275. All it takes is a little creativity and some coordinated effort. As a matter of fact it would be fun to wipe out Baxter. And you wouldn't even have to have a small group of like-minded hams drive to Maine with hack saws for his coax and tower or a concentrated campaign to turn his neighbors against him with propaganda. No, all it would take is a few hams with good signals and some coordination. I'm sure you can come up with much more fitting tortures for Baxter than anything I could dream up, but my mind turns to getting the channel about ten minutes before his broadcasts with my own anti-IARN broadcasts. I'll bet I could come up with some material which would burn Baxter, yet would not quite be actionable. Or I might tape one of his broadcasts and just repeat it as a "service" right on top of him and wipe him out. I've got as good a signal as anyone and I'm only a couple hundred miles from him. Knowing the love they have for him in Maine I'm sure you can find one, two or even three strong stations fairly near him to join in the effort to "help" him get his broadcasts out. Of course if you don't know anyone capable of outsmarting Baxter, then you have no choice but to give up and take up stamp collecting. Baxter may be loud, but I haven't yet seen any signs of a three digit IQ behind the mess he's been making for several years. If you do decide to actually do something instead of wasting your time on the FCC and ARRL, please let me know. " Cheers ... Wayne Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og |
but has anyone actually heard k1man on the air in the last few months????
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... Thanks, Barry, for the reminder. "Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:11:13 GMT, "Wayne P. Muckleroy" wrote: It's never a good idea to use vigilante tactics to solve a problem. There are rules for which all of us must abide. One of those rules is that we must never top post. One of those rules is that we must not intentionally block or interfere with another transmission that is in progress. We must all share the frequencies in an orderly fashion. These are the rules. If we were to all ignore these rules and transmit whenever, however, and wherever we pleased, there would be mass chaos on most bands. The rules are structured and enforced by the FCC. I cannot condone any other approach to eliminating unruly examples like K1MAN--as frustrating as that approach may be. A: Top posting Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? Wayne P. Muckleroy (KC8UIO) "AMEN" wrote in message news:j5iYe.357189$_o.126093@attbi_s71... "N9OGL" wrote in message oups.com... It is FAR from over, after the FCC makes it's decision it goes to Court of Appeal where he can challenge the FCC rules and or decision. If he transmits, he will be unlicensed which can speed the process to the court systems like I said it's FAR from over. Todd N9OGL The N9OGL Show 14.321.00 Mhz Wayne Green had by far the best solution to the problem back in 1992: Wayne Green W2NSD/1 WGI Center Peterborough NH 03458 Sep. 13, 1992 "While I can appreciate your frustration with Baxter, which I share, your approach to disenfranchising him seems to indicate that you either do not read my editorials or at least don't remember them. I've God knows how many times been quite blunt about NOT annoying the FCC with our problems. That's not only a waste of time, it's downright dangerous... and can cause far more trouble than poor little Baxter. Please remember that we keep trying to convince the FCC that we are self-regulating. Note the term "self." If a few hams ever want to get rid of Baxter that's not all that difficult... and you don't even have to pay a hit man to clean off 14,275. All it takes is a little creativity and some coordinated effort. As a matter of fact it would be fun to wipe out Baxter. And you wouldn't even have to have a small group of like-minded hams drive to Maine with hack saws for his coax and tower or a concentrated campaign to turn his neighbors against him with propaganda. No, all it would take is a few hams with good signals and some coordination. I'm sure you can come up with much more fitting tortures for Baxter than anything I could dream up, but my mind turns to getting the channel about ten minutes before his broadcasts with my own anti-IARN broadcasts. I'll bet I could come up with some material which would burn Baxter, yet would not quite be actionable. Or I might tape one of his broadcasts and just repeat it as a "service" right on top of him and wipe him out. I've got as good a signal as anyone and I'm only a couple hundred miles from him. Knowing the love they have for him in Maine I'm sure you can find one, two or even three strong stations fairly near him to join in the effort to "help" him get his broadcasts out. Of course if you don't know anyone capable of outsmarting Baxter, then you have no choice but to give up and take up stamp collecting. Baxter may be loud, but I haven't yet seen any signs of a three digit IQ behind the mess he's been making for several years. If you do decide to actually do something instead of wasting your time on the FCC and ARRL, please let me know. " Cheers ... Wayne Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og |
your the one who's ****ing stupid asshole
|
"Dave" wrote in message ... but has anyone actually heard k1man on the air in the last few months???? You will - for ten more sad years, if the FCC ever renews his license. |
I don't sponge of my parents, try again asshole
|
i haven't heard him in quite a while, either on 75 or 20m... has anyone
else??? "AMEN" wrote in message news:9zYYe.359783$x96.294182@attbi_s72... "Dave" wrote in message ... but has anyone actually heard k1man on the air in the last few months???? You will - for ten more sad years, if the FCC ever renews his license. |
N9OGL wrote:
The rules should also apply to W1AW who has also caused malicious interference. Todd, If you substitute "incidental" or "unintentional" for your use of *malicious*, I might agree with your premise, at least on the surface. However... N9OGL wrote: The problem is W1AW is allowed to interfere with on going transmissions and K1MAN isn't. ....the only other thing that can be said in defense of W1AW is that it is a *national* organization representing tens of thousands of hams that is presumably "broadcasting" for the common good (and follows a regular, *published* schedule, allowing others to dodge the "interference" if they so wish), while K1MAN is a --single--private--individual-- who has had some peculiar (shady ?) pecuniary interests associated with his "broadcasts" in the past. -73- Carter K8VT |
N9OGL wrote:
your the one who's ****ing stupid asshole Aw toddieboy, you hurt my feelings. NOT!!! Still using your jr. high-school kewel language I see. Can you get any more stupid? Think you will ever grow up and stop sponging off your mommy and daddy? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com