In the opinion of many amateurs, K1MAN has proven to the FCC, and to the amateur community, time and time again, that he is not fit to remain an amateur radio licensee. Based on the FCC NAL sent to K1MAN, he apparently cannot be trusted to obey the rules set forth in Part 97.
The amateur licenses of K1MAN will expire on October 17, 2005. If and when K1MAN attempts to apply for license renewal, we hope you will join us by sending your comments on the PETITION TO DENY LICENSE RENEWAL to K1MAN.
Send comments in support of the Petition, to:
Keith Lamonica W7DXX 1009 Cedardale Drive Las Cruces NM 88005
Among the reasons for denial, you may include any of the allegations set forth in the numerous FCC letters to K1MAN, or items that you have personally observed about K1MAN's on-air behavior.
Let's do our part to help keep the airwaves clean, friendly, and orderly, for all of today's amateurs, and for the generations of amateurs that will come after us.
While I agree that the actions of K1MAN are not in the best interest of the Amateur Radio Service, and that things would be much better off without his transmissions, we must slow down and think about what he is causing. In other words, are you SURE that you are not playing into his hand?
It appears that he has found, - what he believes to be - some loopholes in the regulations. What if he causes a case to be heard, and thus closes some of those loopholes? He may very well then have the ammo he may want to go after the ARRL, forcing them off the air with their code practices and bulletins. I know this is just speculation, but .... consider it.
From another angle: Do we really want to appear that we are setting a precedent in that we can 'gang up' on somebody - even somebody whose actions are as obnoxious as K1MAN's ? Then forevermore, all of us run the risk of it happening to us. Think about it this way - look on www.qrz.com at some of the comments there. Doesn't it look like the general consensus is a.) Get him!... now! b.) What took so long? c.) Why only a $21,000 fine? d.) This action won't stop him! e.) All of the above
I propose that we take a step back and consider. I don't think we want to set a precedent. I prefer to think of the FCC's current action against him as one small step in the right direction. I really don't EXPECT this action to fix the problem. But I do think it is a step in the right direction.... and IF he doesn't straighten up right now, then this small step simply becomes more ammo to use against him. Think of it like an old steam locomotive.... it takes a while to get it moving, but when you do, it can really run over you!
I feel this method is safer for all of us in the long run, than a quicker strike against him now. Notice that I have not said that he does not deserve it. In my opinion, he does. But let's see you try to put all these conditions, events, actions, etc., etc., into some kind of black and white set of rules that are clear and fair to everybody, forever. It is hard to do! Besides, you'd probably wind up with just about what we have now anyway.
Myself - I think a good approach would be to let the FCC folks know that:
1.) I wish you'd taken action sooner, but I'm glad to see you finally set the wheels in motion. 2.) Please do not let this case fizzle out and die. It is important to us. 3.) We have been patient for a very long time. We will try to continue to be patient - it is just so much easier to be patient when we see something happening every once in a while. 4.) Thank you for your efforts in fixing this problem.
First, W1AW is not at issue at this time. This may change in the future but for now it is not part of the filing.
The only salient comment I have seen is the comparison of this petition effort to a "witch hunt". The cited fear is that any sufficient group of Hams can petition the FCC for a non-renewal of a license just because they disagree with a persons personal "observations". Indeed this is true. However, is this a witch hunt?
Even in good old Salem the victims were given a trial, of sorts. Here the "trial" is administered by the FCC which is a publicly supported department of the Government which we must respect, at least until the next election. The Hams that believe that this is a witch hunt are saying that the petition process (administered by the FCC) is flawed and we open the door to "roving gangs", of Hams seeking retribution against other Hams whom they may not like.
Certainly the Hams who fear the petition for non-renewal process should express those concerns and attempt to gather like minded folks to their cause. However, to simply dead-end the process with no mention of fixing the process is disingenuous. I would have more respect for Hams not participating in the petition process if they had an agenda that would fix any alleged wrongs in that process. Simply attaching a simplistic label to something is a very weak argument.
What is wrong with the petition process? What actions are needed to correct these problems? Where can I go to see the faults of the FCC petition process listed so that I may make an informed decision?
Answers to these questions should accompany any labeling of a process, or a person, instead of seeking support from people who blindly follow anyone with a catchy label.
Richard Boley N3HKN Delmont, PA
I do not know where THINGY comes from. It is a product of the forum software?
We can't let what MIGHT happen stop us from doing what is right. That is, holding Glenn or anyone else accountable for their actions.
Hams tend to be a generally accepting bunch. The fear of witch hunts has no foundation.
As laid out in the NAL, Glenn clearly has violated Part 97! Can anyone here tell me his advertizing has no monetary interest for him ?? Clearly a violation !!!!
Here in the Midwest he's clobbered many 75 meter qsos. Working 7290 Khz I've never had a qso destroyed by the ARRL's 9:45PM bulletin. It lasts 5 minutes max and contains only info directly related to amateur radio. The same CANNOT be said for Glenn.
ARRL transmissions do not meet the definition of "broadcasting" in that they are not aimed at the "General Public". Bulletin services to AMATEURS are listed in part 97 as permissable. Broadcasts to the general public, as K1MAN obviously is, is a violation.
I am not an ARRL member or even a supporter. In fact I think they stink. But the argument W1AW vs. K1MAN is a mute point by strict definition.
I'm not a big fan of the ARRL but just the same I am a member.
But have'nt you wondered about where their collective-heads really are???
I say that because if you remember back in 1967/68 the self-righteous ARRL wanted to further the HOBBY by taking away privileges from some (the majority) while also stiffening the testing and then later on in a 180 degree change of heart they "DUMB-DOWN ALL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS"!!!
That move in and of itself proved that the ARRL is not looking out for everybody!!!
But have'nt you wondered about where their collective-heads really are???
Sure I do !! But the issue raised comparing The Bastards BROADCASTS to the W1AW bulletin service and code practice is what I was addressing.
It appears the ARRL is at it again trying to squeeze the digital stuff in at the expense of others. But that's off topic !
But what I'd like to know from anyone out here is: "Does W1AW check the frequencies they use daily to make sure that they're not transmitting on top of a QSO already in progress wherever???
Yes... there is evidence to say they do. While talking with K4CR and others in the past on 7290 AM , I have heard W1AW 3 to 5 Khz above us with their 9:45PM Bulletins. Their published frequency is 7290 Khz. So its evident they do listen and adjust accordingly.
As one of the Scouts, I set up the day before on 14.270 for Jamboree on the Air. K1MAN came on the air on the hour with a prerecorded message. The next day, right in the middle of Jamboree, the same message came on at the same time. I simply moved down the band. A fairly rare location moved also and took time to talk to the Scouts individually ( asked not to be spotted on the DX Cluster). These guys probably set up a station for the next weekend which would cost more than 10 of us would make in a lifetime. They sent QSL cards to every Scout they worked, in care of the control operators. What a great example this was to the Scouts. When I heard that K1MAN was suing the Scouts for interferring with his bullentins, I personally wrote to FCC about the bad example he set for ham radio in general. The only thing the Scouters asked was for him to move up 10. They did not know they were talking to a station with no control operator present. I also asked local hams and 3 ARRL Clubs to send letters about his operating practices. Thanks for letting me vent again. When your petition has a number at FCC I will ask again for individuals and Clubs to write in your support. 73
Post by NO TO K1MAN on Jun 17, 2005 15:58:58 GMT -5
I have just arrived at our new QTH here in New Mexico. The furniture, computers, and my law office stuff will arrive tomorrow. Once unpacked and operational, I'll finish up my rough draft of the K1MAN Petition to Deny for you to look at and so you can offer your opinion as to format and content.
Post by NO TO K1MAN on Jun 19, 2005 21:33:59 GMT -5
I have the new servers about ready to go. I've been able to add the Front Page server extensions so that the on-line Comments can be submitted by visitors. I will assign no2k1man.com to 184.108.40.206.
If you wish, I could add an email server; email@example.com as an example. Anyone can have firstname.lastname@example.org AT NO COST TO THEM. Some folks may want to save money by dropping Their current email supplier and use @no2k1man.com.
K1MAN is a Public (pubic) Figure, according to Black's, and many cases I can cite. I will, however, add a "responsibility clause" on the home page so as to direct any questions to me.
I was working a station on 3890 kHz AM this evening (6-20-05) from 7:10 PM until 7:40 PM. K1MAN's carrier came on and completely wiped out our QSO! This seems to be another case of apparently wilful interference.
Then, as I listened to K1MAN, he began discussing his AARA credit card! He discussed his belief that the AARA credit card is better than ARRL's credit card, discussed the credit limit, the appearance of the card, and the fact that the holder's callsign is printed on the card. I wonder if this will be interpreted as a continuing violation of the FCC's rule against pecuniary interest?
I started receiving letters and cards today regarding the Petition to Deny License Renewal to K1MAN. It's great to see the Amateur community rallying behind this effort!