Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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: --- |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|