Hello everyone, I see there is another discussion on K1MAN. I am
currently working on a petition to send to the FCC regarding K1MAN.
This petition is real not for K1MAN nor is it against him. I mainly
wish to bring some of my concerns and questions to the commission. I am
currently as I stated working on it but here is what I've got so far.

I. Broadcasting and Information Bulletins

1. N9OGL believes that the FCC should clarify the rules regarding
Information Bulletins and Broadcasting.
2. N9OGL questions the FCC decision regarding K1MAN "broadcast" was
this decision "content-neutral" and how does the decision conform
to Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 and the First
Amendment?

II. Pecuniary Interest

1. 97.113(a)(2) prohibits ANY amateur station from making money direct
or indirect from the amateur service. N9OGL questions while K1MAN made
money directly the ARRL and its W1AW is making money indirectly how is
one allowed to do it and another isn't?
2. What is the FCC definition of non-commercial radio? Because it seems
that the definition has an arbitrary assortment of definitions from one
service to the next.

Todd N9OGL

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello everyone, I see there is another discussion on K1MAN. I am
currently working on a petition to send to the FCC regarding K1MAN.

I have a much better idea Todd.
Just don't LISTEN to Glen Baxter and his bullcrap.
It's that simple.

Here's an example of what I mean. About 5 miles from my
home there is a wastewater treatment plant. When you get to
within 1/2 a mile of the plant it really starts to stink like shi+.
Stay away from it and you don't smell it. Same thing goes for
Baxter and his broadcasts. I know where "the stink" is on the
dial so I just stay away when he's on and as far as I am
concerned he does not even EXIST ! (wow! that's effective)

Just ignore the goofy ******* from Belgrade Lakes like
I do in the above example and he'll not only
go away eventually, but you'll not ever hear him also!

I have a much better idea Todd.
Just don't LISTEN to Glen Baxter and his bullcrap.
It's that simple.

Who said I wanted to stop listening??

Here's an example of what I mean. About 5 miles from my
home there is a wastewater treatment plant. When you get to
within 1/2 a mile of the plant it really starts to stink like shi+.
Stay away from it and you don't smell it. Same thing goes for
Baxter and his broadcasts. I know where "the stink" is on the
dial so I just stay away when he's on and as far as I am
concerned he does not even EXIST ! (wow! that's effective)

My problem is the definitions for information bulletin and broadcasting
are at lease vague. Something I hope to try and resolve.

Just ignore the goofy ******* from Belgrade Lakes like
I do in the above example and he'll not only
go away eventually, but you'll not ever hear him also!

I don't listen to him, I have my own bulletin station I run

Todd N9OGL

Any amateur radio station can run an information bulletin. My pet pea
with it is that the thin line between information bulletin and
broadcasting. An Information Bulletin is a message directed to amateur
radio operators consisting of subject matter of interest to amateur
radio. Many amateur's has taken it to be "a short, to the point
newscast" and that Information bulletins cannot be opinionated. First
there is nothing in the rules that state an information bulletin cannot
be opinionated; nor any rules that state an information bulletin has to
be a newscast. If there is a rule feel free to let me know which rule.
As for short and to the point the FCC in a warning letter to K1MAN
stated that there was no time limit on information bulletins as a
matter of fact a club station that runs a information bulletin or a
code practice transmission 40 hours a week (that's 8 hr. a day) may be
compensated (47 CFR 97.113=A9). The FCC on their website has also stated
that it is up to the station transmitting the bulletin to determine if
it is amateur interest. Which brings me to the FCC, the FCC is
prohibited from controling the content of any station, they are also
prohibited from regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed
by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech
by means of radio communication. (47 USC 326) (this however doesn't
apply to obscene and indecent material) So if one of the key points of
the NAL was the content of his transmission it has to be asked if the
FCC violated section 326 of the Communication Act. the courts has also
stated that the FCC is prohibited from making content based rules. I
also am going to bring up about the ARRL's W1AW and how it, like K1MAN
has also cause interference with on going communication and that it
should also be fined.

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
Any amateur radio station can run an information bulletin. My pet pea
with it is that the thin line between information bulletin and
broadcasting.

"peeve"

There's no "thin line".

It's either an "information bulletin" or it's broadcasting.

An Information Bulletin is a message directed to amateur
radio operators consisting of subject matter of interest to amateur
radio. Many amateur's has taken it to be "a short, to the point
newscast" and that Information bulletins cannot be opinionated.

Once it's "opinonated" it stops being an "information bulletin"
and becomes an editorial. Editorials are broadcasting.

First
there is nothing in the rules that state an information bulletin cannot
be opinionated;

Sure there is. Right where it says "information bulletin".

As soon as it's "opinionated" it stops being an "information
bulletin" and becomes an editorial. Editorials are broadcasting.

nor any rules that state an information bulletin has to be a newscast.

But an information bulletin has to have INFORMATION in it.

Once tainted by editorialization, it's no longer objective.

If there is a rule feel free to let me know which rule.

"97.1369 When in doubt about what constitutes an "information
bulletin" as opposed to a "broadcast", anything Todd McDaugherty says
is wrong."

As for short and to the point the FCC in a warning letter to K1MAN
stated that there was no time limit on information bulletins as a
matter of fact a club station that runs a information bulletin or a
code practice transmission 40 hours a week (that's 8 hr. a day) may be
compensated (47 CFR 97.113=A9). The FCC on their website has also stated
that it is up to the station transmitting the bulletin to determine if
it is amateur interest.

And one has to be relatively objective in what constitutes
"amateur interest".

Toiddie, the opinions of a foul mouthed, immature, basement
dwelling domestic parasite such as your self are of zero-point-squat
interest to the Amateur Radio service.

Set up 1000 blogs if you want to...Internet bandwidth is almost
limitless...Once your tripe hits the airwaves it's QRM.

Which brings me to the FCC, the FCC is
prohibited from controling the content of any station, they are also
prohibited from regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed
by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech
by means of radio communication. (47 USC 326) (this however doesn't
apply to obscene and indecent material)

Which in this case does not apply.

The only "content" issues were Baxter's pecuniary use of Amateur
Radio. Those are clearly within the FCC's purview to limit.

So if one of the key points of
the NAL was the content of his transmission it has to be asked if the
FCC violated section 326 of the Communication Act.

So ask. But ask the right people.

the courts has also
stated that the FCC is prohibited from making content based rules.

Again...You keep avoiding the fact that the FCC C L E A R L Y is
allowed to prohibit commerical use of the Amateur Service.

This isn't about Baxter discussing religious preferences or the
color of his wallpaper...

I also am going to bring up about the ARRL's W1AW and how it, like K1MAN
has also cause interference with on going communication and that it
should also be fined.

Do yourself a favor if you're serious...

Draft out your thoughts and then give them to someone else to
prepare. The use of a typewriter and lack of profanity might more
readily impress the FCC.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
Any amateur radio station can run an information bulletin. My pet pea
with it is that the thin line between information bulletin and
broadcasting.

"peeve"

There's no "thin line".

It's either an "information bulletin" or it's broadcasting.

such a inspired response by Stevie well done truely well done

the rules are vauge even you have admitted that

An Information Bulletin is a message directed to amateur
radio operators consisting of subject matter of interest to amateur
radio. Many amateur's has taken it to be "a short, to the point
newscast" and that Information bulletins cannot be opinionated.

Once it's "opinonated" it stops being an "information bulletin"
and becomes an editorial. Editorials are broadcasting.

according to whom?


First
there is nothing in the rules that state an information bulletin cannot
be opinionated;

Sure there is. Right where it says "information bulletin".

As soon as it's "opinionated" it stops being an "information
bulletin" and becomes an editorial. Editorials are broadcasting.

says who?

then Arrl is certain braodcasting at times by expressing opinions on
the air


nor any rules that state an information bulletin has to be a newscast.

But an information bulletin has to have INFORMATION in it.

indeed. Your point?


Once tainted by editorialization, it's no longer objective.

which means nothing

Nothing in the rules says anything on the air must be objective


If there is a rule feel free to let me know which rule.

"97.1369 When in doubt about what constitutes an "information
bulletin" as opposed to a "broadcast", anything Todd McDaugherty says
is wrong."

whose doubt Your?


As for short and to the point the FCC in a warning letter to K1MAN
stated that there was no time limit on information bulletins as a
matter of fact a club station that runs a information bulletin or a
code practice transmission 40 hours a week (that's 8 hr. a day) may be
compensated (47 CFR 97.113=A9). The FCC on their website has also stated
that it is up to the station transmitting the bulletin to determine if
it is amateur interest.

And one has to be relatively objective in what constitutes
"amateur interest".

where is Objectivity mentioned

cuting rant

Which brings me to the FCC, the FCC is
prohibited from controling the content of any station, they are also
prohibited from regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed
by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech
by means of radio communication. (47 USC 326) (this however doesn't
apply to obscene and indecent material)

Which in this case does not apply.

The only "content" issues were Baxter's pecuniary use of Amateur
Radio. Those are clearly within the FCC's purview to limit.

So if one of the key points of
the NAL was the content of his transmission it has to be asked if the
FCC violated section 326 of the Communication Act.

So ask. But ask the right people.

the courts has also
stated that the FCC is prohibited from making content based rules.

Again...You keep avoiding the fact that the FCC C L E A R L Y is
allowed to prohibit commerical use of the Amateur Service.
=20
cuting ranting

K4YZ said...
There's no "thin line".
It's either an "information bulletin" or it's broadcasting.

There's a BIG difference between an information bulletin and a
broadcast. A broadcast is directed to the general public as a whole
while an information Bulletin is directed to a small group.

Once it's "opinonated" it stops being an "information bulletin"
and becomes an editorial. Editorials are broadcasting.

Not necessary, You can get information out of an opinion, it's up to
the person hearing the opinion to determine if he go's along with that
train of thought.A good example is look at court cases, a ruling by a
court is not called a ruling but an opinion. At any rate Society is
based on two input General information and Opinions you can't just have
one.

But an information bulletin has to have INFORMATION in it.
Once tainted by editorialization, it's no longer objective

There is nothing in the FCC rules that stated that, Nor does the FCC
rules state that an Information Bulletin has to be a pure piece of
facts.
The Definition that YOU have given is the Genreral definition of the
word Information bulletin, However, It is NOT defined in the FCC rules.
The FCC has the power to define what a definition is in the rules, for
example the FCC can stated that an informational bulletin may only be a
bono fide newscast, but that is not what we see here. In other words
the FCC can limit what something is provided it the lease restrictive
means necessary to promote govenment interest.

"97.1369 When in doubt about what constitutes an "information
bulletin" as opposed to a "broadcast", anything Todd McDaugherty says
is wrong."

Your going to have to quote that rule for me steve, I looked in the
rules and couldn't find it. here's what I found

97.3(a)(10)

"(10) Broadcasting. Transmissions intended for reception by the general
public, either direct or relayed. "

97.3(a)(25)

"(25) Information bulletin. A message directed only to amateur
operators consisting solely of subject matter of direct interest to the
amateur service."

97.111(b)(6)

"(b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized
elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit the following
types of one-way communications:

(6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins; "

97.113(b)

"(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting,
nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications EXCEPT as
specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station
engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering
for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related
to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may
be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to
the public where no other means of communication is reasonably
available before or at the time of the event. " [EMP. ADDED]

But I didn't see the rule you stated.

And one has to be relatively objective in what constitutes
"amateur interest".

Toiddie, the opinions of a foul mouthed, immature, basement
dwelling domestic parasite such as your self are of zero-point-squat
interest to the Amateur Radio service.
Set up 1000 blogs if you want to...Internet bandwidth is almost
limitless...Once your tripe hits the airwaves it's QRM.

That's YOUR opinion, and who said I use profanity on the air??? I very
civil on the radio. As for as QRM, as long as I'm using a unused
frequency it's legal.

Which in this case does not apply.
The only "content" issues were Baxter's pecuniary use of Amateur
Radio. Those are clearly within the FCC's purview to limit

K1MAN would of been legal if he would of these things

1. pick an Unused frequency
2. didn't discuss or promote his website
3. remained at the control point.

appart from that his INFORMATION BULLETINS were legal.

Again...You keep avoiding the fact that the FCC C L E A R L Y is
allowed to prohibit commerical use of the Amateur Service.
This isn't about Baxter discussing religious preferences or the
color of his wallpaper

First the FCC over the last 10 to 15 years has allowed more commerical
use of the amateur radio service. The point of arguement isn't really
about "commercial use" but the other subject matter which the FCC has
over the last 15 to 20 years has question regarding general content of
the person transmitting the information. K1MAN is not only one the FCC
has gone after, they have gone after others not because of commercial
use but of use they felt could be used by other forums and media. Back
in the 90's the FCC went after BBS operators because of certain content
as well as other people. Commercial use isn't the issue I'm trying to
raise. Secondly there seems to be two different definitions regarding
non-commercial, non-commercial normal means a station can't make a
profit off of it's transmission, but can raise money to support itself.
As a matter of fact a club station running CW practice or an
Information bulletin 40 hours per week can compensate the operator. So
some "commercial" operations are allowed.

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:



Not necessary, You can get information out of an opinion, it's up to
the person hearing the opinion to determine if he go's along with that
train of thought.A good example is look at court cases, a ruling by a
court is not called a ruling but an opinion. At any rate Society is
based on two input General information and Opinions you can't just have
one.

The FCC rules states it should be of general interest to amateurs, your
opinion, I guarantee, is of no interest to amateurs.

The FCC rules states it should be of general interest to amateurs, your
opinion, I guarantee, is of no interest to amateurs.

Again that's YOUR opinion.

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ said...
There's no "thin line".
It's either an "information bulletin" or it's broadcasting.

There's a BIG difference between an information bulletin and a
broadcast. A broadcast is directed to the general public as a whole
while an information Bulletin is directed to a small group.

And your opinionated broadcasts are just that...Broadcasts.

Once it's "opinonated" it stops being an "information bulletin"
and becomes an editorial. Editorials are broadcasting.

Not necessary, You can get information out of an opinion, it's up to
the person hearing the opinion to determine if he go's along with that
train of thought.A good example is look at court cases, a ruling by a
court is not called a ruling but an opinion. At any rate Society is
based on two input General information and Opinions you can't just have
one.

Todd, The purpose of an "information bulletin" is to provide the
aforementioned "listener" with specific, timely INFORMATION wth which
to make operational decisions as they pertain to his/her Amateur
station...

And Todd...Society is ALSO based on specific facts.

As far as Amateur bulletins go, they should be timely, CONCISE
bits of information...propagation updates, rules changes by
FCC...operating activity parameters...short term emergency operation
limits...

But an information bulletin has to have INFORMATION in it.
Once tainted by editorialization, it's no longer objective

There is nothing in the FCC rules that stated that, Nor does the FCC
rules state that an Information Bulletin has to be a pure piece of
facts.

Anything LESS than a "pure piece of facts" dilutes the INFORMATION
and thus causes you to DIS-serve the audience you seek to cater to.

The Definition that YOU have given is the Genreral definition of the
word Information bulletin, However, It is NOT defined in the FCC rules.

Anything LESS than a "pure piece of facts" dilutes the INFORMATION
and thus causes you to DIS-serve the audience you seek to cater to.

The FCC has the power to define what a definition is in the rules, for
example the FCC can stated that an informational bulletin may only be a
bono fide newscast, but that is not what we see here. In other words
the FCC can limit what something is provided it the lease restrictive
means necessary to promote govenment interest.

Todd, you're dancing around here hoping to find some resolute hole
in the rules to justify being a junior disc jockey.

K1MAN is in the hot water he's in today partially because most
Amateurs consider his OPINIONATED, copy-cat bulletins to be

"97.1369 When in doubt about what constitutes an "information
bulletin" as opposed to a "broadcast", anything Todd McDaugherty says
is wrong."

Your going to have to quote that rule for me steve, I looked in the
rules and couldn't find it. here's what I found

97.3(a)(10)

"(10) Broadcasting. Transmissions intended for reception by the general
public, either direct or relayed. "

97.3(a)(25)

"(25) Information bulletin. A message directed only to amateur
operators consisting solely of subject matter of direct interest to the
amateur service."

97.111(b)(6)

"(b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized
elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit the following
types of one-way communications:

(6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins; "

97.113(b)

"(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting,
nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications EXCEPT as
specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station
engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering
for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related
to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may
be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to
the public where no other means of communication is reasonably
available before or at the time of the event. " [EMP. ADDED]

But I didn't see the rule you stated.

No, you wouldn't since it was an "opinion", Todd.

NOW are you getting the idea...?!?!

And one has to be relatively objective in what constitutes
"amateur interest".

No...one has to be SUBJECTIVE...The SUBJECT being Amateur Radio.

I don't give a Rat's Kazoo about The OPINIONS of K1MAN, N9OGL, or
the Staffers at ARRL...When I hear an INFORMATION BULLETIN, I want
FACTS...I want to know what frequencies are off limits due to
disasters... I want to know the callsign of that DXpedition to Never
Never Land...I want to know about some new experimental technique that
folks are working with...

I do NOT want to wade through the "And here's what I think.."
crap.

Toiddie, the opinions of a foul mouthed, immature, basement
dwelling domestic parasite such as your self are of zero-point-squat
interest to the Amateur Radio service.
Set up 1000 blogs if you want to...Internet bandwidth is almost
limitless...Once your tripe hits the airwaves it's QRM.

That's YOUR opinion, and who said I use profanity on the air??? I very
civil on the radio. As for as QRM, as long as I'm using a unused
frequency it's legal.

It's my opinion and the opinion of almost everyone in THIS forum
who's cared to offer an OPNION on the subject.

Which in this case does not apply.
The only "content" issues were Baxter's pecuniary use of Amateur
Radio. Those are clearly within the FCC's purview to limit

K1MAN would of been legal if he would of these things

1. pick an Unused frequency
2. didn't discuss or promote his website
3. remained at the control point.

appart from that his INFORMATION BULLETINS were legal.

But the FACTS are they AREN'T legal.

And Amateurs have pretty well made it clear that W1AW's bulletins
are more than enough one-way stuff on the Amateur allocations.

Again...You keep avoiding the fact that the FCC C L E A R L Y is
allowed to prohibit commerical use of the Amateur Service.
This isn't about Baxter discussing religious preferences or the
color of his wallpaper

First the FCC over the last 10 to 15 years has allowed more commerical
use...SNIP TO

UNSNIP...As a matter of fact a club station running CW practice or an
Information bulletin 40 hours per week can compensate the operator. So
some "commercial" operations are allowed.

The payment of monies to an operator who is doing the work of
operating a station that otherwise is NON commercial does NOT make the
enterprise a commercial one. It means that someone got paid to turn
the thing off and on and to run the tapes at the appointed hour.

Steve, K4YZ