[CQ-Contest] Re: K3NM/LU9AY 40M SSB FCC Fiasco

[Mike Gilmer - N2MG]

As much as I find the situation distateful (regardless 
of the facts surrounding the interference event) it is 
not uncommon for "news" to get headlines in the US, 
only to have retractions published days, weeks, months 
later on some back page.

If it is true that the info is in the public record, 
it does afford the ARRL the right to publish it on 
their website.  In that case, by doing so does not 
really make them an active participant in any kind of 
misleading process.  However, I am troubled by what 
seems to be the fact that the ARRL has selected this 
enforcement letter as a "representative" (their word)
sample.  Does this mean that the ARRL  (for whatever 
motive) thinks that a slam on a contester deserves 
special attention? Or maybe there were so many 
other "anti-contester" letters that at least one 
deserved mention?  I would like to know if (and where)
the comprehensive list is for review.

One problem in all this would be if the FCC 
regularly gets itself involved in similar 
disagreements without proof.  I've heard they do 
little with a tape recording.  Was there one in 
this case?

Another problem is if this does get resolved, and the "charges" against K3NM, et al, "are dropped", I suspect we might not hear (read) about it.

73 Mike N2MG

On Wed, 10 October 2001, "Barry N1EU" wrote:

> 
> 
> It is an extremely unpleasant situation to be on the receiving end of an 
> unwarranted incident such as this.  It is a disservice on the part of the 
> ARRL to wholesale publish this information and a lack of do process afforded 
> the "accused."
> 
> Personally, it took me 7 months to convince Riley that at best he was 
> dealing with a computer gotcha at the FCC (I'll spare you the details).  
> Afterwards, I was shocked to discoved that the ARRL (and others) routinely 
> publish all records of FCC actions dealing with amateurs.
> 
> These published records do not go away and anybody can perform a general Web 
> search on a name or callsign and quickly come to a wrong conclusion about 
> someone.  After all, they were the "target" of an FCC investigation.  Even 
> though I was able to finally exonerate myself, the original unamended 
> records are still up on the Web today.
> 
> (If you're curious, look at the following links under "Delmar").
> 
> http://www.arrl.com/news/enforcement_logs/1999/0811.html 
> http://www.arrl.com/news/enforcement_logs/2000/0315.html
> 
> 73,
> Barry  N1EU
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

________________________________________________
PeoplePC:  It's for people. And it's just smart. 
http://www.peoplepc.com 


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com