5 ms·

I hope he can afford some good lawyers. It’s likely there is no evidence of any actual harm being done, just the potential for harm. $34k seems unnecessarily pu

I hope he can afford some good lawyers. It’s likely there is no evidence of any actual harm being done, just the potential for harm. $34k seems unnecessarily punitive in this case.

mlyle 4y ago
This is actually tiny compared to their statutory authority of forfeiture, which is $22,001 per transmission. Instead: > of a $10,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of apparent unlicensed operations30 and a $7,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of harmful interference),31 for which Frawley is apparently liable. We caution Frawley that future violations of this kind may result in significantly higher forfeitures or revocation of his amateur license. He's free lawyer up, but the first round of litigation is before an administrative law judge and all that's required is the preponderance of the evidence, as they are not seeking a criminal conviction.
- mberning 4y ago
  Sure, a piece of paper says they could penalize him much more. It doesn’t change the fact that they are trying to take an amount of money that could well be 25% or even 50% of his yearly income. It’s excessive in my eyes. This kind of thing is why people are so reflexively against federal regulation of anything. You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster, give us half your income. Oh, you caught the wrong kind of lobster, just go ahead and declare bankruptcy.
  - bityard 4y ago
    > You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster If you read TFA, you'd know that's not at all what happened. He is a licensed amateur radio operator and knew the rules, and kept breaking them during a critical firefighting operation even after being told to stop, multiple times. This was no accident or harmless mistake. I think the fine is justified.
    - mberning 4y ago
      I did read it. It doesn’t provide any significant detail of his alleged transgressions OR whether they were responsible for any damages. I’m inclined to believe that were there any hard evidence of a negative outcome it would be described in great detail.
      - extrapickles 4y ago
        The actual FCC document contains the specifics of what he did in the “factual background” section: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with. Okay but the comment above said "hard evidence of a negative outcome", not "hard evidence [that he transmitted]". If they did have evidence of negative outcomes, I think they'd do more than use the word "potential" when talking about harm to life and property.
        Ensorceled 4y ago
        You can get also get large speeding fines or go to jail for DUI without the "potential" for harm to life and property.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        I'm not talking about the reasonableness of the fine. Does my post need a disclaimer?
        Ensorceled 4y ago
        Clearly, if you need to be so aggressively defensive about it.
  - kalleboo 4y ago
    He owns a radio communications company/WISP http://sm-email.com/about.html http://sm-email.com/about.html He's not just some yokel with a radio trying to help out This is definitely a case of "this is your livelihood, you should have known better, please take this more seriously" type of thing If he doesn't take the rules seriously enough to not broadcast on restricted bands, can he be trusted to respect the rules for his WISP?
  - brazzledazzle 4y ago
    This kind of thing is why people see federal regulation as important and necessary. We all know how dangerous and time sensitive fighting wild fires can be and a civilian inserting themselves into the communication channels used to coordinate field operations is totally unacceptable.
    - Ensorceled 4y ago
      > This kind of thing is why people see federal regulation as important and necessary. I know what you are trying to say here, but it is quite clear in that quite a few HN commentators strongly, and bizarrely, disagree.
      - brazzledazzle 4y ago
        There a sizable number of libertarians/ancaps/minarchists on HN so I understand opposition to regulatory agencies in a general sense. What I do not understand is why anyone is carrying water for this guy. Sure he’s behaving irresponsibly but he’s also an ass engaging in willfully terrible behavior. It’s shameful and embarrassing.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    You should involve yourself in his case. don't bother asking, you're just trying to help.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    It's called legislation, and it's there for a reason. Likewise, some text on a website says you and your comments can be removed from this site if they break the rules; you agreed to said rules when you created an account. I mean I'm sure you can start a discussion about some of the finer points if you bring up good points, but in the end, you agreed to create your account and use the service under those conditions. Likewise, this person decided to get a license for radio transmissions, accepting the consequences for misuse. If he didn't want to be at risk of those consequences, he shouldn't have a radio. I'm seeing a lot of libertarians / anarchists in this comments thread, who seem to fail to grasp the basics of a functioning society. If there were no deterrents, rules, "pieces of paper", etc, it would be anarchy and the radio would be unusable.
colechristensen 4y ago
Bothering first responders when you don’t have license to operate despite being told to stop is harm enough.
- more_corn 4y ago
  It’s unclear from the article if he was warned to stop.
  - Rastonbury 4y ago
    He's was licensed, he should know the rules of which frequencies he should be transmitting on
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    In other links on this thread from FCC documents it is clarified he was told to stop, both on the radio and in person. Not that it actually matters; he was licensed, he knew the rules and laws, and any warnings given were a courtesy. He's a full adult, he doesn't need a thread of commenters (not you specifically) to defend him or his actions.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Does it matter if harm was done? He broadcasted on a reserved frequency; that is illegal. He proceeded to broadcast on a reserved frequency despite being told to stop; that makes it not accidental. And he is a licensed operator, so he knew what he was doing, which makes it on purpose. There's a lot of people jumping to this guy's defense, or reinterpreting the law, or what-iffing hypothetical scenarios in this comments thread and I don't understand it. Let the guy take the L, he broke the law and has to face consequences, it's that simple. edit: I see another commenter in this thread pointing out he got off lightly, too.

I hope he can afford some good lawyers. It’s likely there is no evidence of any actual harm being done, just the potential for harm. $34k seems unnecessarily punitive in this case.

mlyle 4y ago

This is actually tiny compared to their statutory authority of forfeiture, which is $22,001 per transmission. Instead: > of a $10,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of apparent unlicensed operations30 and a $7,000 forfeiture for each of the two days of harmful interference),31 for which Frawley is apparently liable. We caution Frawley that future violations of this kind may result in significantly higher forfeitures or revocation of his amateur license. He's free lawyer up, but the first round of litigation is before an administrative law judge and all that's required is the preponderance of the evidence, as they are not seeking a criminal conviction.

mberning 4y ago
Sure, a piece of paper says they could penalize him much more. It doesn’t change the fact that they are trying to take an amount of money that could well be 25% or even 50% of his yearly income. It’s excessive in my eyes. This kind of thing is why people are so reflexively against federal regulation of anything. You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster, give us half your income. Oh, you caught the wrong kind of lobster, just go ahead and declare bankruptcy.
- bityard 4y ago
  > You pressed talk on your radio during a disaster If you read TFA, you'd know that's not at all what happened. He is a licensed amateur radio operator and knew the rules, and kept breaking them during a critical firefighting operation even after being told to stop, multiple times. This was no accident or harmless mistake. I think the fine is justified.
  - mberning 4y ago
    I did read it. It doesn’t provide any significant detail of his alleged transgressions OR whether they were responsible for any damages. I’m inclined to believe that were there any hard evidence of a negative outcome it would be described in great detail.
    - extrapickles 4y ago
      The actual FCC document contains the specifics of what he did in the “factual background” section: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with. Okay but the comment above said "hard evidence of a negative outcome", not "hard evidence [that he transmitted]". If they did have evidence of negative outcomes, I think they'd do more than use the word "potential" when talking about harm to life and property.
        Ensorceled 4y ago
        You can get also get large speeding fines or go to jail for DUI without the "potential" for harm to life and property.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        I'm not talking about the reasonableness of the fine. Does my post need a disclaimer?
        Ensorceled 4y ago
        Clearly, if you need to be so aggressively defensive about it.
- kalleboo 4y ago
  He owns a radio communications company/WISP http://sm-email.com/about.html http://sm-email.com/about.html He's not just some yokel with a radio trying to help out This is definitely a case of "this is your livelihood, you should have known better, please take this more seriously" type of thing If he doesn't take the rules seriously enough to not broadcast on restricted bands, can he be trusted to respect the rules for his WISP?
- brazzledazzle 4y ago
  This kind of thing is why people see federal regulation as important and necessary. We all know how dangerous and time sensitive fighting wild fires can be and a civilian inserting themselves into the communication channels used to coordinate field operations is totally unacceptable.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    > This kind of thing is why people see federal regulation as important and necessary. I know what you are trying to say here, but it is quite clear in that quite a few HN commentators strongly, and bizarrely, disagree.
    - brazzledazzle 4y ago
      There a sizable number of libertarians/ancaps/minarchists on HN so I understand opposition to regulatory agencies in a general sense. What I do not understand is why anyone is carrying water for this guy. Sure he’s behaving irresponsibly but he’s also an ass engaging in willfully terrible behavior. It’s shameful and embarrassing.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  You should involve yourself in his case. don't bother asking, you're just trying to help.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  It's called legislation, and it's there for a reason. Likewise, some text on a website says you and your comments can be removed from this site if they break the rules; you agreed to said rules when you created an account. I mean I'm sure you can start a discussion about some of the finer points if you bring up good points, but in the end, you agreed to create your account and use the service under those conditions. Likewise, this person decided to get a license for radio transmissions, accepting the consequences for misuse. If he didn't want to be at risk of those consequences, he shouldn't have a radio. I'm seeing a lot of libertarians / anarchists in this comments thread, who seem to fail to grasp the basics of a functioning society. If there were no deterrents, rules, "pieces of paper", etc, it would be anarchy and the radio would be unusable.

colechristensen 4y ago

Bothering first responders when you don’t have license to operate despite being told to stop is harm enough.

more_corn 4y ago
It’s unclear from the article if he was warned to stop.
- Rastonbury 4y ago
  He's was licensed, he should know the rules of which frequencies he should be transmitting on
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  In other links on this thread from FCC documents it is clarified he was told to stop, both on the radio and in person. Not that it actually matters; he was licensed, he knew the rules and laws, and any warnings given were a courtesy. He's a full adult, he doesn't need a thread of commenters (not you specifically) to defend him or his actions.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Does it matter if harm was done? He broadcasted on a reserved frequency; that is illegal. He proceeded to broadcast on a reserved frequency despite being told to stop; that makes it not accidental. And he is a licensed operator, so he knew what he was doing, which makes it on purpose. There's a lot of people jumping to this guy's defense, or reinterpreting the law, or what-iffing hypothetical scenarios in this comments thread and I don't understand it. Let the guy take the L, he broke the law and has to face consequences, it's that simple. edit: I see another commenter in this thread pointing out he got off lightly, too.