4 ms·

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%

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.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        That's so aggressive? What would the non-aggressive version be that still makes the important point? I was aiming for a basic simple assertive, avoiding being overly passive-aggressive. The question in that post is not rhetorical.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Yup. 34k sounds like a power trip from someone to me. Since I can't reply to them, I'll just say it directly here, the linked document from the FCC just keeps repeating the same things over and over again, but contains no interesting new information compared to the original article.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    There WAS a negative outcome; reserved communications channels were disrupted, and people had to take time to go to the sender directly to tell him to stop (after two days of disruptions and being told on the radio to stop as well). That's the damage, that's the negative outcome, and it has been described in great detail. What more do you want?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >and kept breaking them during a critical firefighting operation even after being told to stop, multiple times. You are just making things up. This isn't in the article or the FCC document. It says he was told to stop on the 2nd day, and does not mention any transmissions afterwards. Why do you feel the need to insert your fictional narrative into the discussion?
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.

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.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        That's so aggressive? What would the non-aggressive version be that still makes the important point? I was aiming for a basic simple assertive, avoiding being overly passive-aggressive. The question in that post is not rhetorical.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Yup. 34k sounds like a power trip from someone to me. Since I can't reply to them, I'll just say it directly here, the linked document from the FCC just keeps repeating the same things over and over again, but contains no interesting new information compared to the original article.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  There WAS a negative outcome; reserved communications channels were disrupted, and people had to take time to go to the sender directly to tell him to stop (after two days of disruptions and being told on the radio to stop as well). That's the damage, that's the negative outcome, and it has been described in great detail. What more do you want?
s1artibartfast 4y ago
>and kept breaking them during a critical firefighting operation even after being told to stop, multiple times. You are just making things up. This isn't in the article or the FCC document. It says he was told to stop on the 2nd day, and does not mention any transmissions afterwards. Why do you feel the need to insert your fictional narrative into the discussion?

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.