In a report on the recent Executive Committee meeting, the ARRL reported:
Work continues to promote the visibility of Amateur Radio enforcement within the FCC, the ARRL Executive Committee was told recently. The EC met on October 22 in Rosemont, Illinois. ARRL President Rick Roderick, K5UR, chaired the session.
ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, reported that meetings have been held with the FCC concerning more effective FCC use of the volunteer resources of the Amateur Auxiliary (Official Observers) program, the current FCC-ARRL Amateur Auxiliary Agreement, and the development of a new Memorandum of Understanding that better incorporates the Amateur Auxiliary program — especially in light of the FCC’s recent closing of field offices and reduction of Spectrum Enforcement Division staff.
The EC directed Second Vice President Brian Mileshosky, N5ZGT, to continue work on the review and revitalization of the Amateur Auxiliary, in cooperation with the FCC, to ensure active use of the Amateur Auxiliary program.
I think that this could be a good thing for amateur radio, and I have reached out to N5ZGT as to how “rank and file” amateurs might be able to help this effort. I’ll update this post when I get his reply.
To become part of the Amateur Auxiliary, you become an ARRL Official Observer. Part of the process of becoming an Official Observer, or OO for short, is taking a written test that qualifies you to also become part of the Amateur Auxiliary. The other requirements for becoming an OO include:
- Recommendation of ARRL Section Manager
- Full ARRL membership
- Technician class license or higher for at least four years
For more information on becoming an OO, contact your section’s OO Coordinator or your Section Manager.
Jeff, KE9V says
WORST. IDEA. EVER.
Can you imagine having an online “disagreement” with another ham and ending up losing your license over the personal vendetta? This only serves to expand and extend the good old boy network. I’m seeing hard feelings and lawsuits in the future for OO’s…
Dan KB6NU says
Whoa. I don’t see that happening at all. I don’t think the OOs will ever be in the position of being able to revoke someone’s license.
Jeff, KE9V says
I’m not so sure. The OO’s role has always been as sort of a ‘snitch’ on fellow hams — even though we could all agree that there are hams who violate the rules.
My impedance mismatch is this:
“ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, reported that meetings have been held with the FCC concerning more effective FCC use of the volunteer resources of the Amateur Auxiliary (Official Observers) program, the current FCC-ARRL Amateur Auxiliary Agreement, and the development of a new Memorandum of Understanding that better incorporates the Amateur Auxiliary program — especially in light of the FCC’s recent closing of field offices and reduction of Spectrum Enforcement Division staff.”
So the FCC has no money for enforcement and are interested in “revitalizing” the amateur auxiliary to help with that work — how else are we to interpret that other than volunteer amateur radio operators are going to have an ‘expanded’ enforcement role?
It’s like a city saying they don’t have money for cops so they intend to use vigilantes to fill that role.
I’m telling you, OO’s are going to become the target of lawsuits if their roles are expanded and their actions result in revocation or fines. And if they don’t result in revocations or fines, what service are they really providing?
Yohei, N8YQX says
I agree with you. The qualification process is too lax for a law enforcement appointment. Nowadays, even volunteering at a school or being a neighborhood watch member requires background or fingerprint check. Without a background check, including some level of personality qualification (reference check, social media check, etc), I can easily see a lawsuit against the OO and the ARRL.
Dan KB6NU says
Well, we’ll see. I don’t think that FCC employees be sued personally for actions they take on behalf of the U.S. government. I think the same would apply here. At least that is the kind of protection that I’d want should I choose to join this expanded Amateur Auxiliary.
Amateur radio has always prided itself on being self-policing. I think of this as just an extension of that. I don’t see individual amateurs having the power to revoke licenses under this new program, so I don’t think that’s going to be an issue.
J. Kevin Hunt says
The federal Volunteer Protection Act immunizes recognized/official OOs/AA from liability for all acts and omissions in the course of authorized participation in the OO/AA program, except in the case of gross negligence, a pretty high threshold. I nonetheless agree with the thrust of your comment. The regulations and enforcement in place when I was first licensed 44 years ago, were quite Draconian. Each and every transmission, of any length, even into a dummy load, had to be entered into one’s mandatory log book, by each start and stop time. If you called CQ, you had to log that whether you got a response or not.
If you wished to operate mobile or portable — meaning more than 50 miles from your primary station location — for more than fifteen days, you were required to notify the FCC Engineer in Charge for your district, in writing, including your intended route of travel and anticipated itinerary! A Transmitter ID Card had to be affixed to all mobile and portable transmitters. The only hood thing about the strict logging requirement was that the FCC gave your log a presumption of accuracy in the event a neighbor claimed you were wiping out “Tony Orlando & Dawn” with your ham station, but your log book was devoid of any entries for that date and time.
Self-policing was once a slogan taken seriously in ham circles but also of course exploited by the “deregulate everything” crowd.
The increasingly drastic reductions in resources for Amateur Service monitoring and enforcement suggest that the United States government is accelerating its policy of industry-driven communication modernization, paying little mind to LF/MF/HF wavelengths that will see their current users — radio amateurs included — phased out through attrition. The value of all amateur gear would immediately skyrocket on the black market, and the banned bands would be a cacophony of pirates. “Only you can track them down! Help your Homeland Security keep us safe. Become an OO!”
Jeff says
You may be right Dan, but look at it this way. If I have a party that gets a little too loud and the police show up and ask me to dial it down, I’m okay with that. If, on the other hand, my neighbor with whom I have had a ten year feud shows up and tells me to shut the party down, I might punch him in the nose.
Hypothetical, sure, but there is AUTHORITY and then there is authority.
The letter I got from my Section Manager detailing this new relationship says this:
“In my discussions with our Indiana ARRL Section Manager, Other Indiana Section Officials, ARRL Officials, and studying the attached video, I feel we are on our way to enforcement success in Amateur Radio. Ms. Smith mentions a “new” Official Observer Program which will give our Official Observers more responsibility, and for lack of better word, “authority,” based on how we will provide our data and Official Observer activity to the FCC.”
For lack of a better word, “authority”.
I don’t know about you, but to me, that implies more than sending a postcard to tell me I’ve drifted slightly out of band.
Frankly, I’m not even sure what kind of people WANT to be Official Observers, but I suspect that some of them wanted to be hall monitors in junior high school too. Everyone should be troubled by this development, and we shouldn’t be quick to jump on board this new policy.
I think the only way a private citizen could be exempt from a lawsuit from such a thing would be by act of Congress – or maybe if the FCC legally “deputizes” fifty-thousand unpaid hams as federal enforcement officers.
I’m pretty sure I don’t want to play in that kind of hobby — who does?
Paul K9PLG says
Easy – The FCC can do what the credit card and banking industry does, make binding arbitration a condition of holding a license so you can’t sue if you loose your license due any infractions observed (recorded) of on-air violations of the license holder… of course you have to provide a way to opt out, but it won’t be easy (like requiring you to send a written request via registered letter within 30 days of the license being issued, and bury this opt-out requirement on the FCC website so it’s pretty hard to find)…
One of the (many) problems with our current society is too many lawyers … and people being litigation happy – suing their way to success and/or frivolous law suits (e.g. patent trolls).
agitator says
can’t do the time? Dont do the crime. It’s no difference..