eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not

Mark Derby (K8MHZ) on March 28, 2006
View comments about this article!

Mention has been made by hams not only on eHam but in conversations as well that illustrate the belief that ARRL Official Observers are part of the FCC enforcement effort.

I have searched several documents and looked in the following US Government publications and found absolutely no mention of Official Observers or the ARRL being accepted to provide enforcement evidence.

I read FCC Part 97, FCC Part 17 and the rest of CFR 47. I also read USC 154; the most 'quoted' of the three and found nothing. I also read the NEC, the MRC and my vehicles Owner's Manual.

In short, I believe that the assertion that OO's are part of the FCC's enforcement procedure is incorrect. I would like to find out where such a belief comes from and would also appreciate anything contrary to my beliefs to be posted here. If you think OO's indeed are part of FCC enforcement, please point me to something in writing from a .gov site. Opinions and personal sites don't count. Only actual entries on US Government (dot gov) sites count.

Thanks and 73,

Mark K8MHZ

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2WH on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Why is this important to you and who really cares anyway?

K2WH
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N8CP on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Right who cares
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K7EDL on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The fact that he has gone to the trouble of researching the topic means it is important to him. Your grade school replys are rude. Why did you bother to post if you don't have help to offer? Hams like you are why my ticket will most likely die long before I do.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AA4PB on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
From the ARRL web site:

Q. What is the Amateur Auxiliary?

A. The Amateur Auxiliary is composed of approximately 700 ARRL volunteer-appointees, known as "Official Observers" or "OOs," across the country who monitor the bands and notify amateurs of technical and operating discrepancies as a service to their fellow hams. OOs are helper-advisors, not "band cops." In cases involving serious rule violations such as malicious interference, however, they are trained and certified to gather and forward evidence that can be used by the FCC in enforcement actions.

The program is based on a formal agreement between the FCC and the ARRL.

 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N0IU on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
You are forgetting about the one site that has the definitive answer - http://www.arrl.org/ After all, the complete name of the program under which Official Observers operate is The Amateur Auxiliary of the FCC.

Here is a snip from the ARRL website:

Q. What is the Amateur Auxiliary?

A. The Amateur Auxiliary is composed of approximately 700 ARRL volunteer-appointees, known as "Official Observers" or "OOs," across the country who monitor the bands and notify amateurs of technical and operating discrepancies as a service to their fellow hams. OOs are helper-advisors, not "band cops." In cases involving serious rule violations such as malicious interference, however, they are trained and certified to gather and forward evidence that can be used by the FCC in enforcement actions.

The program is based on a formal agreement between the FCC and the ARRL.

Q. Are OOs allowed to enforce the rules?

A. No! The mission is NOT enforcement. Enforcement is a function reserved exclusively by the FCC. Because the boundary between observation and enforcement is not always obvious, mature judgment is clearly required of Auxiliary members and its leadership. The Auxiliary, to be viable and effective, must avoid the appearance of enforcement. It must also avoid the appearance of having a vested interest in any specific type of amateur operations or of being sympathetic to amateur groups which advocate specific activities or causes. OOs are not to be involved in cases where they have a personal interest. They must be totally objective.

The URL where this comes from is http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/org/am_aux.html

Is this good enough for you?

Scott N0IU

 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N0IU on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
This is what happens when two people post at the same time!
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W8WLC on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Their good enough for me. Better to receive a postcard from an OO than a pink slip from the FCC.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K0BG on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If you (or anyone) have received an OO notice, there are two ways to look at it.

First, with distain and anger. For some unknown reason, this is the way most amateurs look at it. Sound familiar?

Or, you can ask yourself, was the OO really doing a creditable job? In most cases they are, and what ever they noted was most likely correct.

The two most reported violations are; operating where you don't belong (like you operating in the Extra portion instead of the General portion), and excessive splatter (as in using too much compression and or microphone gain).

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W3LK on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<< In short, I believe that the assertion that OO's are part of the FCC's enforcement procedure is incorrect.>>

You are correct, but I personally have never seen any postings asserting that OO's belong to the FCC or have any enforcement authority.

Lon W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N8VUL on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I don't know where you got the idea that Official Observers were a part of the FCC. Here is a FAQ from the ARRL website explaining what and who the OO's are.. Hope that helps..
73 de N8VUL Bill

Q. What is the Amateur Auxiliary?

A. The Amateur Auxiliary is composed of approximately 700 ARRL volunteer-appointees, known as "Official Observers" or "OOs," across the country who monitor the bands and notify amateurs of technical and operating discrepancies as a service to their fellow hams. OOs are helper-advisors, not "band cops." In cases involving serious rule violations such as malicious interference, however, they are trained and certified to gather and forward evidence that can be used by the FCC in enforcement actions.

The program is based on a formal agreement between the FCC and the ARRL.

Q. What are its objectives?

A. The general objectives of the program are to:

1. Foster a wider knowledge of and better compliance with the FCC rules;

2. Extend the concepts of self-regulation and self-administration in the Amateur Service;

3. Enhance the opportunity for individual amateurs to contribute to the public welfare; and

4. Enable the Enforcement Bureau of FCC to efficiently and effectively utilize its limited manpower and resources.

Q. So, the OO is there to help me?

A. Yes! The role of the Amateur Auxiliary is to provide an unbiased forum for technical and operational advice and other assistance to amateurs who are receptive. The task is not to find fault or lay blame! It is to identify cause and effect, many of which are not based upon technical but behavioral or social issues, and to find ways to achieve solutions to promote good amateur operating and engineering practice on our bands.

Q. Are OOs allowed to enforce the rules?

A. No! The mission is NOT enforcement. Enforcement is a function reserved exclusively by the FCC. Because the boundary between observation and enforcement is not always obvious, mature judgment is clearly required of Auxiliary members and its leadership. The Auxiliary, to be viable and effective, must avoid the appearance of enforcement. It must also avoid the appearance of having a vested interest in any specific type of amateur operations or of being sympathetic to amateur groups which advocate specific activities or causes. OOs are not to be involved in cases where they have a personal interest. They must be totally objective.

Q. Do OOs deal with RFI problems?

A. No. The Amateur Auxiliary is designed to deal ONLY with amateur-to-amateur interference and improper on-air operation by amateurs. RFI complaints are not within the scope of the program.

Q. Do OOs deal with non-amateur intruders or "bootleggers"?

A. No and yes! Reports of non-amateur HF intruders (a foreign broadcast station, for example) are sent to ARRL HQ for referral to the ARRL Monitoring System, a separate program. Cases involving "bootleggers" on repeaters or elsewhere are within the scope of the Auxiliary program.

Q. How are repeater "jammers" handled?

A. A component of the Amateur Auxiliary program, Local Interference Committees (LIC) are commissioned by the ARRL Section Manager with an OO as chairman to track down and resolve repeater jamming problems. If the problem persists, the LIC may develop the package of evidence that the FCC can use to base an enforcement action. LIC members are experts in direction-finding techniques, use good judgment in the art of negotiation to bring about resolutions and often have a ham-attorney as a member.

Q. How are repeater-to-repeater interference and coordination disputes settled?

A. They are usually settled locally or regionally, by the parties to the dispute and the affected user community. Such matters, however, may come to the attention of the Amateur Auxiliary program when harmful interference is caused by a non-coordinated repeater to a coordinated repeater. The non-coordinated repeater bears the primary responsibility of cleaning up the interference, under the FCC Rules.

Q. Isn't the OO doing work that should more properly done by the FCC?

A. Amateur Radio monitoring and enforcement are low priorities at the FCC. Time and time again, the FCC has indicated that we're largely on our own in keeping our operating standards and spectrum in shape. The Amateur Auxiliary program and its OOs are the League's answer to this challenge.

Q. What can be done about interference on the HF bands?

A. Interference is a fact of life on today's crowded HF bands and most of it is of the "no-fault" kind that's better resolved by being flexible than by confrontation. Interference in and of itself is not illegal. Only malicious interference is actionable under the rules. It exists in its clearest form when the following conditions are met:

1) Two or more stations are in communication on a frequency.

2) Another station begins transmitting on the same or an adjacent frequency.

3) The original stations, acknowledging on-the-air that they cannot copy one another through the interfering station's transmissions, and decide to move to another frequency.

4) When they move, the interfering station follows and commences interfering transmissions again.

Additionally, it must involve an ongoing campaign on a regular, repeated basis: No one can reasonably expect the FCC and/or the Amateur Auxiliary to act on a one-time, isolated event.

Q. What can be done about hams that make rude remarks, racial slurs, or transmit obscene or indecent words?

A. Much of what is heard is inappropriate and violates standards of polite society, but it is not illegal. Only obscene or indecent transmissions are illegal. See the League's FCC Rule Book for a discussion of how the FCC defines the standards for obscenity and indecency. Serious cases can be referred to the Amateur Auxiliary for handling.

Language that's inappropriate, but not illegal, or isn't so serious that we can reasonably expect the FCC to devote resources to its correction, must be addressed by the amateur community itself. We must not let the bad behavior drive out the good: Each of us who cares about Amateur Radio must maintain the highest possible standards when operating, even in the face of provocation. We must let other amateurs know, as politely as possible, that we expect them to observe the same standards.

Q. I got an OO card in the mail! What do I do now?

A. First, don't worry: This is not a citation! The OO post card is simply a friendly note to alert you to possible equipment factors or operating practices that might have contributed to an apparent departure from a rule or the good amateur practice standard. Remember, OOs are friendly helper-advisors, not the "radio police"! Their mission is to assist those who are receptive to being assisted.



Q. Do I have to reply to the notice?

A. No reply is necessary! You may want to take a few minutes to determine what caused the apparent problem, and then take steps to fix it. Most likely, you're proud of your license and the work you've put into getting it--you want to have the same pride in the quality of your signal and operating practices. Your corrective actions might even head off an FCC "pink slip" down the road.

Q. The card seemed a little nit-picky to me. Do OOs send cards for discrepancies that lie in the gray area between black and white rules violations?

A. OOs are advised to avoid hair-splitting and to deal only with black-and-white rule discrepancies only. They should avoid the "gray areas" of the rules. OOs should not be nit-picky either. For example, an OO should not send a notice to someone who forgot to identify his station for ten minutes and eight seconds!

If you feel that the OO sent you a notice that violates the principles of the program, send a copy to your Section Manager (if known) or to Headquarters for evaluation and possible action. Quality control is critically important in a program as sensitive as this one!

Q. Is a record of the notice kept anywhere?

A. Yes. A record of the notice is kept at ARRL Headquarters for a period of one year, after which it is destroyed. Records are kept so that if a case evolves into a serious, hard-core compliance issue, it may be used by the FCC as evidence, showing that voluntary measures of achieving resolution were ineffective. The information is also used to guide OOs in special monitoring efforts. Otherwise, the information is kept strictly confidential and is never released outside of the Auxiliary.

Q. Hey, I received a Good Operator Report. What's that for?

A. Congratulations! To emphasize the positive nature of the program, "Good Operator Reports" are sent to operators whose radio signals and/or operating practices are consistent with the highest standards and are a model for others to follow. Every amateur should strive to pattern their operating and signals after your example!



Training and Certification

Q. Are OOs trained and/or certified to perform their functions?

A. Yes! All OOs must pass a comprehensive examination based on a set of study materials, before they can be certified as members of the Amateur Auxiliary. These materials include an extensive training manual, The FCC Rule Book, and the ARRL Handbook. Many don't pass.

Q. How can I apply to be an OO?

A. It's not a job for everybody: An OO will observe some operating that will fill him with a sense of frustration. There's also no room in the program for "band cops." OOs gain their rewards when they're able to call an undesirable situation to the attention of someone who honestly wasn't aware of it, and who is genuinely appreciative of the assistance.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If what arrl says is true, that arrl has some formal agreement with FCC, WHERE is this duly signed and executed agreement?

I would love to see a copy that bears the signature of a duly authorized officer of the FCC, IF in fact, it exists. Any of you arrl worshippers ever seen this "holy grail" of documents?

Like most things arrl says, I take ithe CLAIM of a 'formal agreement" with a HUGE grain of salt. As that great movie line goes, "show me the money".

W9WHE
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N2RRA on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Its amazeing the idiotic responses you can get from some people. Back to the question at hand!
How about we all act like OO`s, and protect the privalge we have to operate these bands.
Everyone operate under "gentalmen band plan agreement" which are simple rules a 1st grader can follow and well all get along.
"IF YOU HEAR SOMETHING,SAY SOMETHING"

73 to all, Peace
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KA2FIR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KD7QDU you are correct. I emailed my OO concerning illegal activity on 2m and never got a reply.
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KB3LSR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I've only been a HAM for 1 1/2 years now, but I'd like to toss out something to think about. These OO's only tell you when you have poor operating skills, they do not commend you for working some difficult DX, superior QRP or doing something otherwise helpful to the community? I love it when people are there to only tell you your mistakes and never anything good, correct me if I am wrong here, which I'm sure I could be.

73
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The concept of OOs is a good one. However, like most things affiliated with arrl, the implementation is a joke, with form reigning over substance.

Jonathan Gunn, W9WHE
Comindant,
Official OO Observer Organization (OOOOO)
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KG6AMW on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If your arrogant and think your above the law you don’t want any criticism coming your way – no matter where or who it comes from. If you’re humble you’ll appreciate any input to make you a better operator.
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N5XM on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Scott, Bill, thanks for putting down the facts. The system works exactly as you both describe. I am an ex-OO and OO Coordinator for the Arkansas Section and have first-hand knowledge of how the system works. It would surprise me if 25% of Hams have any idea of the issues involved in enforcement. Look at the Garritson case in 6-land. Everyone in the country knew this guy was toast, but it still took years for the process to play out to anywhere near finality.

It's called due process. It takes iron-clad documentation to nail somebody, multiple tapes with paperwork indicating date, time, etc. Look at the crap on TV, for example. Does the FCC have a consistent definition of obscenity in the first place? Nope. You can't put someone in jail for crude behaviour, and thank God for that or most of us would be behind bars. Where these folks buy the farm is by malicious interference, particularly to city and county government communications. ARRL enforcement folks are not going to take a case forward to the FCC unless they believe there is a good chance they can win. That's how attorneys are everywhere. It's too expensive and time-consuming to pursue every little violation, particularly when many of these things are merely pissing contests between prideful people.

OOs care enough to get involved. You can't take that away from them. They don't see themselves as cops, no matter what anyone thinks. Besides, you can't legislate excellence, and there are always going to be stupid people, even stupid Hams.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
.
QUESTION: What is the difference between an ordinary ham (non-arrl member) making a recording of profanity and sending it into FCC and a super-elite, highly-trained, officially-sanctioned, arrl OO doing the very same thing?

ANSWER: Nothing.



W9WHE
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K0RGR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
OK - this is from FCC document http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98183.txt

17. Pursuant to the Communications Act, the Amateur Auxiliary is composed of amateur operators
who are recruited and trained by the Commission for the purpose of detecting, on a voluntary and
uncompensated basis, improper radio transmissions, conveying such information to the Commission, and
issuing advisory notices to persons who apparently have violated provisions of the Communications Act
relating to amateur radio or who have violated any of the rules that govern the amateur radio service.

And, there's also this one from FCC WT Docket 98-143:

D. Privatization of Certain Enforcement Procedures

64. Background. Pursuant to the Communications Act, the Commission has authority, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of the Communications Act, to accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any individual licensed by the Commission to operate an amateur station. The functions of individuals who provide such uncompensated services, commonly called the Amateur Auxiliary, are limited to the detection of improper amateur radio transmissions, the conveyance to Commission personnel of information which is essential to the enforcement of the Communications Act relating to the amateur radio services, and other functions

There's your 'smoking gun'.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4MZW on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Children...Children!! Let's Behave!
The OO program, when it was conceived, was a good thing. However, this "It's all about ME" society in which we live, common courtesy that "MOST" of us were taught since childhood has long since taken a back seat to the crude behaviour we see on the bands today. Chances are that if you exibited similar behaviour in a Public Place someone would set-you-straight in short order.
The ARRL may not be doing what you want them to do for you personally but, let's face it they are the "ONLY" advocate we have for protection of the priviledges that we enjoy. The other option is to let all our spectrum go to someone else then all of our equipment will make nice "Door-Stops" at home.

Jack.....ARRL Life Member since 1978
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4MZW on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Children...Children!! Let's Behave!
The OO program, when it was conceived, was a good thing. However, this "It's all about ME" society in which we live, common courtesy that "MOST" of us were taught since childhood has long since taken a back seat to the crude behaviour we see on the bands today. Chances are that if you exibited similar behaviour in a Public Place someone would set-you-straight in short order.
The ARRL may not be doing what you want them to do for you personally but, let's face it they are the "ONLY" advocate we have for protection of the priviledges that we enjoy. The other option is to let all our spectrum go to someone else then all of our equipment will make nice "Door-Stops" at home.

Jack.....ARRL Life Member since 1978
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Stated by the ARRL in RM-9150: “By specific written agreement with the Commission, the League sponsors the Amateur Auxiliary program, which both encourages voluntary rule compliance, and provides the Commission with a means of gathering evidence in cases in which a particular rule compliance problem cannot be resolved cooperatively.”

I'd be surprised if the ARRL would make this statement to the FCC in a rule making proposal if it weren't true.

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by ARRLBOOSTER on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The signed agreement is not on-line or able to be mailed, due to Homeland secuirty rules. They accept mo phone calls.

Feel free to visit the NIST (National Institute Of Standards and Technology) near 27th and Broadway in Boulder, CO. Their hours are 8 AM to 5 PM.

Rick
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4RAF on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hahahaha: "Due Process" ????

I will buy a cocktail for anyone who can find the direct @fcc.gov URL for the UNEDITED enforcement logs.

I can find it on fcc.gov for every other service but somehow only the ARRL gets the amateur "logs" fed to them, then publish them on the WWW as edited for consumption.

Publishing "Libel" could have con$equence$...
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9OY on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I've had one OO card in 43 years. We were over on the 10 min ID. The guy was very nice. Said he had a good time listening to the QSO (one of those 75M round tables every one complains about, whyyyy the nerve of those guys actually having a good time on their ham radios).

If they are all like this guy, I think OO is probably a good thing. He got his point across without Tee-ing every one off. In general I'm pretty negative on the ARRL. I think their policies have done far more to harm ham radio than help it and I think their policies are primarily aimed at financially enriching the principals at the ARRL, but this interaction was OK.

73 W9OY
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W8JI on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think OO's are an excellent idea and perform a very much needed function.

I'm dismayed and saddened by the number of us who seem to think bad operating or rules volations should not be called to our attention.

What a society we are turning into! We think nothing of forcing our will on the rest of the world, but few of us will tolerate constructive suggestions.

73 Tom
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA2JJH on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K2WH- You read my mind!
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KE4ZHN on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The OO program is a good idea. The problem lies in the fact that the FCC expects one man to police the entire amateur spectrum. This is a joke! Hollingsworth can no more enforce the whole spectrum as one of us can walk on water. What we need is more FCC involvement in enforcing the rules, not hams posing as frequency cops. An OO can write cards till his hands fall off and its worthless without FCC action to follow up on the violations. Lets face facts here fellow hams, to the FCC we are just not that important!
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N0IU on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KB3LSR wrote, "I've only been a HAM for 1 1/2 years now, but I'd like to toss out something to think about. These OO's only tell you when you have poor operating skills, they do not commend you for working some difficult DX, superior QRP or doing something otherwise helpful to the community? I love it when people are there to only tell you your mistakes and never anything good, correct me if I am wrong here, which I'm sure I could be."

Correct you if you are wrong? OK, you're wrong!

Further down the page about The Amateur Auxiliary of the FCC at http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/org/am_aux.html you will see:

Q. Hey, I received a Good Operator Report. What's that for?

A. Congratulations! To emphasize the positive nature of the program, "Good Operator Reports" are sent to operators whose radio signals and/or operating practices are consistent with the highest standards and are a model for others to follow. Every amateur should strive to pattern their operating and signals after your example!

Scott N0IU

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N2OBY on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<<I've only been a HAM for 1 1/2 years now, but I'd like to toss out something to think about. These OO's only tell you when you have poor operating skills, they do not commend you for working some difficult DX, superior QRP or doing something otherwise helpful to the community? I love it when people are there to only tell you your mistakes and never anything good, correct me if I am wrong here, which I'm sure I could be. >>

Please re-read the following:

"A. The Amateur Auxiliary is composed of approximately 700 ARRL volunteer-appointees, known as "Official Observers" or "OOs," across the country who monitor the bands and notify amateurs of technical and operating discrepancies as a service to their fellow hams. OOs are helper-advisors, not "band cops." In cases involving serious rule violations such as malicious interference, however, they are trained and certified to gather and forward evidence that can be used by the FCC in enforcement actions."

Should we expect police officers to pull us over and compliment us when we observe of the rules of the road, or when our vehicle meets inspection criteria?. No.

Likewise the OO's are there to point out problems, and help remedy them with a friendly reminder, which I would assume is preferable to receiving a citation from the FCC.

Ken N2OBY
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N2OBY on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Scott N0IU:

Thanks for pointing out the "Good Operator Report" reference. I should have read the whole section before I replied to KB3LSR.

Any day where you learn something new is a good day!

73,

Ken N2OBY
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not Reply
by KB3LSR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I've only been a HAM for 1 1/2 years now, but I'd like to toss out something to think about. These OO's only tell you when you have poor operating skills, they do not commend you for working some difficult DX, superior QRP or doing something otherwise helpful to the community? I love it when people are there to only tell you your mistakes and never anything good, correct me if I am wrong here, which I'm sure I could be.<

::Guess you missed the article which only ran last month regarding the OO "good guy" reports, which they do sound out by the hundreds. My article showed some of them, here:

http://www.eham.net/articles/13142

WB2WIK/6


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N6AJR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I have first hand knowledge of a couple of OO's. One of them was a serious, accurate and even tempered type of fellow that always had a radio on. he would hear something not correct on any band a send a card.

the more recent OO I have delt with hangs out on his scanner on the 2m and 440 bands, and it seems any time you have some one cussing or keying or kerchunking on the repeaters, he is no where to be found. then after an appropriate time interval he shows up, and says , "oh really , I don't here them now, let me klnow if they get back on. on top of that he manages to tell every one he is an OO about everytime he gets on, so he defeats his own purpous!
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2GW on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>>OK - this is from FCC document http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98183.txt

Precisely. The FCC worked with the ARRL to have the OO's function as an FCC "Amateur Auxiliary" after looking at the previous legal models of the Coast Guard Auxiliary and USAF's Auxiliary, the Civil Air Patrol. Both use trained unpaid volunteers to augment the paid personel of a federal agency.

Just as the Coast Guard Auxiliary can't stop your boat for unsafe practices, the OO's of the Amateur Auxiliary can't immediately stop you from violating the rules. But both have been trained by their respective federal agencies how to carefully document and report their observations to assist the parent agency in performing the enforcement of any violations witnessed by the auxiliary member.

So while both organizations are more tasked with helping the public comply with the law (i.e. Safe Boating Examinations and Official Observer notices), they also have the teeth of their parent agency to back them up if push comes to shove.

Of course, if you follow the rules, you should welcome the efforts of such volunteers to help others do the same.

73

Gary, K2GW
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K0RGR tried to locate the signed agreement with the FCC. That was certainly kind of him. However, what he found was a NPRM, not a signed agreement. More specifically, he cited:


"In rule making petition RM-9150, the ARRL states that amateur operators in the Amateur Auxiliary could be usedto a greater advantage. ARRL PROPOSES RULE CHANGES TO ESTABLISH a private sector complaint procedure thatwould permit the volunteers to bring complaints of malicious interference directly to the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ). ...... In support of its petition, ARRL states that the procedure it advocates would improve and increase the quantity and quality of COULD BE USED for enforcement of the amateur rules and also expedite the handling of malicious interference cases.

18. We applaud the ARRL for its CREATIVE THINKING about ways to improve the Commission's
enforcement processes. ITS SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, HOWEVER, APPEARS TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE ROLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES. Specifically, the assignment of duties to ALJs must be consistent with their duties and responsibilities as they relate to conducting formal hearing proceedings. Accordingly, while we do not seek comment on ARRL's specific proposal, we do seek comment, consistent with
the ARRL's underlying concerns, on other ideas for improving our enforcement processes as they relate to
amateur radio..." (EMPHASIS ADDED).


AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE FCC REJECTED ARRL'S IDEAS AS "INCONSISTENT" WITH THE LAW.

Can anybody point us to any signed agreement? Does such an agreement exist?

W9WHE

"
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Once again, the idea of OOs is good.
However, like most things arrl gets its fingers on, implementation is poor.

Even ordinary hams, heck, even non-members (gasp) can record profanity & send it into Hollingsworth and achieve the same outcome. Anybody at arrl that says differently is just wrong.

W9WHE
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by G0GQK on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
As a matter of interest, if there are 700 radio amateur volunteers spread throughout the United States, why is it that there are so many complaints by US amateurs about foul mouthed uncivilised radio louts.?

Those who enjoying swearing, talking dirty,playing music, interference, and all the remaining pleasures of amateur radio in which which most decent people don't take part, seem to carry on with their activities without hindrance, for years. Why ?

Could it be like most disciplinary bodies today, they take the easy way and only report misdemeanours where they get instant results, some poor sod who made a silly mistake.

G0GQK
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W6TH on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
.

..................OO's Part of Enforcement?........

.....................It sure is...................

Not a good post Mark K8MHZ.

REMEMBER:

The cost of that post card comes out of the pocket of the "OO" that sends those tickets. I never asked the ARRL for reimbursement for the cost for the years I was a "OO".

Mark, also remember that my call is not a vanity call, please keep that in mind as a past of American history.

W6TH.
.:
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA2JJH on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W6TH AND W8JI. I agree with both your opposing points of view.

I think the angst is from the source it came from.
A person who has causticly lambasted many for sophmoric
bull.

I have avoided answering this persons Neo-Vanity call persona non grata insults hurled TO me many times.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE: "AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE FCC REJECTED ARRL'S IDEAS AS "INCONSISTENT" WITH THE LAW. Can anybody point us to any signed agreement? Does such an agreement exist?"

RM-9150 was a proposal by the ARRL to make the OO process more powerful. Had this been accepted, it may have improved the enforcement process. But we'll never know.

As I pointed out earlier, in RM-9150 the ARRL referenced their formal agreement with the FCC regarding the Amateur Auxiliary. Again, would they have stated that in a RM proposal to the FCC if it weren't true?

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W5GA on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE, who gored your ox? To read you, the ARRL is tanamount to the antichrist!

I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying that your anti ARRL diatribes grow very tiresome.

Get off your high horse and grow up!!!
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE and K8MHZ - Read WT Docket 980143. In this docket, the FCC refers to the Amateur Auxiliary, and to the ARRL RM-9150 proposal. In part:

"17. Pursuant to the Communications Act, the Amateur Auxiliary is composed of amateur operators who are recruited and trained by the Commission for the purpose of detecting, on a voluntary and uncompensated basis, improper radio transmissions, conveying such information to the Commission, and
issuing advisory notices to persons who apparently have violated provisions of the Communications Act
relating to amateur radio or who have violated any of the rules that govern the amateur radio service. In rule making petition RM-9150, the ARRL states that amateur operators in the Amateur Auxiliary could be used to a greater advantage. ARRL proposes rule changes to establish a private sector complaint procedure that would permit the volunteers to bring complaints of malicious interference directly to the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ)... ...In support of its petition, ARRL states that the procedure it advocates would improve and increase the quantity and quality of enforcement of the amateur rules and also expedite the handling of malicious interference cases."

"18. We applaud the ARRL for its creative thinking about ways to improve the Commission's
enforcement processes. Its specific proposal, however, appears to be inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing the role of administrative law judges. Specifically, the assignment of duties to ALJs must be consistent with their duties and responsibilities as they relate to conducting formal hearing proceedings. Accordingly, while we do not seek comment on ARRL's specific proposal, we do seek comment, consistent with the ARRL's underlying concerns, on other ideas for improving our enforcement processes as they relate to amateur radio."

Is this not good enough for you?

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Oops - It's WT Docket 98-143.

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K0RGR

Your post was from a suggested rule change. It did NOT take effect.

The wording in the law states that the FCC may use INDIVIDUALS to help them collect evidence. No such authority has been given the the FCC to use outside organizations.

I do thank you for taking the time to post the link so I could review it.

If I can find the posts, I will illustrate that there are people that think the FCC can legally use OO's to collect evidence. I think the virtuoso perfomance of N6AYJ drives that fact that they can't home, but I am still interested where the notion came from.

I would also like to add that just because you can find something on the ARRL web site does not make it law. What I am interested in the the actual legal language making these provisions written into current law.

I am not making any statements to the good or bad effects of OOs or their effectiveness or worth. I am simply interested in the law.

If the FCC requests my testimony, recordings or other evidence, they can use it to initiate legal procedings. It is best to have a field agent also witness the same violation, but it is not necessary to procede with a complaint. I know this to be true because I have been personally involved in two complaints and have actually seen the process first hand. In neither case were OO's used at all.

There is also some misunderstanding about recordings. If the FCC asks you to send recordings it is proper to do so. It is not illegal to record what you hear on amateur radio as there is 'no expectation of privacy'. If you really want to be sure of the legality, join the QSO. That makes at least one party aware of the recording third party status is eliminated. Check with your local attorney if you don't believe the FCC.

For what it's worth, this information will be incorporated into my Tech classes.

I have only had one experience with an OO. He sent an e-mail, not a notice, to the trustee of our local club for a radio transmission that lasted 20 seconds or less that he heard and alledged operation .05 khz outside the top of the 20 meter band. Since there was not an actual contact no log entry was made, but I assume he heard someone at the club station try to work a DX station on 14.348.5 USB. The OO said that the 'readout frequency was 14.348.55' USB and that since the 'readout frequency was less than 1.5 KHz away from the band edge' it was his opinion that our transmission was not down by 40 dB by the edge of the band. The e-mail was generated to address a stray of 5/100 of a kilohertz and it's alledged, but not monitored or proven, encroachment on the next radio band.

I personally feel that the complaint was petty, did not follow procedure as was and uncalled for. Club policy is to stay below .347 but it is an unwritten one and the radio both transmits and receives just fine right to the edge of the band. A 20 second error gets an e-mail to the trustee? For a .05 kHz issue? How do I know that this guy even has a radio that can measure a signal that accurately? Come on, read the rules of being an OO. That was an OO No No. BTW, I was not the one that made the transmission. I was just one of many at the club the day it happened.

So far, my quest has not been fulfilled. I still see no law that mentions the OOs.

Thanks much for the reads, but most of the cut and pasted stuff I have already seen.

73,

Mark K8MHZ

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"We applaud the ARRL for its creative thinking about ways to improve the Commission's
enforcement processes. Its specific proposal, however, appears to be inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing the role of administrative law judges."

Was this the thrust of the post?

It seems that this is a polite, legal 'No Thank You' to the ARRL. Does anyone see this differently?

Thanks for the cut and paste, a link to the entire publication would also be appreciated.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"..................OO's Part of Enforcement?........

.....................It sure is...................

Not a good post Mark K8MHZ."

Not because you say so. It's only what the FCC says, in writing, of a current date, that count's.

The post was not meant for your entertainment. It was meant as a means for me to gain information and it seems to have provided me with at least some, but none yet with anything from www.fcc.gov in the form of a rule or a law (proposals don't count) that says the OO's are part of enforcement.

I am still listening.

Oh, I understood you the 1,873 rd time you said you didn't have a vanity call.

Yeah, so?

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W3JJH on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I had a chance to spend a few minutes with Riley Hollingsworth last Saturday after he spoke at the BARC hamfest. He is certainly under the impression that the Amateur Auxiliary (and the OOs) are a part of the FCC's enforcement. He takes referals from the OOs seriously.

No, an OO can't issue a Notice of Apparent Liability or suspend a license. A post card from an OO isn't the same thing as a letter from Riley or a Commission Field Office, but it is something that any ham should take seriously.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W3JJH on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Oh, and if you want to check the OOs status with the Commission, email Riley Hollingsworth:

riley.hollingsworth@fcc.gov
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<If you think OO's indeed are part of FCC enforcement, please point me to something in writing from a .gov site.>

For some strange reason, I have never heard anyone assert that ARRL OOs are part of the FCC.

PL259s, double SO239s have .5db insertion loss, I have heard. OOs part of the FCC, nope.

Bob
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
An advisory notice for operation on 14348.5 is positively warrented. The VFO dial frequency indicates the suppressed carrier frequency. So, with a dial frequency of 14348.5 the signal energy is actually being transmitted between just above this frequency up to roughly 14351.5. The signal in question was falling 1.5 KHz outside the amateur band, and amateurs transmitting here should expect the possibilty of receiving notice that their signal was not confined to the amateur band in violation of FCC rules.<P>
OOs try not to be "picky' in issuing notices {for example: not iding for 10 minutes and 30 seconds}, but then virtually all amateurs notified of a problem feel that their violation was minor and should be overlooked. One purpose of the program is to "maintain" operation in compliance with the rules. The only way to do this is to notify persons of violations to foster a better understanding of the rules. This particular rule is either widely misunderstood or willfully ignored by most contesters and many others. I issued about 18 notices for this very violation during this years ARRL DX contest having only listened for a short time. Last weekends contest showed some improvement with DX stations being heard calling CQ with no US takers. {For further info on this rule, see the WNY OO page at www.stpaulisland.net/oo.html}<P>
As far as enforcement, OOs do not "enforce" the rules. They notify amateurs when they detect signals which seem to be in violation of FCC rules, and the notice asks them to examine the rule noted to see how they might adjust their operating in the future to be in compliance.<P>
If an OO hears violations which are serious, willful, and repeated, they refer the matter to ARRL headquarters through the Official Observer Coodinator for their ARRL Section. Once the matter is referred to ARRL, it is examined by the field Serices staff, and if warrented, referred to ARRL General Counsel to see if it is appropriate for referral to the FCC. What is done by the FCC regarding enforcement is it's own business. The OOs detect improper operation and refer the matter, they do not have any power regarding enforcement.<P>
Often the FCC will issue a monitoring request asking that a specific situation be monitored, and perhaps recordings or other evidence be provided. This allows the FCC to get a more accurate picture of what is happening, without the need of FCC personnel actually having to monitor the situation themselves.<P>
The evidence gathering phase may take a short time, or may stretch into a long time. But, again, enforcement action is at the sole discretion of the FCC. They can act on the information provided by OOs, or not. The FCC generally seems to try to solve situations with the least it takes. They seem to give persistent violators every chance to correct the operation before taking more serious action. Just because action doesn't seem to be happening on long standing problems doesn't mean the FCC isn't aware of them, or that they aren't receiving evidence regarding the matter. All FCC letters, calls, or whatever are not made public. Sometimes the FCC may address an issue with one amateur, with the hope that others involved in the violations may get the message and improve. But, if, when, and how to act is at the sole discretion of the FCC.<P>
Incidently, notifications by e-mail is not a condoned method of OO advisory. I have seen individuals send such notices claiming to be OOs, for purposes of harrassment. If you ever receive a notice by e-mail claiming to be from an OO you should forward it to the Section Manager, or OOC of the section of the OO sending the E-mail. In a local case, maybe the OO brought something up informally by e-mail, not meaning it to be an official advisory notice.<P>
I hope my comments have provided some insight into the OO program. I would be glad to answer any sincere concerns by e-mail if anyone has further questions.<P>
Thanks and 73,
Duane, WV2B<BR>
WNY OOC


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W5HTW on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The problem with the OOs is attitude. Not theirs, but other peoples'. We live in a society in which if one of us speeds 75 mph in a 55 mph zone and gets caught, it is the cop's fault. If one of us gets drunk and is reported to the police for DUI it is the fault of the citizen who reported us, not our own fault. If one of us slips down outside the 40 meter band, to around 6.9 mhz, and gets caught, it is the fault of the entity who caught us, not our own. We live in a culture that believes the enforcers are the ones who are wrong, and we should be free to do as we damn well please. THAT'S why the OO program is frowned upon.

I also got an OO card (one, in my 50 years in ham radio) It was for a chirpy signal on my Hammarlund HX-50A transmitter on CW. And I was glad to learn of the problem. I did not reply, but it let me know there was a technical problem with my rig. I harbored no resentment at the OO for sending the card.

The OO program does have its faults, especially as some of the newer breed of ham have been recruited into it. We have that new kind of ham who is just dying to be a cop. Except, of course, he figures the way he can do it is not by going to the law enforcement academy, but by getting a ham ticket. When that type of guy becomes an OO, he is definitely bad for the program and for ham radio in general. I would have no respect for him. On the other hand, since I obey the rules and have good operating equipment, I'll probably never have to deal with him anyway. MY fault!

The OOs do not just notify people of bad operating practices. They may notify you of technically substandard or improper equipment and that's always good to know. As a NON-OO, I have notified people of raspy signals, by giving them less than a "9" in the Tone report.

One problem the OO has, is we are no longer required to keep logs. So if he sends you a card that says you were too close to the band edge on January 6, at 0323Z, you may not be able to check back.

In general, the OO program is a good thing. But as noted above, there are some of the a-hole element getting into it. If I receive an OO card I will first of all suspect my own radio equipment and/or my operating, before I start blaming the OO for being too nitpicky.

Ed
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2WH on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not

Reply by KD7QDU on March 28, 2006

"The fact that he has gone to the trouble of researching the topic means it is important to him. Your grade school replys are rude. Why did you bother to post if you don't have help to offer? Hams like you are why my ticket will most likely die long before I do."

Bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

K2WH
 
Graffiti paintin', dog beatin' and car stealin'  
by KG6TAG on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Wow!

Some of these responses are really incredible to me. To read the posts here it would seem that the OO's are out prowling the streets painting graffiti on our fences, poisoning our dogs, and stealing our cars.

I WANT to know when I've made a mistake so that I can correct it ASAP. I am thankful that the OOs exist because they can provide me with that information.

I benefit because there is a feedback system that allows me to correct my operations when I have erred - (would you rather receive a bad operator report from a OO or a FCC employee???). YOU benefit because if I do become a habitually bad operator, those details can be reported to the FCC in a manner which will merit their review.

WHOAAA!! you scream, anyone can report these issues to the FCC!!! You are correct, but let's be realistic - just read some of the comments on eham (ranging from balanced to unbalanced, sane to insane) and ask yourself "If I worked for the FCC, would I believe, or could I investigate every complaint that someone submitted to me?" Now, what if you are that same FCC employee who receives a notice from someone who has received (or who you believe has received) training for this type of observation, and who only submits to me the particularly offensive or repeat offenders - would that information have more credibility than a random submission from someone who you know nothing about?

I view the OOs as a sort of early detection system - they enable our understaffed FCC to focus on what appears to be the habitual or particularly dangerous violators, without getting sucked down into the noise of general obnoxious or inconsiderate operating practice (do we want our police force our looking for jay walkers, or do they have more important things to do?).

I dare guess that most of us have been on the air, we have heard some rather distasteful operating practices, but we failed to say anything because we didn't want to cause a fuss - we just turn the big knob and go somewhere else. I am hopeful, no, I RELY on the OOs to speak up WHENEVER it is appropriate in order to help us to remain good operators - even when we make an innocent mistake.


What's all the fuss about? I'm married so "constructive criticism" is nothing really new to me.

72,
Dave
AE6RQ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WI7B on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Mark K8MHZ,

Please refer to 47 U.S.C. 154(f)(4)(B). It is here that the FCC is granted authority to work with an Amateur Radio orgnaization, not just individuals. The ARRL's "Amateur Auxiliary Training Manual" has on pages 27 and 28, the text of the current agreement
between the Commission's Compliance and Information Bureau (CIB) and the ARRL.

I have reprinted the relevant parts of U.S.C. 154 ALL our edicifcation (below). One should always do a thorough search before one makes remarks about INDIVIDUAL and ORGANIZATIONAL uses the FCC can make of radio amateurs.


"(f)(4)(B)

(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of
any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by
the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio
service, may -
(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission
to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of such individual.
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training
individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening,
annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause
(i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of ANY AMATEUR STATION OPERATOR ORGANIZATION.
(iii) The functions of individuals recruited and trained under
this subparagraph shall be limited to -
(I) the detection of improper amateur radio transmissions;
(II) the conveyance to Commission personnel of information
which is essential to the enforcement of this chapter (or
regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter)
relating to the amateur radio service; and
(III) issuing advisory notices, under the general direction of
the Commission, to persons who apparently have violated any
provision of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the
Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio
service.

Nothing in this clause shall be construed to grant individuals
recruited and trained under this subparagraph any authority to
issue sanctions to violators or to take any enforcement action
other than any action which the Commission may prescribe by rule."

73,

---* Ken WI7B


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KL7IPV on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I am not an OO and never have been. My input to the FCC has the same weight as that of an OO. For instance; three years ago I was working a 10-X contest. I was on the band for about two hours when a "X2XX" station jumped in and told me I was interfering with his conversation. He was not on the band so I know he was lying. I told him that I was sorry and moved off. But I didn't move off for about 15 minutes. In that 15 minutes I audio taped his following conversation where he bragged to another ham about how easy it was to make others move and he had been doing it that day for fun. I followed that with an email to Riley. He gave me an address and asked me to send the audio recording to him. I did. I don't know the outcome but it is refreshing to know we have someone to go to when something like that happens.

An OO has no more power than I do except they may have more input to the ARRL. The outcome should/may be the same, I don't know. But if I get a OO notice, I will do my best to figure out why and make a correction if needed. I don't NEED to know it has the the FCC sanction. The fact someone went to the trouble to help me stay our of trouble with the FCC makes them worth it. In fact, if any ham tells me I have a problem, I will thank them and look to solve it. So if they aren't an offical FCC entity, WHO CARES??
73,
Frank
KL7IPV
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Just a note- profanity is not illegal on amateur radio. Obscenity and indecency are. To be considerd such, transmissions must meet very specific legal definitions. There is a lot we hear on amateur radio which we don't want to hear, and shouldn't hear, but it is not illegal. Don't blame the OO program for this type of operating, it is up to you individual amateurs out there, through appropriate peer pressure, to let such operators know what is acceptable on your repeater, from your club members, or whatever.

If transmissions meet the legal definition of obscenity or indecency, and are willful and repeated, they will be refrred to the FCC as deemed appropriate by the ARRL. Freedom of speech does not protect these transmssions, and calls of "if you don't like it, turn the dial", will fall on deaf ears at the FCC. But, the amateur community itself should let the FCC knows it wants to see enforcement of the rules against such transmissions. If the FCC doesn't think it is a problem, then action would be less likely.
73,
Duane, WV2B
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W6PMR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hey fellow radio dudes what's the problem ?
MY OO card is framed and mounted on the wall here in the shack, right next to my W1AW QSL card,...looks sharp.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2LES on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
OO's are the prison snitches of ham radio.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2LES on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
OO's are the prison snitches of ham radio.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ken,

Thanks for the civil reply.

Herein lies the problem. You have taken the wording from an ARRL publication. I want to see it on a .gov website. So far, I don't see what you have posted on the www.fcc.gov website.

I will keep looking though as I don't think you made anything up or are trying to decieve me. Once I see a current version of 47 USC on a .gov website I may have the answer to my question.

If you happen to run across a copy of 47 USC on a .gov site could you please forward me the link? I would appreciate it.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ken,

The best I could do is to find a version of 47 USC 154 at Cornell.

They have a different version than the ARRL.

Here is the important part, as profs at Cornell Law see it:

(B)
(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio service, may—
(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of such individual.


Again,

could you please post a link to a .gov site that supports your allegation that organizations can be used by the FCC to gather enforcement evidence?

I am also concerned as to why we have such a dicrepancy between the ARRL's version of the law and Cornell's.

Thanks for working with me on this,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WV2B,

Duane,

Thanks for you comments. As you see, we like to stay under .347. What ticked me was that the e-mail was sent over something that lasted such a short time. I also did not like the abandonment of protocol. It would have helped to have had some additional info, like the call of the station we were trying to contact. We would have had a better chance of figuring out who was on the mike as sometimes we have several operating under the club call. No one even remembers the exact incedent. All contacts are logged as we complete them and there was no such contact in the log. Who knows if it even really happened? I would have had more respect if more info or a recording was sent. Instead, the entire incedent had to be brought before the whole club. This is unfair to those that always comply with the club's wishes to stay below .347.

Sorry to ramble, and also sorry to veer from my refrain to not make my question a pass of judgment on the OO's, it is not.

I am simply looking for the root of the issue. We may have found it with the difference in wording of the ARRL's version of the law and a university that teaches law. To the ARRL's defense, we are taking their stance from the words of an eHam poster and not directly from the ARRL as no links were posted as I have repeatedly requested.

Again, thanks for your input.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"For some strange reason, I have never heard anyone assert that ARRL OOs are part of the FCC."

That surprises me.

Perhaps after reading a few of the responses here you may why I posed the question.

This topic has also come up at meetings. People will get steaming mad if you challenge them about something and you have written proof in the form of law and they have the ARRL's version that contradicts it.

So far, as I put just a tad more value on something I found at Cornell than something coming from my fellow hams that find contradictions on some undated ARRL publication, please forgive me as I lean toward believing the law profs. Cornell isn't exactly a dump, you know, or a license mill like Ham in a Day.

I hope you have been entertained,

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"could you please post a link to a .gov site that supports your allegation that organizations can be used by the FCC to gather enforcement evidence?"

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl47/ch5/subchI/sec154.html

Not a .gov site, but not an ARRL site either.

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Here is the link to the best version of the law I can find:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000154----000-.html

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Phil,

Thanks,

Look at the date. It's 1998.

The Cornell link is 2006.

I will stay with Cornell's version, thanks for taking the time to help with this and posting the link.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N3NYC on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Guys,

I have a piece of advice for you:

"Do not feed the troll."

Certain people on this thread are interested in argument for the sake of argument, and NOT in actually getting an answer. (Remember the "Argument Clinic Sketch" from Monty Python?) DON'T give them the satisfaction of playing their petty little games.

73,

Hale, N3NYC
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K8MHZ - From the Cornell version:

"(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause (i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any amateur station operator organization."

Phil - AD5X
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W4VR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
You really hit a nerve with lots of folks there Mr. MHZ. Unfortunately, most folks came up with nothing much to contribute, as usual. The OO's are great for keeping us on the right track. The FCC can't possibly keep up with all the crap that goes on 75 and 20 meters.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hale,

I don't know if you are referring to me, but I am really curious as to why we have contradictory versions of the same law?

Has something been fabricated or has their been a change in the wording pertaining to 'individual' vs. 'organization'?

Also I would like to know the current status of the law and have it come from a credible and current source. If that makes someone a troll perhaps I don't quite get the negative implication of the moniker. It may be fair to assert that I am 'trolling' for answers. Is that a bad thing?

Is it fair to our fellow hams to be misled by false, deceptive or outdated versions of the laws we have no excuse to be ignorant of?

Is it fair for me to keep to myself an issue that may affect my fellow hams and not attempt to keep them abreast on the best of my findings?

Would anyone be better served to not be informed of the actual wording of a law as opposed to incorrect information given by an assumedly trusted source?

I have found this forum to be both a means to gain and share information and hope that all that have taken the time to give me what I asked and post the link realize that I do appreciate their efforts.

If you weren't referring to me....nevermind.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K8MHZ "Has something been fabricated or has their been a change in the wording pertaining to 'individual' vs. 'organization'?"

Read a little further down the page on your Cornell link. You'll see that there is no discrepancy.

Phil - AD5X
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4JF on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Herein lies the problem. You have taken the wording from an ARRL publication. I want to see it on a .gov website. So far, I don't see what you have posted on the www.fcc.gov website."

INVALID REQUEST! To presume that if something is not on a ".gov" site then it is not valid, is pretty lame. Only a tiny fraction of the rules and procedures we live by are "on a .gov site". (Or even laws.) Example - my local police department is on a ".com" site. I know that is not kosher, but I would not recommend that you tell them they are not the law!

And if it IS on a ".gov" site is not proof of validity. Repeat: NOT proof of validity.

OOs are one of the best things about ham radio. I have received one notice in over 30 years hamming - my DX-40 was chirping. You can bet I fixed it right away!!

To Official Observers: if you hear a problem with my station PLEASE, PLEASE send me a notice so I can take corrective action. (And THAT is the approach all good hams take.)
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Phil,

(i) refers to the collection of evidence, as I read it.

(ii) refers to the training and recruitment of the individuals in (i).

Only individuals can collect evidence (if that is even the proper legal term, but you know what I mean) and each one must be 'employed' on an individual basis. As per the wording of at least this version, the FCC cannot utilize an organization to gather evidence.

This is much like the government using a school to train police officers. Just because it uses that school for training does not give it the right to use the school's employees to enforce the law. Once the training is complete, the individuals may or may not be used at the government's discretion. If they are used, just like the FCC doctrine delimits, they are under the direction of the government, not an outside organization.

How does this make a difference? For one, forms and protocol. The Cornell version eliminates the use of extra-govermental forms and protocol by writ. Any legal instrument must be born and of the US government outside sworn, individual personal testimony.

The change of one word makes a big difference to an organization like the OO's and the public they are meant to serve.

For some reason the wording in (i) either once included 'organization' or there is corrupted versions of (i) floating around the Internet.

Thanks for addressing this,

Mark K8MHZ

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"OOs are one of the best things about ham radio."

Many share your feelings. You may be correct. But please realize that many good things about ham radio are not part of FCC enforcement.

I am sorry that my only experience with an OO was a bit tainted by his failure to observe his own protocol and posting it may have given some the view that this is an anti OO post. It isn't. By all accounts, even with the critism of the OO's they seem to have done more good than harm. This is not a question of their value, only of their authority.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not Reply
by W9WHE-II on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
.
QUESTION: What is the difference between an ordinary ham (non-arrl member) making a recording of profanity and sending it into FCC and a super-elite, highly-trained, officially-sanctioned, arrl OO doing the very same thing?

ANSWER: Nothing

The answer is credibility. When an OO forwards information inclulding recordings it carries much weight. The FCC has been dealing with OOs for a long time.

If an individual sends information including recordings the FCC has no idea if the information is reliable or not.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Herein lies the problem. You have taken the wording from an ARRL publication. I want to see it on a .gov website. So far, I don't see what you have posted on the www.fcc.gov website."

“As per the wording of at least this version, the FCC cannot utilize an organization to gather evidence.”

So now that the wording from the ARRL publication and the Cornell wording have been shown to match, you've now decided it doesn't matter anyway based on your interpretation of the wording. Probably the best thing for you to do is to email Hollingsworth as was suggested earlier. I'm sure he can tell you whether there is an agreement between the FCC and ARRL.

Sounds like some good cw activity on the low end of 40. I'm going to go spend some quality time there.

Phil - AD5X

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K1VR on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think that K8MHZ has asked to see 47 U.S.C. Sec. 154(f)(4)(B) on a *.gov website, not an ARRL quote, and not a Cornell University website.

I don't know if this answers his underlying question, but
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html, which is a U.S. gov't website from the Government Printing Office (GPO), will lead you where you want to go.

Enter the citation in the suggested format, and you've got the GPO version, from the year 2002 in this case.
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KC9HKN on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Well as long as my OO and HO trains are compatible I will be happy. Sorry were talking about radio not model trains. :) I think the only thing that needs to be said is that we all share the bands together (world) and do it to the best of our ability and follow the rules that we have been given and in the end everyone is happy. Including the FCC. Oh and enjoy ourselves as much as possible, forgot that one.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KC8VWM on March 28, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Interesting observations regarding the observers.

I think as long as the FCC *feels* the OO program is "accepted" as a method of self enforcement to keep ourselves in check; then, I would have to accept that the program has a certain level of credibility in my mind.

So is this OO program an effective program as far as FCC enforcement is concerned?

Ask Riley... He seems to think it works. Quite frankly I don't have any problem with this concept either.

I suppose, if anything we could use a few more of them and we should probobly screen their qualifications a little better, but otherwise it doesn't seem to be a bad thing, with bad intentions altogether...

However, I am not a lawyer and I dont play one on the radio.., but perhaps this question of "legal status" could best be answered more specifically by directing the question to the source?

My Best,

Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by NS6Y_ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Geez, MHZ, just stop kerchunking, cussing, jamming, etc on the air and problem solved. It's like speeding tickets - best way to solve 'em is to..... stop speeding.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N6HCM on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/47C5.txt

the us code web site at the us house of representatives. if you browse the top-level page at http://uscode.house.gov you can use a collection of tools there to search the code ...
 
Don't Worry  
by WPE9JRL on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
When the FCC auctions-off our VHF TV channel spectrum, they will have enough money to re-open the monitoring field offices and staff them with their own monitoring people.

The vigilante hams will then resort to sending out paper OO postcards typed on a 1953 Remington...like they used to.

Some day, pigs will take flight, too.
 
RE: Don't Worry  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Phil,

I don't see that the ARRL pubs, at least of those cut and pasted here, match the Cornell pub. Remember that change in (i) of one word?

Others,

I am having trouble accessing the GPO. I feel quite certain that an accurate version of the law can be found there.

I really would like to thank all of you that provided the various copies and links to the law.

ESPECIALLY those that pointed me to the GPO. That is the info it seems I am seeking. Hopefully I will be able to get into the site soon.

73,

Mark
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ya know....this looks like it has been doctored.

(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission
to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of such individual.
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training
individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening,
annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause
(i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services
of ANY AMATEUR STATION OPERATOR ORGANIZATION.
(iii) The functions of individuals recruited and trained under
this subparagraph shall be limited to -

Notice how (iii) limits the functions of *individuals* trained under this paragraph, not individuals and organizations. It looks like the organizations part was added after the fact in (i) and the person that did it did not follow up by also amending the supporting provisions.

Phil,

If you are still with us, can you provide a link for me to view the entire version? I also would like to know the history of the change, if there ever was one.

Thanks and 73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: Don't Worry  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"When the FCC auctions-off our VHF TV channel spectrum, they will have enough money to re-open the monitoring field offices and staff them with their own monitoring people."

There used to be a really cool field office in Dunningville, MI. Wanna talk about a shack!! Literally acres of antennas. Rhombics, too! I used to go there to get scanner frequencies. It was on the same road, just a few miles away, from the 'CB SHOP' that was selling illegal CBs. The CB Shop is still there on M40, but, alas, the field office is gone.

Too bad that money from the sale of frequencies doesn't go directly to the FCC. In fact, it's funding has nothing to do with that, instead it is our elected officials that have castrated them.

The bad thing about voting for less governent is that you get less, but it costs more.

Thanks for bringing back those memories,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Phil,

(Geez, my eyes are getting blurry)

Sorry, but the re-arrangement of your cut got me a bit off track...

This still limits organizations to recruiting and training. The provision of personnel by any organization is NOT authorized under this section.

Collection of evidence must STILL be done by individuals only.

Thanks, I need some more coffee, or better yet I think I should see if there is any DX on 20.

Cheers,

Mark K8MHZ
 
OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by AI2IA on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Any reasonable idea that would help put a check on poor operating habits is good for amateur radio. A mature person can handle criticism, even unfounded criticism. If some of the OOs are extreme, they are only offering observation and advice. The FCC offers due process. No reasonable ham wants to see amateur radio degenerate into Citizens Band operating habits. The OOs are there for us more than for the FCC, and that is a good thing. Demanding title, section, and paragraph of law are not going to change that good purpose one way or the other.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4JF on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"OOs are one of the best things about ham radio."

Many share your feelings. You may be correct. But please realize that many good things about ham radio are not part of FCC enforcement.

I am sorry that my only experience with an OO was a bit tainted by his failure to observe his own protocol and posting it may have given some the view that this is an anti OO post. It isn't. By all accounts, even with the critism of the OO's they seem to have done more good than harm. This is not a question of their value, only of their authority.
73,
Mark K8MHZ "

I agree completely, Mark. Note I said ONE OF the best things. There are a lot of other "best things", too, which is why I'm still here after 30+ years!

I, too, am sorry that your experience with an OO was not as it should have been. But as with any group, some are better than others. Best thing to do is fix the problem if there was one, or ignore it if there was not, and go on about enjoying one of the world's greatest hobbies.

VY 73, Jim K4JF
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by K4JF on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Any reasonable idea that would help put a check on poor operating habits is good for amateur radio. A mature person can handle criticism, even unfounded criticism. If some of the OOs are extreme, they are only offering observation and advice. The FCC offers due process. No reasonable ham wants to see amateur radio degenerate into Citizens Band operating habits. The OOs are there for us more than for the FCC, and that is a good thing. Demanding title, section, and paragraph of law are not going to change that good purpose one way or the other. "

I agree 100%, Ray. Well said!!

VY 73, Jim K4JF
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement?  
by N3UMH on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
47USC 154(f)(4)(B) year 2000 edition, the most recent published.

From the site:
access.gpo.GOV, the government printing office.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+47USC154

(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause (i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any amateur station operator organization.

clause (i) being:

(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations *snip* relating to the amateur radio service,
may--
(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of such individual.

So the FCC can accept the services of the ARRL to train and recruit OO's. It's from the US Code, from a .gov site.

Go to access.gpo.gov.

Click on "Online Federal Information" under GPO Access

Click on "United States Code" under GPO Access Resources by Branch

Click on the link in "Browse the 2000 Edition of the U.S. Code."

Click on "TITLE 47"

Click on "CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION"

Click on "SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS"

Click on "Sec. 154. Federal Communications Commission."

If you have trouble finding the relevant section (it's a lot of text!!!), search the page for "organization" the first instance of which is in 47USC 154(f)(4)(B)(ii).

The FCC and the ARRL are allowed by law to cooperate.

I assume this will not be good enough. It's not a signed formal agreement between the two.

73,
Dan
N3OX
www.n3ox.net
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by WI7B on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Mark K8MHz,

From YOUR own source, the Cornell Law School:

Title 47 (Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelephones), Chapter 5 (Wire or Radio Communication), Subchapter 1 (General Provisions), Section 154 (Federal Communication Commission)

[CFR 47 United States Code 47 154 4)(B)]...

=> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000154----000-.html



4)(B)
(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio service, may—
(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of such individual.
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause (i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of ANY AMATEUR STATION OPERATOR ORGANIZATION. (my emphasis)."

This is NOT an ARRL publication, but United. States Code. Please, don't falter into disingenuousness. The reason these are difficult to find with a ".gov" is that the GPO has not put Chapters above 3 online yet. Please see...

=> http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200447

for all online chapters.

73,

---* Ken
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by WI7B on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Dan N3OX,

Good search! Yes, they're there. It's a little harder to find as they're not in the public-archived sections yet.

Mark K8MHz, and all of us, are better served by being aware of the law that governs amateur radio. So, this was a good exercise.

73,

---* Ken
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement?  
by N3UMH on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Oh, and since I know there are a number of posters who are not on board with the ARRL, note that there is no mention by NAME of the OO's or the ARRL. Why? Because the FCC would certainly be willing to accept the help of more hams recruited and trained by other organizations too, if those organizations were trusted by the FCC.

Just as there are many VE groups out there, there could be many violation oversight groups. Why aren't there?

Probably because people who want to volunteer their services formally to monitor the ham bands sign up with the OO's.

Start your own group if you want, but I think it will take you some time to earn the trust that the OO program has. Whether you feel the ARRL is good or bad for ham radio, the OO's are doing a good job.

Dan
N3OX
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by N3UMH on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ken,

I agree. It's generally useful to know where to find the laws that govern you!

I think that I just did a google search for "US Code" to find the GPO access site.

73 es CUL,
Dan
N3OX
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by KC9GUZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
We need a few good OO's here were i live! How does one become an OO? I take it you must have at least a General lisense to be one but what other criteria is there?
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by WV2B on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
To become an OO one must be licensed for at least 4 years, an ARRL member, and hold Tech or higher license.

You can apply on the ARRL web page, or contact the Section manager of your ARRL section.

Once your application is received {you must state why you think you are qualified for the appointment} it is forwarded to the Section Manager for approval. If the applicant is not personally known by the SM or OOC the applicant may be asked to provide references from other hams, like a club president or other person in a position to know the applicants qualifications.

If the SM or OOC approve the application, they will inform ARRL HQ and the applicant will be sent a testing package. The applicant will be required to pass a test based on the ARRL OO Training Manual, FCC Rule Book, and the Radio Amateur's Handbook. If the test is passed {many applicants don't pass}, the applicant will be informed of his appointment and sent materials to begin his work as an OO>

Once appointed, the OO's activity will be reviewed with the OOC at least once a year, and appointees may be required to complete additional training initiated by his OOC or SM.

As you can see, there is a process to insure qualification. Training and guidance is provided for OOs by their OOCs and SMs. An appointment is not an entitlement, the appointment can be rescinded at any time for any reason by ARRL or section OOCs or SMs.

Once appointed, OOs must maintain regular activity in monitoring, and report their activity as determined by their OOC {usually on a monthly basis}. They also must be active in issuing advisories and Good Op notices as warrented.

Anyone who has mature judgement, and is interested in helping his fellow amateurs should feel free to carefully consider the program, and apply if interested and qualified.

Further information can be found on the ARRL web site. search for Amateur Auxiliary or Official Observer. Or go to the WNY OO page at www.stpaulisland.net/oo.html to find links to the information.

73,
Duane, WV2B
WNY OOC
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by WV2B on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The individual OO gathers the evidence. The organization {ARRL} is used by the FCC to summarize the evidence, filter what is presented, etc. The ARRL presents the evidence gathered to the FCC. That way the FCC is presented with only relevant material which has been screened by ARRL counsel to be sure the material ideed demonstrates actual violation of FCC rules.

This is totally in line with the agreement as written. Should the matter go to hearing, the individual OO could be called to testify, it was his evidence. Any evidence provided by OOs is handled according to standard and legal procedures relating to evidence, chain of custody, etc. Can the same be said of a tape sent in by an individual untrained ham, probably not. the tape may demonstrate a problem requiring investigation by the FCC, but its usefullness as actual evidence might be in doubt.

Evidnece gathered by OOs is done in a regimented way according to proper procedures. It is reviewed by the Section OOC or SM, then sent to ARRL HQ where it is reviewed by Field Services Dept. staff, then by the General Counsel, then presented to the FCC. As you can hopefully see, evidence presented to the FCC will be of serious, willfull, and repeated violations, which would be actionable by the FCC should it choose to do so. Such would not be the case if an orginization were not used to administer the program. of course, individual hams are free to make complaints to the FCC about matters they feel violate FCC rules, but chances are these complaints will be referred to the OO program in the form of monitoring requests so the FCC can get an unbiased look at the situation, and information useful as evidence if needed.
73,
Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by WV2B on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The main function of the OO program is "maintenance". In other words- a ham is heard transmitting with a dial frequency of 14.348 MHz by an OO. The OO sends an advisory notice to the ham informing him of the out-of-band transmission, and asking him to review the appropriate FCC rule to understand the violation. Hopefully, the recipient looks up the rule, other published material, or asks another experienced ham. He comes to an understanding of the violation, and hopefully does not repeat the violation, and maybe even shares what he has learned with other members of his DX club or contesting club. The OOs services have been used in a positive way to "maintain" proper operating in accord with the FCC rules.

The other alternative is for the FCC to man monitoring stations, staff them, and cite hams whenever such fairly minor infractions are noted.

Which seems the best way for the hobby and the FCC? I am sure we will have the nay sayers who will say only the FCC should do this. OK, then lets have high license fees and raise taxes to pay for it, right?
73,
Duane, WV2B
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K0RGR on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
MHZ - you apparently did not read the link I provided - it is on the FCC website, not ARRL's. Your reply is simply wrong.

Yes, - this is not the 'signed agreement' you're looking for, but the fact that THE COMMISSION referred to the Amateur Auxiliary should be good enough evidence for rational folks to believe that such a thing exists. This was not a proposal to create the Amateur Auxiliary - ARRL suggested an expansion of it. And, if you read the final R+O on the matter, it was not rejected, it was tabled at the League's request.

If you tell enough anti-League stories long enough, and loud enough, you'll convince everybody, starting with yourself, that you're right.
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by N0IU on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N3UMH (now N3OX) wrote, "I think that I just did a google search for "US Code" to find the GPO access site."

I just gotta ask, why wouldn't you google "GPO access" to find the site???
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
All,

Thanks for the great input. Also I think that the very good information from a wide range of sources with varying viewpoints about the OOs was a nice addition to the forum.

The wording makes the law's relevance to my basic question a bit fuzzy. I think we all have found that the current law is clear that the FCC can employ the voluntary use of individuals to gather and forward evidence. (Please take note that this was mentioned specifically and does not include 'organizations').

I think it also to be clear that the FCC can employ an organization to recruit and train said individuals. (The roles of organizations are defined here and does not include collection of evidence.)

What is not specifically allowed is for the FCC to employ an organization to gather and forward evidence. Some clarification as to why the orgs can train but only individuals can collect and forward would have helped understand this better.

As I see things so far, the role of the OO's collectively is to inform amateurs of minor violations. Any interaction with the FCC must be questioned as to the role of the OO at the time of the collection of evidence. Was the OO employed voluntarily by the ARRL at the time i.e. being an OO, or was the operator acting as an individual and therefore neither bound, motivated nor restricted by any contractual or loyal ties? It has to be one or another, and the transition point, if any, could be a tough one to delineate in a court of law.

Their effectiveness relies on the willingness of the violator to comply, which in the vast majority of cases is present. It is the few percent, the one's that do the most harm, that are practically immune to an OO's testimony barring direct involvement with the actions in question and during the times in question.

I think that most of the vulnerability for criticism is born of the fact that it really is the OO's job to go after the good guys. Getting the bad guys off the air is the sole responsibility and must be done under the direct directives of the FCC and the individuals that can supply testimony that will be accepted in a courtroom.

Thanks, I have learned much.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KB3LSR on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"...correct me if I am wrong here, which I'm sure I could be. "

And you did just that, thank you all. I did miss the article about such "good operating reports" you speak of. Thanks for the good, informative responses in showing I was incorrect, which I was pretty sure of in the first place.

73
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"QUESTION: What is the difference between an ordinary ham (non-arrl member) making a recording of profanity and sending it into FCC and a super-elite, highly-trained, officially-sanctioned, arrl OO doing the very same thing?

ANSWER: Nothing

N4VOX disagrees and asserts:

"The answer is credibility. When an OO forwards information inclulding recordings it carries much weight. The FCC has been dealing with OOs for a long time".

NONSENSE!
The issue is the EVIDENCE, not the person gathering it. And if you think that just because you are an arrl member, you have credibillity (or superior credibillity) you are dead wrong.

Roughly 90% of enforcement actions are based upon reports by NON-OOs. And 90% of those get resolved without any hearing.

NOW as to the 1-2% of the remaining actions (like K1MAN and othger kooks) its not WHO sends in the evidence, but the WEIGHT of the evidence. If you think that a super-elite, specially anointed, arrl member is automatically more credible then us ordinary (non-member) hams, you are SADLY MISTAKEN.

W9WHE


 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by WV2B on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause (i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of ANY AMATEUR STATION OPERATOR ORGANIZATION. (my emphasis)."

I think this is clear. The FCC can employ an organization {ARRL} for the purpose of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports refrerred to it {the organization} by individuals who have been recruited and trained by it {the organization}. The individuals doing the evidence gathering do not refer it to the FCC, but to the organization. If the organization {ARRL} feels the material referred is actionable by the FCC it will be referred.

I mentioned the exact procedure in an earlier post. And, as previously stated, neither the individuals, nor the organization,have any powers of enforcement, only the referral of reports to the FCC.

The main thrust of the program is maintenance. Only cases of serious, deliberate, and repeated violations ever make it to the ARRL, let alone the FCC.
73,
Duane
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K6LCS on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>>...the belief that ARRL Official Observers are part of the FCC enforcement effort...

I was under the impression that OOs were merely "eyes and ears" ... Their reports are usually the most intelligent, coherent, and un-biased.

Clint Bradford, K6LCS
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by N3UMH on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N0IU: I didn't know I was looking for the GPO access site. I did know I was looking for a .gov site wherein resided the U.S. Code.

-Dan
N3OX
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Roughly 90% of enforcement actions are based upon reports by NON-OOs. And 90% of those get resolved without any hearing."-W9WHE-II

::Is that published on a .gov website somewhere? Sounds like a statistic somebody pulled from the air.

WB2WIK/6
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by WV2B on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
As mentioned previously OOs are trained in evidence gathering and referral procedures. It is not the fact that OOs are more credible because they are ARRL members. It is because they are <I>trained</I> in the proper methods of evidence gathering, preparation, and submittal, so the material submitted can be used as evidence in court of required.

Individual hams can submit <I>complaints</I> to the FCC, backed up by recordings or whatever, but the recordings have not been handled according to proper "chain of custody" and other procedures and would not be admissible as "evidence" at a hearing. If they were, the defendant would easily get them thrown out.

Often, when individual hams make complaints to the FCC, the Auxiliary is issued a monitoring request. This is not made public. Often complaintants make accusations against each other. The FCC then relies on evidence provided by OOs to gain an unbiased look at what is occurring.

I don't know where the figure that 90% of all cases handled by the FCC come from individual hams, not the OO program, came from. The public does not know when monitoring requests have been made, and I would say most of the time the amateurs involved as either complainer or accused never know this either. Often, evidence is gathered over weeks, months, or even longer, before one sees a warning letter or other action. Many actions are taken by the FCC, such as not routinely renewing a license, which is never known to the ham public. Many things are likely solved informally by the FCC, perhaps by phone or other means, again with the amateur public never having knowledge of what occurred, or that the OO program had any part in evidence gathering.

The OO program is not a bunch of yahoos with no idea what they are doing. We are a well trained, organized, supervised, and experienced group of over 700 amateur radio operators.

As with any group of 700 people difficulties may arise, and the program is very interested in quality control. Any person who feels an OO has handled something in a way outside the dictates of the program are encouraged to provide the complete details of the situation to the Section Manager or OOC of the OOs ARRL Section, The Section Manager of their own section, or even to ARRL HQ.

The goal is for minor problems to be brought to the attention of hams <I>before</I> they get to a point requiring involvment of the FCC. This is referred to by the FCC as self-policing. But, when situations are serious, deliberate, and repeated OOs are trained and skilled to provide the FCC not only with information, but with <I>evidence</I> it can use in actionable cases. That is the difference between the evidence provided by OOs and information submitted as complaints by the general amateur public.
73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Ham Preservation  
by KC8VWM on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"OO"'s maintain statistics regarding thier monitoring activities.

Here's an example:

http://www.tnarrl.org/ooc/pastyearsdata.htm



 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N7ZM on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Mark,
The OO system is a volunteer organization of the ARRL. They do not have any FCC enforcement power. They have been used by the FCC on gathering information on serious violations and can forward any info to the FCC for further investigation.
So if you get a green card or OO post card in mail, notifying you of a violation, it's basically a worthless piece of cardboard to the FCC, unless it's serious enough and the violations continue and are being documented, which then can be forwarded to the FCC by the OO, and then can be used by the FCC for directing their own monitoring.

Ron N7ZM
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N4VOX disagrees and asserts:

"The answer is credibility. When an OO forwards information inclulding recordings it carries much weight. The FCC has been dealing with OOs for a long time".

NONSENSE!
The issue is the EVIDENCE, not the person gathering it. And if you think that just because you are an arrl member, you have credibillity (or superior credibillity) you are dead wrong.

Credibility doesn't come from just being an ARRL member, but comes from taking the training, passing the tests and then actively participating in the program. You have no idea how close the OOs work on some cases with the enforcment bureau.

You let your hatred of the ARRL close your eyes to what really goes on. Sadly, there is no shortage of people like this in the ham ranks that hurt the rest of us.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K0RGR,

Sorry not to answer you 'till now but the response generated by my article has been far more than I expected.

First and foremost, thanks for taking the time to do some research for me and also include the link.

It appears that the link refers to a regulatory review that was done 8 years ago. A review is not the same as a law, but I do appreciate your effort.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Question to those that know the OO system:

Can a ham be an OO without paying dues to the ARRL?

Thanks,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KX8N on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"NONSENSE!
The issue is the EVIDENCE, not the person gathering it. And if you think that just because you are an arrl member, you have credibillity (or superior credibillity) you are dead wrong."

You're right, Gill, and it actually goes beyond the ARRL. ANY ham has the right to gather information to submit to the FCC. I'm not an OO, nor am I an ARRL member right now. But if there's someone jamming a local repeater, I have a right to record them, take notes (including the time, freq, and call of the jamming individual), and send it all in to the FCC. If they see fit, they can then work on enforcement. If me and my buddies do this repeatedly, efficiently, and comprehensively, we can get something done about the matter.

There's nothing that says the FCC cannot ask for help from someone. THAT is a law I would like to see a .gov link to. Hams help the FCC all the time. Many of the stories you hear about where enforcement is done has all been started by local hams having trouble with an individual, and banding together to do something about it. They get their evidence, send it to the FCC, and the FCC decides what, if anything, to do about it. The OO system is just the ARRL's idea of organizing some of these hams together.

You don't even HAVE to be an OO to send someone a card. I mean, if I hear a guy on the repeater, and he always starts talking before keying down, I can send him a little card saying "hey, you might want to watch that, it makes you a little hard to understand". Doing that as an OO just makes it sound more official. But the whole point of the OO system is not to point fingers or really even to help the FCC. The point of the OO system as I understand it is to guide hams in the right direction. They guy that the OO sends a card to for being out of band for his priviledges might not have even realized he did it. The guy with a hum in his audio may not have been told about it until getting an OO card.

Maybe some OO's take their "job" TOO seriously, and that's unfortunate. Sounds like Mark got involved with such an OO. OO's are generally good people just trying to help out other hams. And true, when you are doing a REALLY good job, you might get a card from them for THAT, too. Remember, OO's have a certain amount of activity that they are supposed to be doing each month.

Dave
KX8N
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Dave,

Thanks man,

I consider your post to be true words of wisdom. I can see no contradiction between your words and the law.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W2BBQ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
One thing that must be so is that no OOs' own an 80meter capable rig. Well there was that one OO who sometime in the last 43 years, probably about 43 years ago, sent one card out for no ID in 10 minutes, but since then....nothing. We (the ham community) needs to either start a massive fund raising drive to provide OOs with 80 meter capable rigs so that can do some of this OO'ing stuff on 80, or perhaps they do all have 80m rigs and have found it to be so bad that even they don't want to have their dainty little ears soiled by the....stuff....that passes for ham radio on 80 at night on so many spots on the dial.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AC0DB on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Below is a memorandum that I came across from Riley Hollingsworth, dated April of 2003. This memorandum directly references the formal, signed agreement between the FCC and the ARRL regarding the use of amateur volunteers, entitled the "Amended Agreement Between the Field Operations Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and the American Radio Relay League, Inc., Regarding the use of Amateur Volunteers". I am sure that a copy of this signed can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act or via the ARRL, if one is indeed that interested.

-----------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU
Memorandum

TO:
Chuck Skolaut, Field & Regulatory Correspondent
American Radio Relay League

FROM:
W. Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel
Enforcement Bureau

SUBJECT:
Unlicensed incursion into the Ten Meter Amateur Band

DATE:
April 28, 2003

This referral is made pursuant to Section 4(f)(4)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(f)(4)(B), and the "Amended Agreement Between the Field Operations Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and the American Radio Relay League, Inc. Regarding the Use of Amateur Volunteers.

We request the assistance of the ARRL Auxiliary in identifying, over the next 6 months (May through October), any unlicensed operation in the Ten Meter Amateur Band, whether from business entities including trucking companies, truckers or other individuals operating domestically. We do not request direction finding, but would appreciate, where possible, the names and cities of the operators, and license plate numbers and state if from a vehicle.

Please use your best judgment as to whether to include tapes, and please use case number 2003-583

Thank you
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KX8N on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"One thing that must be so is that no OOs' own an 80meter capable rig. "

Of course, you could also say that if you leave the 75M opps alone and where they are, they won't go around polluting the other bands.

Sure OO's monitor 80 meters. They don't need to, though. The FCC is well aware of what goes on there. They just don't care, nor can they do anything about it. Most people who don't like it simply avoid it. That save's on time, headaches, and antenna size. Getting a card from an OO is not going to change the operating habits that some of these "hams" have been using for the past 25+ years.

And the FCC? Apparently swearing, bad manners, and bad taste are not enough cause for fines or jail time. Look what they have gone through over K1MAN. That's ONE ham who has violated FCC rules day after day after day. And still, nothing has actually happened to him. If the FCC doesn't have the power to take HIM down, what are they going to do to some 80 year old complaining about his "f*ing hemmorroids" or something?

75M is a nuisance. It's best to stay away from it if you don't agree with it. But considering the FCC doesn't have enough bite to get people who jam, threaten, and basically take over frequencies as their own, what are they going to do about a nuisance?

Dave
KX8N
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KC9GUZ on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Too bad we cant use OOs to clean up 11 meters. But that would be a loooong shot!!! CB is too far gone.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
As per a previous post- the general ham public is not informed of every action taken by the FCC. The warning letters published on the FCC web site are only a selection. Perhaps the FCC chooses the ones regarding the most notorious cases, or which it feels will best serve the amateur public by being made known.

Example- 80 meters. Here in the NE area, I know of at least 2 cases of amateurs licenses not being routinely renewed in the last year or so. Never made public. At least 1 monitoring request made for 80 meters by the FCC. Not publically known. In response to the request- probably hundreds of hours of taped evidence of serious violations sent to the FCC. Action by FCC- unknown at this time. Serious repeat violators on 80 meters may at this very moment be red flagged in the FCC database, and when they attempt to renew may be informed that the renewal is being referred to the enforcement bureau for review.

But, yes, you hams out there need to make it known that operation in violation to the FCC rules regarding obscenity/indecency is of concern to you, and that it is degrading amateur radio. Feel free to provide specific information to the FCC if you wish. It may result in a monitoring request for the gathering of further evidence, and eventually something may happen. But, if the good ops accept the logic "if you don't like it, turn the dial", then that is what our bands will decay to permanently.

Just be sure before making a complaint that the information you provide violates a specific FCC rule. Transmissions meeting the definition of profanity are not illegal. Those meeting the definition of obscenity/indeceny are. Be sure you know the difference. Also, don't bother the FCC or OO program with minor issues. If it a case of serious, deliberate, and repeated violations, by all means contact your SM, OOC, or even the FCC {fccham@fcc.gov}.

If it is an isolated incident, or not a serious matter accept the fact it will have to be overlooked. All of the problems of the amateur service are not going to be solved by the FCC or OO program. Peer pressure and education must be used to solve minor problems. But, don't get discouraged and leave the air because of the rotten ops. Then they have won, and the bands will be degraded. Thanfully, the vast majority are good ops and do not deliberately violate rules. I think that is how it will continue.

73, Duane, WV2B
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KG4TEZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The OO's are also know to send you a letter for good operating practices.

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N4VOX writes:

"Credibility doesn't come from just being an ARRL member, but comes from taking the training, passing the tests and then actively participating in the program".

What could I, a non-arrl member, possibly know?
After all, us non-members are just plain dumb, right? Take me for example, I'm just a litigation lawyer. What could I possibly know about trials or the rules of evidence? Good thing that a super-elite, highly trained arrl member straightened me out!

I was so foolish to believe that at a trial, its not the strength of the evidence, but the pedigree of the witness, that matters. Damn! 3 years of law school and all that tuition money wasted! Good thing we have you arrl guys to tell the rest of us how dumb we are!

W9WHE

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
AC0DB,

Very interesting memo! I really wish you would have posted a link so I could examine it in context.

I note that the memo is 3 years old. I also note that while it may have been pursuant to 47 USC 154 in 2003, it is not pursuant to it in it's 2006 form.

It does seem, however, to be consistant with the other variations of 154 that I have seen. Could it be that up to just a few years ago the FCC had the legal right to use the ARRL or any other organization to collect evidence and something happened to make a change in the law preventing it?

The history of this most examined paragraph of 154 may be an interesting one.

Why was the change made? Can we trace it to a single incedent or were there many?

I am VERY interested in this.

Thanks again for the memo, can you get me anymore info, a link or something to verify that it was put into service? What happened when the ARRL started hunting illegal 10 meter operators? Was the outcome successful?

Or did something happen that caused a change in the law?

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Mr. Gunn,

You have a better chance at answering my question, above, than anyone?

What say you? Also, would you be so kind as to post links to assist keeping things in context?

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4RAF on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If I didn't ID in 13 minutes but get an OO card anyway,

How would I get a card if I didn't ID?

Kind of petty thinking in play there...
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WD9I on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I get qsl cards from at least one OO after every field day. It's pretty tough to watch what everyone who is using your callsign is doing on that weekend. One year I caught a couple of OO's working together close to the band edge luring unsuspecting operators out of the band. Naughty naughty. Because I've gotten such a good start, I've decided to try for ARRL's new award... WAOO

73
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"One year I caught a couple of OO's working together close to the band edge luring unsuspecting operators out of the band."

Could instances like this be why the FCC is not allowed to use organizations to collect evidence?

There has to be some reason, and it seems that this is as good as any, no? Can you say entrapment?

I am also waiting to find out the results of the ARRL hunting illegal 10 meter operators. I sure hope no one got hurt.

Thanks for the info,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not Reply
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I am also waiting to find out the results of the ARRL hunting illegal 10 meter operators. I sure hope no one got hurt.<

::No, it went okay. Dick Cheney wasn't around...

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE, well you must have been asleep when they covered credibility of witnesses and weight of evidencwe. I suggest you refresh yourself before taking the bar exam again.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N4VOX, one of those internet lawyers, writes:

".....you must have been asleep when they covered credibility of witnesses and weight of evidencwe. I suggest you refresh yourself before taking the bar exam again"

I'm allways amazed at how expert non-lawyers are at legal matters for which they have no meaningful credentials:

FIRST: Credibillity is judged by the trier of fact, i.e., the ALJ or the Jury, NOT lawyers for the parties;

SECOND: Lawyers don't re-take the bar, the have CLE; and

THIRD: Just when was it YOU attended law school and passed ANY bar exam?

In a rule infraction/enforcement case, the three questions are:
a) Did you do it?;
b) Is it against the rules; and, if yes,
c) what is the penalty.

Credibillity is rarely the issue, except where someone denies that they did it. Think there is any credibillity issue in the K1MAN case? Think again. Credibillity is RARELY an issue with multiplle voice recordings. But then again, since you did NOT go to law school, are NOT a lawyer, do NOT handle litigation, and CANNOT prectice law, YOU are the undisputed expert. Sheesh.

You, practicing law, is like me practicing law enforcement, a very bad idea. But since you know everything, I guess we should make YOU dean of the law school! Let me guess, since you know everything, you must also be an arrl member? yes?

W9WHE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not Reply
by W9WHE-II on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
FIRST: Credibillity is judged by the trier of fact, i.e., the ALJ or the Jury, NOT lawyers for the parties;
Credibillity is rarely the issue, except where someone denies that they did it. Think there is any credibillity issue in the K1MAN case? Think again. Credibillity is RARELY an issue with multiplle voice recordings. But then again, since you did NOT go to law school, are NOT a lawyer, do NOT handle litigation, and CANNOT prectice law, YOU are the undisputed expert. Sheesh.<

::Is credibillity anything like credibility?


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not Reply
by W9WHE-II on March 29, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Roughly 90% of enforcement actions are based upon reports by NON-OOs. And 90% of those get resolved without any hearing.<

::Can you site your source for this data? I think it hasn't much "credibillity."

-WB2WIK/6
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
He can't pound on the law, and he can't pound on the facts, so he is left to pound on the table.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
N4VOX,

I'm no lawyer either, the closest I have come to working for the legal system was locating people for a scummy PI.

But, one thing I did notice was that evidence and witnesses were two entirely separate aspects of legal procedings.

A witness is a person. Evidence is a thing. The two are tied together when a witness gives testimony. It is TESTIMONY, not evidence that based upon credibilty of a witness.

If you have difficulty with the difference, the crux of the biscuit is that you can't cross examine evidence. It just is.

I think that the guy that does law for a job may just have a better handle on it than someone that does not. Any challenging statements would have more credibility if they were backed by written law or teachings from a professor of law, the latter of which would be relevant with the application and interpretation of current laws, or the changes in teachings that may be applicable and of late.

Issues arise when the government contracts outside organizations to do their work. For one thing, who do the OO's answer to? Anyone elected? Or should I say quis custodiet ispos custodes?

What is the value of a sworn statement? Is it's value determined by the training or lack thereof of the sworn? In fact, any sworn statement is subject to due consideration of truth. Training has little to do with credibility when fact or falsity is being ascertained. Association with the ARRL could be either good, or bad, depending on the type of experiences one has had and does not automatically make for increased credibility.

So, with all that being said it would be fairly safe to say that the opinion of Council Gunn would be one of the most accurate.

73,

Mark K8MHZ



 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA9SVD on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
by KB3LSR on March 28, 2006

I've only been a HAM for 1 1/2 years now, but I'd like to toss out something to think about. These OO's only tell you when you have poor operating skills, they do not commend you for working some difficult DX, superior QRP or doing something otherwise helpful to the community? I love it when people are there to only tell you your mistakes and never anything good, correct me if I am wrong here, which I'm sure I could be.

============

Not true. OO's DO send out "Good Operator" notices. But merely working QRP or a difficult DX contact doesn'tnecessarily qualify; some exemplary operating practice(s) are required.
but just like the local Police, unfortunately, most of their time is spent dealing with rule and regulation violations. Except, of course, they have no enforcement power; all they can do is observe.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Credibility doesn't come from just being an ARRL member, but comes from taking the training, passing the tests and then actively participating in the program".

"What could I, a non-arrl member, possibly know?
After all, us non-members are just plain dumb, right? Take me for example, I'm just a litigation lawyer. What could I possibly know about trials or the rules of evidence? Good thing that a super-elite, highly trained arrl member straightened me out!"

To keep matters in perspective- the question was: Why do we need OOs, can't any ham just send in tapes and accomplish the same thing?

Perhaps the lawyers out there will address the forum regarding chain of custody of evidence, demonstration of bias, relevance, and other matters relating to evidence, that would explain why evidence prepared by trained OOs is different from Joe Ham slapping in a tape, recording what he feels to be a violation of FCC rules, putting it in an envelope, and mailing it to Riley Howlingsworth.

I wonder if those questioning the value of training received by OOs have any idea what this training includes, why it is needed, and how it all relates to whether the FCC can actually make any use of the information presented.

73,
Duane, WV2B

73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"One year I caught a couple of OO's working together close to the band edge luring unsuspecting operators out of the band."

Please elaborate. How did you know the operators in question were OOs? How were they cooperating together to lure other ops out of the band? When they managed to lure operators out of the band, what was the result? Did you report this situation to the ARRL, either directly, or through appropriate Section Managers or Official Observer Coordinators? If not, why not?

Thanks,
Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The OO's Good Operator notices cite good technical skills from what I have seen. This includes what your radio is doing and what you are doing with the radio.

Good skills include maintaining proper signal width, IDing correctly, not producing spurii, etc. Pretty neat approach if you ask me.

It may surprise some of you to know that I think the idea of the OO program is a good one. It's implementation by some of it's members is indeed suspect, thus tarnishing a fine effort.

The OO's are needed to make sure the fine operators that have a sincere desire to stay within the law have an alternative to dealing with the FCC should they inadvertently broach said law.

Since ignorance of the law is an excuse for no man, they also help to inform radio operators of laws that may be overlooked by those of a less legal and more technical nature.

The question was not if the OO's are good or bad, it was the issue of whether or not the OO's, or any organization for that matter, has any legal authority in the process of enforcing the laws under the jurisdiction of the FCC in a manner withstanding jurisprudence.

I am hoping that we concur that due to a preponderance of evidence it appears they have none.

Now, had we based our decision on a preponderance of testimony we may be stuck with a hung jury.

Thanks again to all that took the time to contribute.

73,

Mark K8MHZ


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Duane,

That is a great question.

I, too, am interested in the answer.

Thanks for being so circumspect.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Good Op Reports- Yes this is a big part of the OO program. They are issued to amateurs who set an example of the best ham radio has to offer.

What are they issued for? Many different things. Some examples they have been issued for- a ham turning off the amplifier when it wasn't needed, a contester relinquishing a frequency to a net even though he was there first and had no obligation to do so, asking if the frequency was in use and listening several times before calling CQ or making a call, helping introduce children to ham radio on kids day, a group on 80 meters who make an effort to id on time each ten minutes despite the current atmosphere of the band, and many other things which escape my mind at the moment. Getting a good op report is something to be proud of. To receive one a ham obviously must be active on the air, demonstrate operating or technical proficiency which sets an example for other amateurs, and mange to be heard by an OO while doing so. Hopefully all the good ops out there will have a chance to receive one soon! 73, Duane
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Perhaps the lawyers out there will address the forum regarding chain of custody of evidence, demonstration of bias, relevance, and other matters relating to evidence, that would explain why evidence prepared by trained OOs is different from Joe Ham slapping in a tape, recording what he feels to be a violation of FCC rules, putting it in an envelope, and mailing it to Riley Howlingsworth."

I see your position as it applies to unsolicited evidence. However, when it comes to evidence requested by the FCC from an individual, pursuant to 47 USC 154, the difference fades if not disappears completely.

We must also look at the motivation of an individual vs. that of an organization. An organization that exists only to correct violations has no need to exist should there be none, thus the violations are needed to justify existance. An individual has no such need for the presence of violations to exist and has far less motivation to falsify, exaggerate or entice violations and that being considered makes the testimony of an individual equal to or more hallowed than that of a violation dependent organization.

As I mentioned before, it seems that training has no bearing on the purveyance of the truth, the single most important factor in the value of the testimony.

Training, at best, will provide a means to understand what evidence is considered relevant if accurate and what is not. That same information is afforded to any individual that is requested specific information by the FCC by the mere fact of request.

The training is also pursuant to the gathering of evidence that does not affect the peaceful enjoyment of the collector which teeters on the brink of the deliverance of hearsay. Most evidence gathered by those 'looking for trouble' is on the front line of attack by the defense attorneys based upon, you said it, determination of bias of the collector.

The individual will be made whole by the resolution of the complaint, whereas the organization will not. Indeed, the total resolution of all complaints negates the necessity of the organization and thusly compels it to perpetuate violations and complaints in order to sustain its very existance.

If we are to consider bias in a case, the organization has much to defend.

Thanks for looking at this intelligently and for your response as well.

73,

Mark K8MHZ

PS Who is Riley Howlingsworth? Sounds like a name someone would give a Rottweiller. ;))

(Hey, this is a hobby, we are supposed to be having fun, no?)



 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"it was the issue of whether or not the OO's, or any organization for that matter, has any legal authority in the process of enforcing the laws under the jurisdiction of the FCC in a manner withstanding jurisprudence."

No- the OO program is not about enforcement. OOs detect amateur signals which appear to be in violation of FCC rules, notify operators of these discrepencies, and provide information to the FCC regarding serious, deliberate, and repeated violations which it may use.

Enforcement is the sole realm of the FCC itself.
OO advisories are not enforcment. They are not citations. They are notifications that a violation of FCC rules may have occurred, and requests made for the operator to consider the rule noted and how their operation may be modified to prevent recurrance.

73, Duane
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hello Duane,

The issuance of advisories and training does indeed seem to be within the legal scope of an organization.

To advise and to enforce are two different tasks.

Thanks for making the point in a far less verbose manner than I possibly could.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Getting a good op report is something to be proud of."

So very, very true.

mhz
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KC8VWM on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I am also waiting to find out the results of the ARRL hunting illegal 10 meter operators. I sure hope no one got hurt.

Thanks for the info,

Mark K8MHZ

---------------


Contrary to popular belief Dick Cheyney is not a member of the ARRL.


(...ok, I'll stop now)
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB4M on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KB3SLR:
Years ago, I received an "Atta boy" from an OO who complimented me on my operating practice. I also received a message from an OO once stating I had key clicks on my old 1970's-ear radio.
I have no problem with the OO program, and I can take constructive criticism with no problem. Like one poster said, better a notice from an OO than a slip from the FCC.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ok Charles, since you took the bait..let's see if you can hang on to it.

If Dick Cheney were hunting illegal 10 meter operators would he use...birdie shot? Ok, sorry, that may not have been par for the course.

73,

mhz

"Guns don't shoot lawyers, Vice Presidents do."

Talk about a mixed bag of emotions....

Oops, sorry Counsel Gunn. (He probably has way more lawyer jokes than I do, though)

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Counsel Gunn....

That just hit me.

Charles, you should be ashamed of yourself, taking a perfectly dull, boring, serious topic and interjecting humor into it.

50 whacks with a Whoff-Hong for you.

All in favor?

73,

mhz
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I know this is better suited for an 'Elmers' topic but just what are 'key clicks' anyway?

I use my Icom-735 for CW and I assume that solid state electronics can make a legal CW tone with no problem.

I do, however, own a Swan 350 that I really like. Are 'key clicks' a problem I should be aware of should I decide to work the Swan using CW?

A brief explanation is all that I ask, I can research the rest. If anyone has personal experience with the Swans and CW clicks, I am all ears.

Please e-mail me, k8mhz@k8mhz.com with your answers as this is obviously off topic.

I am really curious to know if 'key clicks' are an issue of being legal, or are they and issue of readability only.

Or is a 'key click' a bunch of hams that all like the same brand of keys and hang out together at the Dairy Queen in Pentwater on Saturday nights?

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KC8VWM on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I know... I must have been wrong...

I must obviously deserve it or this wouldn't happen.

Sure go ahead,.. I will take your fair and equitable enforcement punishment like I should...

I know.., It will make me a better person...

Go ahead, just beat me...

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KC8VWM on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Um... Sorry to interupt a perfectly good message thread but does this mean you have a website coming online soon?

(k8mhz.com)?



 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"And as the blood dripped off the oaken truncheon, he asks himself, "What if that were me, and he were to be charged with my enlightenment?"

Knowing he cannot continue in earnest with his beating and be true to his heartfelt remorse for his charge, he reaches into his pouch. In his hand he now holds a doily, a gift from his mother-in-law from Christmas before last. Gently he lays the fragile, waifer thin benefaction on his charge's back.

73...74...75...76..."

To be cont'd
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Oh, back to reality....

As for a website to come soon..

No, I just got the domain name because I wanted a really easy e-mail address for hamfests.

Usually when I want to give someone my e-mail address they have several bags in tow and wish for a third hand, pretty much negating any chance of writing down my e-mail address.

So now when someone wants my address, it's easy. My call at my call dot com.

For most of them, anyway.

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KC8VWM on March 30, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
lol.. gee Mark.

Well anyways, no need to explain anything really because it's all cool by me.

I use the ARRL way of doing things as far as email goes but if you feel compelled to check me out you can always find out about my more weird and wonderful ways at http://www.wideopenwest.com/~kc8vwm/

My Best,

Charles - KC8VWM

I guess that is supposed to mean "Volks Wagon Man"
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N1XC on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE wrote:
"Even ordinary hams, heck, even non-members (gasp) can record profanity & send it into Hollingsworth and achieve the same outcome. Anybody at arrl that says differently is just wrong."

You are most likely correct. However the ARRL maintains a relationship with the FCC and that probably adds more credence to an OO's report than just one from any ol' citizen.

Think of it as a Neighborhood Watch program. Any one can call the police and report suspicious behavior in their community and the police will respond. However if you have developed a working relationship with the police department over a period of time the odds are that the report would be taken more seriously. The OO is nothing more than a Neighborhood Watch program.

73
Steve, N1XC
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Even ordinary hams, heck, even non-members (gasp) can record profanity & send it into Hollingsworth and achieve the same outcome. Anybody at arrl that says differently is just wrong."

"You are most likely correct. However the ARRL maintains a relationship with the FCC and that probably adds more credence to an OO's report than just one from any ol' citizen."

Well, my request for the lawyers out there to explain the difference between Joe Ham dropping in a tape, recording something, and mailing it to Riley, and evidence provided by OOs, seems to either have been ignored, or there really is not a clue out there.

First of all, how many hams out there are even familiar with the rules applicable to ham radio? I mean really familiar. I mean as have read part 97 completely many times. I mean have a copy of "The FCC Rulebook" at their operating position and refer to it daily while monitoring mumerous amateur radio transmissions to help determine if what they are hearing is actually a violation of FCC regulations {Profanity is not illegal!, for example}.

How many hams have an organization {gasp!} provide them with on-going training about changes in the rules, how the FCC is currently interpreting specific rules, and which violations are of current concern to the FCC. How many have a supervisor available who they can consult to be sure that an advisory they are considering sending relates to an actual violation of an FCC rule, or raise issues with that they are not sure of.

How many can send the tape they have popped in to their supervisor who reviews it to be sure it demonstrates serious, deliberate, and repeated violations of FCC rules, before sending it to an organization {gasp!} where it is reviewed by higher supervisors nad attorneys before it is sent on to the FCC, which contacts the organization {gasp!} on a regular basis requesting materials ready for submittal?

Or is a tape popped in when something is heard they don't like, or when they are no longer winning the dipute, or when they have provoked someone into an action which they can then record to show a violation?

Might the FCC start to be deluged with these tapes which are more or less useless becasue the "violation" noted is not actionable, or because chain of custody was not maintained and the subject can argue in a hearing that the recording was fabricated or tampered withat some point. Or that the tape does not contain enough material to show the true context of the violation. Or that the violation was just poor judgement but done in retaliation for something done first by the submitter, or that it is only being submitted because the submitter has a grudge against the accused. Or that the material on the tape was not transmitted by the accused because no other evidence is presented in support {direction finding, transmitter "fingerprinting", voice printing, etc.}.

Hopefully, it might be possible to begin to see the difference between what OOs do, and hams in general sending in "complaints" to the FCC. The idea that that the ARRL must perpetuate violations to remain in existence is purely in the realm of science fiction. If the FCC notified the ARRL tomorrow that it was terminating the agreement for the Amateur Auxiliary not much would change. OOs would find another way to volunteer their services, no ARRL staff would lose their jobs {we would still have the intruder watch program, hams would still contact ARRL for help in interpreting rules, etc.}, and likely the "complaints" would still be sent by individual hams, but if the FCC decided to continue any type of enforcement they would have to hire staff to do everything the OOs and the "organization" {gasp!} had been doing.

Monitoring technicians would be needed to do maintenance monitoring, monitor to follow up on complaints of repeated violations, and do direction finding to determine the true source of signals. Lawyers would be needed to determine if violations being considered were actionable before they could be referred to the enforcement bureau.

So there is a difference between OOs who have received training from an "organization" {gasp!}, and individual hams slapping in a tape, recording something they feel is a violation,and dropping it in the mailbox. More detail could have gone into, but hopefully the information provided will give anyone interested more of an idea what is involved with the OO program.

73, Duane, WV2B


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Oh, and I forgot to mention providing written transcripts of any recorded material submitted. How long do you suppose it would take to transcribe into written form, say a cassette with 60 minutes of transmissions recorded on each side. I'll give you a hint- a loooong time! Now, what chance do you think there is that someone from the FCC will even listen to a tape of that length sent in by Joe Ham claiming to show violations of FCC rules? I don't know the answer to that, but I am sure Riley Howlingsworth would be into overtime if he did.
73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Key clicks-
go to www.stpaulisland.net/oo.html

you will find a link with info on various technical and operating issues, including key clicks.
73, Duane, WV2B
 
The true problem with OO's  
by KC5FOG on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The true problem with OO's is that most of them are really only interested in protecting the area of spectrum they use and don't have any concern for others. I've seen one OO that does nothing but write notices to people on the local repeaters and I've seen another OO that just writes notices to people near his groups HF freq. Or the OO's regional supervisor that will not let the OO's in his area write cards to repeater control ops that just key up and send DTMF control tones to their repeater without identifying with their call sign, just phantom control tones no ID. Which totally fits the description of UNIDENTIFIED TRANSMISSIONS.

The problem with OO's is few truly care about the whole band most just "protect their own" and to see how much of a good old boy system the OO division is, just try to apply to be one. I saw where one OO on an article here a while back complained you have to watch who you send a card to, claiming he has received death threats. All I can say is if you want to step up to the plate and be a "band cop" then expect some repercussions. In todays world it doesn't take much too really upset people to the point of irrational and unlawful behavior, I see it everyday.




Eric Kc5Fog
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
QUESTION: What is the difference between an ordinary ham (non-arrl member) making a recording of profanity and sending it into FCC and a super-elite, highly-trained, officially-sanctioned, arrl OO doing the very same thing?


My reading of 97.113 does not list profanity as a prohibited transmission.

Indecency, obscenity, music, encryption, etc. are covered in 97.113 but no mention of profanity.

Indeed, there is no difference who sends in a recording of an activity that does not appear to be illegal. It will be dismissed no matter who sends it in.

(Maybe we should have had a lawyer look at the question ;))

mhz
 
RE: The true problem with OO's  
by WV2B on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"The true problem with OO's is that most of them"

"The problem with OO's is few"

Eric- Is this really fair?

That is like me saying- The trouble with people from Texas is.....

Or, The real problem with Technician Class operators is........

based on something I know {or think I know} about you.

How many OOs do you really know out of the over 700? How do you know that the only notices a particular OO sent out are for repeater violations, or for those near an HF frequency he uses? When an OO hears a violation, he makes out the advisory and mails it to the operator identified as making the transmissions. How do you know how many advisories for what these OOs send out? Perhaps if you know them personally and they have told you this the comments could be justified.

How is an OO supposed to send out a notice to a station sending command tones and not identifying? OO notices can be sent only to stations whose callsigns are heard, and generally in phonetics so mistakes are kept to a minimum. How do you know the issue hasn't been raised? OOs do not force others to obey the rules, They notify them of discrepencies, and once notification has been made they take steps not to issue notices to the same station again for the same infraction. Things are only referred up the chain of command for violations which are serious, deliberate, and repeated. This does not seem like something the FCC {or official Observers} will spend time on.

Why not broach the issue with the repeater owner, trustee, or control operators, who are responsible for the proper operation of the repeater, rather than criticize OOs for not notifying the source of unidentified transmissions {in a case of serious continuing nature, where transmissions were for a long period of time and could be DFed, the OO program would be interested}. The purpose of the OO program is not to solve all the problems in ham radio. It is mainly maintenance monitoring to help hams have a better knowledge of the rules and remain in compliance, and referral of cases which are serious, deliberate, and repeated.

You mention an OO who issues notices for people near an HF frequency he uses. One of the principles of the OO program is that OOs do not issue notices to people who are interfering with them, or a net they operate on. Notices are issued for objective unbiased monitoring. If you have reliable information that someone is doing such a thing, why not report it to your ARRL Section Manager? Of course, hams have specific interests in different areas of the hobby, and may spend much time monitoring areas they are familiar with, have equipment for, etc. That is not wrong, and why having more than a few OOs is good. I do not monitor SSTV, RTTY, or very much on 2 Meters. But others do. I do a lot of monitoring of Dxpeditions, DXers, Contests, and HF in general, which other OOs don't. It all comes out in the wash.

The death threat comment is accurate. If you read previous articles you will see comments made by some posters criticizing OOs for getting their mail at a P.O. Box. This is because the hard core out there like to bring up people's addresses on the air to try to intimidate them. They do this not just to OOs, but to other operators they feel are interfering with them or whatever. Using this method they have managed to continue their style of operating, some for many years as others have pointed out, while the general ham population wonder why they are allowed to continue.

Personally, I feel every op, no matter the extent of violations, deserves the right to bring his operating into voluntary compliance by being notified. If he chooses to disregard any advisories he has proved to the FCC that voluntary compliance has been ineffective in his case, and enforcement action may be the next step if the FCC feels it needs to correct the situation. If the operators then on the air threaten, discuss how they are going to discover the OOs address, make comments of what might happen to the OOs family, etc, this information all goes to the FCC as well {often in the form of recorded evidence}. I suppose if the OO felt the threat was credible one could always obtain a restraining order against the threat makers, although they prefer to use veiled threats like- You hide behind a P.O. Box, we can find out where you live.

That really is a very rare thing in the activities of an OO, and only comes up with the real hard core out there, who will eventually come to the attention of the FCC one way or the other anyway.

73 for now,
Duane, WV2B

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4MTR on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
You have to contend with two issues. The authorizing act, as has been stated, is in the CFR (which is available in full text at http://uscode.house.gov/.
The relevant section is below. This wording allows the FCC to enter into agreements with any organization they deem appropriate.

The agreement itself, like all Memorandums of Understanding, would not be in the CFR at all. It's not a law. It's not even a regulation, so production in the Federal Register is not required.

Most importantly, the OO program is not the "sole" evidence gathering body utilized by the FCC. It accepts evidence from anybody, licensed or not. However, if the FCC wants something monitored, they do it through the OO program, and through their own resources, not through the general amateur population. Hope this helps. I'm sure you can obtain a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding from the FCC via a FOIA request. Not everything is on the web, yet.

73 de Marty
K4MTR



(B)(i) The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of this chapter (and of any regulation prescribed by the Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio service, may -
(I) recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission to operate an amateur station; and
(II) accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of such individual.

(ii) The Commission, for purposes of recruiting and training individuals under clause (i) and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause
(i), may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any amateur station operator organization.
(iii) The functions of individuals recruited and trained under
this subparagraph shall be limited to -
(I) the detection of improper amateur radio transmissions;
(II) the conveyance to Commission personnel of information
which is essential to the enforcement of this chapter (or
regulations prescribed by the Commission under this chapter)
relating to the amateur radio service; and
(III) issuing advisory notices, under the general direction of
the Commission, to persons who apparently have violated any
provision of this chapter (or regulations prescribed by the
Commission under this chapter) relating to the amateur radio
service.

Nothing in this clause shall be construed to grant individuals
recruited and trained under this subparagraph any authority to
issue sanctions to violators or to take any enforcement action
other than any action which the Commission may prescribe by rule.
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KB3NCV on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WOW, As a new Ham this was some interesting reading....All of it.....I got the entire spectrum in one post. I saw....
1.Hams that are proud of their ticket
2.Hams that really miss CB
3.Hams that have a problem with rules and enforcement.
4.Hams that think they know everything.
5 Hams that are truly good people. The reason I got into amatuer radio in the 1st place.......
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AE7RS on March 31, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"WOW, As a new Ham this was some interesting reading....All of it.....I got the entire spectrum in one post. I saw....
1.Hams that are proud of their ticket
2.Hams that really miss CB
3.Hams that have a problem with rules and enforcement.
4.Hams that think they know everything.
5 Hams that are truly good people. The reason I got into amatuer radio in the 1st place......."

Could not have said it better David!

73,
Rick AE7RS
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K8MHZ on April 1, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KB3NCV,

Welcome to the hobby!

I would like to warn you not to take the content here on eHam as representative of the attitude of the entire ham population.

I have found that the hams I meet both on the air and in person invariably are proud of their tickets.

I have never met one in person that has a problem with the rules other than the CW requirement, but even that is not a huge issue. I offer to help teach anyone struggling with CW.

Some hams, including myself, still have and use CB radios. I use one while travelling and I use a portable at parades and other events to talk to the truck drivers that are pulling floats. I know one fine ham that uses her CB radio to talk to an ailing, aged friend of hers. CB doesn't ruin people, people ruined CB.

I think that the 'know it all' attitude is due to the fact that most hams spend much time reading and learning. Too bad, but the attitude that a few in this realm get goes with the territory. I see the same thing in the electrical trade, so ham radio does not have a monopoly on this one!

The number 5 spot goes to just about every ham I have met. Collectively, I find them to be a fine bunch. I am proud to be a ham and have hams as friends (all over the world, I might add).

If you enjoy the hobby half as much as I do, you will LOVE it!

73,

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WR8D on April 1, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I'm sure there are good OO's out there but i've seen several that have their "own" opinions on part 97. Like so many of our judges handing down these goofy rulings some of these guys have let a little power go to their heads, and make up their own rules which they then try to "force" uppon some. Example, i had a dear old friend who's passed on now, try to break into a qso on a repeater. Here in the mountains you have to talk on the repeater and have large round tables, they would'nt let him in. He would wait for a clear second then give his call and be ignored. He finally said break and gave his call and got in the qso. An oo sent him a notice that the word break was a cb term and he should clean up his act if he was going to be on the hambands. Most of us were taught that saying break one time was to just break into a net or be noticed in a round table etc and two breaks was for an emergency to be noticed immediately. Where in Gods green earth did they ever come up with the word "contact" in some of these nets i hear. I look over my shoulder to see where the prop is thats about to be spun. hi hi. For me i just record and timestamp and then send the info to Riley and he "cleans their plow". You don't have to be a little dude with fancy patches on your jacket and five ht's on our belt and a little propeller on the top of your hat to do something really good for amateur radio. Gee i've never got a bad oo slip, only a few that said i was operating my station outstandingly. If you take pride in amateur radio and present this each time you get on the air with your station then we don't need radio cops. If you have a problem on the air that keeps happening just record it and timestamp it and send it to Riley. Simple as that. It works, he cleaned out the dregs here for me locally on my repeaters. When i get one of these slips commenting on my nice audio or good operating practices, i just file it in the trash with any other arrl trash i receive from time to time. "No importance". Just my two cents: --... ...-- John
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WR8D on April 1, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K4MTR Marty, the general ham population put a drunk off 75 meters here locally for 5years. I'll not mention any calls, this guy was put off the local repeaters and thrown out of the local amateur radio club also. He's a merchant marine and holds a very old extra class ticket. No 00 or anyone involved with the arrl etc had anything at all to do with the complaint filed against him. The good hams of east ky and southern wv got together and put his ass off the air through a simple complaint and recordings sent to Riley. "period" Have a nice day, WR8D.
 
OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by N4JBK on April 1, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The OO that I had an experience was a waste of time. He sent me a card that said that I was using bad language. I do not make a practice of this, and he did not say what I had said, however there are people on that frequency that do use stupid language on a regular basis, they dont get a OO card ( so they say) but I do....What a difference the OO has made
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
To rebeat a long dead horse- Yes, individuals can make complaints to the FCC. The FCC can act on this information. The FCC can ask OOs to monitor the situation complained about also. Because amateurs are allowed to make personal complaints does not mean the OO program is not needed. The FCC seems to feel it is important. To quote from a station inspection follow-up letter to a subject- "The volunteer work of these Official Observers is a critical element of the Commission's enforcement program", and - "Failure to take the notices seriously and to take corrective action where possible will not be tolerated by the Commission". These quotes were published in "The FCC Rulebook". The prupose of my mentioning this is soley in response to posts on this forum to the effect that the OO program is not needed because individual hams can just send in complaints and get action, so who needs the OO program.

As mentioned in previous comments, the OO program serves to save the FCC time by filtering the information it receives to include only complaints which would be actionable by the FCC {really show a violation}, and include violations which are serious, deliberate, and repeated.

Perhaps action has come about by individual hams sending in tapes, etc. But what happens if this becomes the standard method. Riley now gets 10 tapes a day. Maybe we really get the ball rolling and he gets 50 tapes a day. Many contain things which are not actionable by the FCC, are not serious enough to warrent FCC action, are not clear enough to be transcribed, or are matters amateurs should be handling themselves. How many full-time employees would the FCC have to hire to cull through these tapes to get to something the FCC wishes to pursue. That is one of the services the FCC uses the Amateur Auxiliary for, and by the quotes show, seem to pleased with.

To quote from "The FCC Rule Book"- "The Official Observer is usually involved with routine maintenance monitoring. Ocassionally, OOs will run into an entrenched case of malicious interference or other substantive violation. Consultation with the section's OO Coordinator is in order and, at the discretion of the Coordinator, the ARRL Headquarters staff may be involved. The OO does not initiate direct contact with the FCC. The decision to make such contact is made at a higher level. Petty cases of interference should be solved by amateurs and not referred to the FCC".

There you see the filtering process. The FCC wants to be provided with information which is actionable, and shows serious, deliberate, and repeated violations of FCC rules. If an amateur encounters a serious situation, he can mail off a tape to Riley, or he could contact the Amateur Auxiliary for assistance. The Auxiliary can likely advise the ham if it warrents further investigation, or if it is something anateurs themselves should be trying to solve first. Eventually, if hams are sending in so many recordings of petty things, that avenue might be closed altogether, I don't see how they could possibly have time to listen to everything coming in.

To beat another stiff equine, It is not unusual for someone receiving a notice to feel like- Others were doing it too, why did I get a notice? Or, this was just a minor violation in my opinion, or this was the only time it ever happened, or whatever. The advisory notice reads- "Please refer to FCC Regulation -----------. Please take a few minutes to determine what equipment factors or operating practices might have contributed to this apparent departure from the rule or the good amateur practice standard. The intent of this notice is to alert you to the above noted operating condition."

OOs are not there to force anyone to obey the rules or do anything they don't want to. The assumption is that violations occur because the individual did not realize it may be a violation, or there are technical problems they didn't know about, or whatever. The notice {or good op card even} can be dismissed by the operator if he chooses. But likely the OO truly felt the situation needed to be addressed, and the prudent thing to do would be to do as the card asks and check the rule, articles, talk to other experienced amateurs, or whatever to see what needs to be done. No one will force change, but as noted above if it is a serious situation, and eventually it comes to the attention of the FCC, the failure of voluntary methods of compliance will be questioned.

For one more horse lashing. Quality control is important to the OO program. Rather than bashing the program by bringing up anything that ever happened, or that you heard happened, or whatever, who knows how many years ago, if you have a situation you feels violates the standards of the program, please contact your ARRL Section Manager, Official Observer Coordinator, or the appropriate managers for the section of the OO. If you don't know who these people are, contact ARRL Headquarters.

OOs are volunteers. They are also imperfect, as we all are. And perhaps every once in a while an OO may make a mistake {gasp!}. If such a thing were to happen, and it was brought to the attention of the appropriate manager, then that OO could be corrected, or the situation addressed. But I guess the question is- Should the situation be addressed, or just used as something to bash the program with for the next umpteen years? Many things stated here have essentially been hearsay. I knew a guy that said he got an OO notice for such and such, and that shows that all OOs carry 15 walkie talkies with beanies spinning on their heads. Come on. If something happened you feel was out of line with the program, or a notice was received for something not truely a violation {did you check the rule?}, or really didn't violate a good amateur practice standard {OOs pretty much try to stick to rules violations, and not get into gray areas of interpretation}, then go through the right channels to address the thing.

73 for now,
Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
To rebeat a long dead horse- Yes, individuals can make complaints to the FCC. The FCC can act on this information. The FCC can ask OOs to monitor the situation complained about also. Because amateurs are allowed to make personal complaints does not mean the OO program is not needed. The FCC seems to feel it is important. To quote from a station inspection follow-up letter to a subject- "The volunteer work of these Official Observers is a critical element of the Commission's enforcement program", and - "Failure to take the notices seriously and to take corrective action where possible will not be tolerated by the Commission". These quotes were published in "The FCC Rulebook". The prupose of my mentioning this is soley in response to posts on this forum to the effect that the OO program is not needed because individual hams can just send in complaints and get action, so who needs the OO program.

As mentioned in previous comments, the OO program serves to save the FCC time by filtering the information it receives to include only complaints which would be actionable by the FCC {really show a violation}, and include violations which are serious, deliberate, and repeated.

Perhaps action has come about by individual hams sending in tapes, etc. But what happens if this becomes the standard method. Riley now gets 10 tapes a day. Maybe we really get the ball rolling and he gets 50 tapes a day. Many contain things which are not actionable by the FCC, are not serious enough to warrent FCC action, are not clear enough to be transcribed, or are matters amateurs should be handling themselves. How many full-time employees would the FCC have to hire to cull through these tapes to get to something the FCC wishes to pursue. That is one of the services the FCC uses the Amateur Auxiliary for, and by the quotes show, seem to pleased with.

To quote from "The FCC Rule Book"- "The Official Observer is usually involved with routine maintenance monitoring. Ocassionally, OOs will run into an entrenched case of malicious interference or other substantive violation. Consultation with the section's OO Coordinator is in order and, at the discretion of the Coordinator, the ARRL Headquarters staff may be involved. The OO does not initiate direct contact with the FCC. The decision to make such contact is made at a higher level. Petty cases of interference should be solved by amateurs and not referred to the FCC".

There you see the filtering process. The FCC wants to be provided with information which is actionable, and shows serious, deliberate, and repeated violations of FCC rules. If an amateur encounters a serious situation, he can mail off a tape to Riley, or he could contact the Amateur Auxiliary for assistance. The Auxiliary can likely advise the ham if it warrents further investigation, or if it is something anateurs themselves should be trying to solve first. Eventually, if hams are sending in so many recordings of petty things, that avenue might be closed altogether, I don't see how they could possibly have time to listen to everything coming in.

To beat another stiff equine, It is not unusual for someone receiving a notice to feel like- Others were doing it too, why did I get a notice? Or, this was just a minor violation in my opinion, or this was the only time it ever happened, or whatever. The advisory notice reads- "Please refer to FCC Regulation -----------. Please take a few minutes to determine what equipment factors or operating practices might have contributed to this apparent departure from the rule or the good amateur practice standard. The intent of this notice is to alert you to the above noted operating condition."

OOs are not there to force anyone to obey the rules or do anything they don't want to. The assumption is that violations occur because the individual did not realize it may be a violation, or there are technical problems they didn't know about, or whatever. The notice {or good op card even} can be dismissed by the operator if he chooses. But likely the OO truly felt the situation needed to be addressed, and the prudent thing to do would be to do as the card asks and check the rule, articles, talk to other experienced amateurs, or whatever to see what needs to be done. No one will force change, but as noted above if it is a serious situation, and eventually it comes to the attention of the FCC, the failure of voluntary methods of compliance will be questioned.

For one more horse lashing. Quality control is important to the OO program. Rather than bashing the program by bringing up anything that ever happened, or that you heard happened, or whatever, who knows how many years ago, if you have a situation you feels violates the standards of the program, please contact your ARRL Section Manager, Official Observer Coordinator, or the appropriate managers for the section of the OO. If you don't know who these people are, contact ARRL Headquarters.

OOs are volunteers. They are also imperfect, as we all are. And perhaps every once in a while an OO may make a mistake {gasp!}. If such a thing were to happen, and it was brought to the attention of the appropriate manager, then that OO could be corrected, or the situation addressed. But I guess the question is- Should the situation be addressed, or just used as something to bash the program with for the next umpteen years? Many things stated here have essentially been hearsay. I knew a guy that said he got an OO notice for such and such, and that shows that all OOs carry 15 walkie talkies with beanies spinning on their heads. Come on. If something happened you feel was out of line with the program, or a notice was received for something not truely a violation {did you check the rule?}, or really didn't violate a good amateur practice standard {OOs pretty much try to stick to rules violations, and not get into gray areas of interpretation}, then go through the right channels to address the thing.

73 for now,
Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
To beat some more dead horses. Yes, individuals can send tapes to Riley. What happens when he starts getting 10 tapes a day? What if it catches on and then he gets 25 a day? Many of them may not be actionable, do not show real violations, are problems hams should be handling themselves? Will he hire a secretary to spend all day just listening to tapes to cull out the unactionable ones from ones he might want to hear?

That is why the FCC uses the Amateur Auxiliary. You can mail off your tape to Riley, or you could also contact the Amateur Auxiliary. The FCC seems to be very pleased with the work of OOs, and the use of the ARRL to filter information so they are provided only with cases which are serious, deliberate, and repeated. The FCC has publicly stated that they consider the Amateur Auxiliary to be "a critical element of the Commission's enforcement program" {FCC Rule Book, page 8-3, from the heading "FCC Backs Volunteer Monitoring Effort", quote was contained in a follow-up letter to the subject of a station inspection}

Again- If an OO does something you feel is out of line with the program, by all means contact your SM, OOC, or the ones from the OOs section. If you don't know who these people are, contact ARRL HQ. The program is very interested in quality control.

OOs are volunteers. And, unfortunately, the only people available for the assignment are imperfect. Every umteen years or so, an OO may make a mistake. Then again, much of the bashing seems to be hearsay- I knew a ham who got a notice for such and such, so all oos carry 15 walkie talkies and have beanies spinning on their heads. Come on. Maybe you have the whole story, maybe not. The OO advisory states that an FCC rule seems to have been broken, or a good amateur practice standard not followed, and asks the recipient to consult the rule and consider if anything might be corrected. If the OO has done something really out of line, then take the matter to those who can corect him if needed, or take whatever action is needed to correct the problem. Why use it as a bashing stick for the next who knows how many years?

OOs do not force anyone to obey rules. They just notify when something seems to be in violation. If a notice was received for bad language, and it is felt it was not in violation of FCC rules against indecency/obscenity, or a good amateur practice standard, then have at it. If you feel the OO was out of line for issuing the notice then take it to his superiors. But, be aware that if such language is a violation, and the matter sometime in the future goes before the FCC, you may be asked why you chose to ignore the notice. To quote the FCC {from the same warning letter, received due to obscene language}- "Failure to take notices seriously and to take corrective action where possible will not be tolerated by the Commission". It is the responsibility of the operator receiving the notice to decide what to do- Try to consider what the OO has said, or trash it as a piece of junk form a beanie hat twirler. Your choice, your responsibility. The OO did his job.

73,
Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry for the repeat posts. Was kicked off the internet and didn't think post had been saved.

73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA3KYY on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Well Jonathan (W9WHE) since you are a litigation lawyer you are in the position to know the rules of evidence gathering and how that evidence can be challanged and thrown out. While you are capable of providing evidence in a manner that will hold up, do you think the average amateur can? Do you think many know how the chain of custody for evidence works and how easily evidence is thrown out if that chain is broken? Do the courts routinely accept evidence gathered by the average Joe on the street in other legal proceedings?

BTW, individual reports direct to the FCC are what may begin an investigation but I seriously doubt that the actual tape or written complaint sent by the individual is used as evidence in administative or legal proceedings. The actual evidence used is gathered by trained observers, be they FCC staff or members of the Amateur Auxilliary and can stand up to legal challenge.

But then I suspect you already know this.

Mike
WA3KYY
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WHY do so many people think that one must be either affiliated with or operate under an arrl program before they are significant? This is pure NONSENCE, propigated by arrl's selfish, self-serving and self absorbed self-image. Its also pure, unadulterated B.S.

arrl does NOT have a monopoly on enforcement and, in fact, has ZERO enforcement authority. That's right, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, BUPKIS. None whatsoever. Only FCC has enforcement authority.

YOU do not need a law degree to know that frequent profane or indecent language or a ham's use of ham radio to promote his own for-profit business is a rules violation. And if you tape a clear violation, including the offender self-identifying, you don't need much more! Most people know that identification in 11, instead of 10 min is nearly meaningless and a collosal waste of time. Use good judgment & common sense.

Send in only MAJOR and egregious violations. If you don't know one when you hear one, then you probably should not have a license anyway.

You simply DO NOT need to be a lawyer. You do not need to be an arrl member. You do not need to be an OO, or even an Official - Official Observer - Observer (O OO O), like me! Just use common sense. Choose your violations. Send in ONLY the most egregious.

So what if FCC gets lots of tapes? They will listen and make their own decision. They don't need arrl to make decisions for them. And THANK GOD arrl so frequently ignores arrl. Think FCC prosecutes EVERY case arrl sends them? Not likely. And even if they did, so what?

arrl is just a club, run by a few, for a few. They don't care what you think, so why should you care what they think? arrl can't even manage to get 1/3 of licensed hams to join! arrl has no mandate, no authority and almost no influence where it counts most.

W9WHE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WA3KYY writes:

"BTW, individual reports direct to the FCC are what may begin an investigation but I seriously doubt that the actual tape or written complaint sent by the individual is used as evidence in administative or legal proceedings. The actual evidence used is gathered by trained observers, be they FCC staff or members of the Amateur Auxilliary and can stand up to legal challenge"

WRONG.

What better evidence could you have then a clear recording of a ham, in his very own voice, saying:

"this is W9A, come buy one of my franchises in W9A consulting - you and we will make tons and tons of money together"; OR how about this:

"this is W9A, and you are a [insert four-letter expletives] arrl loving skumbag"


What evidence do you think they will present against Glen Baxter? ANSWER: A clear recoding of Glen Baxter, in his very own voice, clearly violating the rules! DA!

What do you think Glen is going to do, deny it was him? Not likely. Do you think any ham, confronted with a clear and lengthy recording of himself will lie under oath and deny that the recording contains his own voice and risk a conviction for purjury AND and FCC rules violation? Not likely!

So many internet lawyers. So many know-it-alls. So much wrong information.

W9WHE

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WV2B writes:

"But, be aware that if such language is a violation, and the matter sometime in the future goes before the FCC, you may be asked why you chose to ignore the notice"

Ignoring a notice FROM FCC is just plain stupid. HOWEVER, ignoring a notice from a so-called OO is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Whatever you do, NEVER ignore a letter from the FCC. But as far as so-called "OO notice" is concerned, who cares? Unless you run out of toilet paper.

W9WHE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA2JJH on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Bottom line....

1)OO's are not "The F.C.C. auxillary"
2)See number one
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA3KYY on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Ok Jonathan, W9A claims the tapes submitted were fabricated and computer altered to present him in a bad light due to a vendetta by those who do not like him. He produces his own tapes as proof.


Who is lying?
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA3KYY on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE wrote:

"Ignoring a notice FROM FCC is just plain stupid. HOWEVER, ignoring a notice from a so-called OO is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Whatever you do, NEVER ignore a letter from the FCC. But as far as so-called "OO notice" is concerned, who cares? Unless you run out of toilet paper."

Ignoring the OO notice may very well result in a notice from the FCC which you can't ignore. Far better to determine if the possible infraction reported to you by the OO occured and correct the problem before you have to explain it to the FCC. You, of course, are not required to respond back to the OO about their notice but if they did observe a rules violation, ignoring that notice by failing to correct your operation may indeed get you a notice you ignore at your peril.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Ignoring a notice FROM FCC is just plain stupid. HOWEVER, ignoring a notice from a so-called OO is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT

This very true. In fact any OO report tells you that you do not have to respond. It is sent as a courtesy and is no way official.

Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Ignoring a notice FROM FCC is just plain stupid. HOWEVER, ignoring a notice from a so-called OO is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT

From- the "FCC Rule Book", page 8-3:
FCC Backs Volunteer Monitoring Effort

The FCC said in early 1999 that hams who receive advisory notices from Official Observers {volunteers who monitor and advise amateurs of on-the-air discrepencies} should take them seriuosly or take the consequences. "Failure to take notices seriously and to take corrective action where possible will not be tolerated by the commission", the FCC said. "The volunteer work of these Official Observers is a critical element of the Commission's enforcement program," the agency said, adding that failure to act on an OO notice could lead to fines and other sanctions. The FCC's comments were contained in a station inspection follow-up letter to a subject. The FCC noted that the subject had "apparently ignored notices from Official Observers," and pointed out that the volunteer OOs work "in accordance with an agreement between the Commission and the ARRL in accordance with our statutory authority."

In the FCC's letter, the subject was told that, although the FCC considers hams to be self-policing, "the success of that regulatory approach depends upon the adherence to notices of possible improper operation from other licensed amateurs who are recognized Official Observers." The FCC asked the subject to list all notices from OOs he had received since the start of his license term, and any corrective actions taken in response. These statements of support from the FCC are the strongest yet seen from the agency since the inception of the ARRL/FCC volunteer monitoring program".


The FFC's comments speak for themselves, ah?

73,
Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
YOU do not need a law degree to know that frequent profane or indecent language or a ham's use of ham radio to promote his own for-profit business is a rules violation.

Again! Profanity is not illegal! Look up the definition! The word does not appear in part 97!

What is illegal?

97:113 Prohibited Transmissions
{A}No station shall transmit:
{4};obscene or indecent words or language;

What does this mean?

Obscenity: {1}An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find the materail, as a whole, appeals to prurient interest;{2}The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;and{3}The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecency: language or material that depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.

Is the use of an expletive in itsekf indecent? according to the Commission, "deliberate and repetitive use of such expletives in a patently offensive manner would be a requisite to a finding of indecency." The context is also important.
From page 2-29 of the "FCC Rule Book"


Profanity is not illegal!

73,
Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"1)OO's are not "The F.C.C. auxillary"
2)See number one"



From the "Amended Agreement Between The Field Operations Bureau Of The Federal Communications Commission And The American Radio Relay League, Inc., Regarding The Use Of Amateur Volunteers"

"4. The foundation of the program created by this agreement is the ARRL's Official Observers, and they will be known as the ARRL Amateur Auxiliary to the Field Operations Bureau. The ARRL field organization, operated pursuant to ARRL guidlines and procedures, is the focal point of its Amateur Auxiliary program. That program involves the obtaining, coordinating, and conveyance of information from organized amateurs to the FOB, principally through ARRL's Washington office. Coordination of information gathering prior to submission to FOB may be through Local Auxiliary/FOB contacts. The Chief, Enforcement Division, FOB, is responsible for the overview and direction of the Amateur Auxiliary program from the FCC's standpoint, in conjunction with ARRL officers and staff. ARRL and FOB will jointly review policies, practices, and procedures, and will work together towards solutions to problems and consistency in enforcement matters and efforts to promote and improve self-regulation and voluntary compliance."

Sorry, read um and weep.

73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hey guys,
The communications act of 1934, as amended says this:

Section 4 {47 USC 154} Provisions Relating To The Commission.

{B}{i}The Commission, for purposes of monitoring violations of any provision of this Act [and of any regulation prescribed by the Commission under this Act] relating to the Amateur Radio service, may-

{I}recruit and train any individual licensed by the Commission to operate an amateur station; and
{II}accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of such an individual.

{ii}The Commission, for purpose of recruiting and training individuals under clause {i}, and for purposes of screening, annotating, and summarizing violation reports referred under clause {i}, may accept and employ the voluntary and uncompensated services of any amateur station operator organization.

So, come on, show us how its done! Get your resume in to the FCC! maybe you can start an organization which is not self-absorbed, self-serving, or whatever else was said, and demonstrate the correct way of doing this! Here's your chance! let us know how you make out, OK?

73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hey, but seriously. Most hams are great guys. If they find out they have a problem technically or operationally they are glad to find out and correct it. That is what it is all about. If they don't care, then they don't care, and nothing will change it. But, don't let the bad stuff you hear discourage you or cause you to give up your hobby! Some might think if they do it long enough and loud enough it will become OK, like what has happened to the CB band Yeah, I know, there are some good guys on CB too!}. Hopefully it won't be so with ham radio.
73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2GW on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>>arrl is just a club, run by a few, for a few. They don't care what you think, so why should you care what they think? arrl can't even manage to get 1/3 of licensed hams to join! arrl has no mandate, no authority and almost no influence where it counts most.

Ahhhh! Our esteemed attorney (is that an oxymoron?)has shown his true colors. This thread is just another ARRL bash.

Historically, only about 1/3 of all persons in the US holding an amateur radio license are active in the hobby (having been on the air within the past year). That would mean that of the 221,000 or so currently active Amateurs, the 150,000 ARRL members constitute about 2/3 of the active hams in the US. Not exactly a "few" by any definition.

73

Gary, K2GW
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WA3KYY writes:

".....W9A claims the tapes submitted [to FCC] were fabricated ....to present him in a bad light due to a vendetta by those who do not like him"

He then asks:

"Who is lying?"

ANSWER:

1) The trier of fact (ALJ) will listen to W9A's live voice and the tapes and make a determination. That's how disputed facts are resolved in an administrative context. In a jury trial, a jury would make the decision.

2) If W9A has evidence of alteration, i.e., a qualified forensic expert, the ALJ will listen, then decide. A naked, unsupported claim of alteration does NOT negate the tapes. If the tapes sound like W9A, he is likely cooked, ESPECIALLY if W9B (the dirty, rotten arrl member he was talking with) also testifies and independantly confirms both that W9A said what he did AND that the tape fairly and accurately portrays the conversation. But even if W9B does not testify, if W9A's voice soulds like the tape, his goose is likely cooked. Just for icing, FCC can allways present the testimony of the person making the tape, whom by the way, is also a valuable witness!

See how simple it is?

W9WHE

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K2GW writes:

"....only about 1/3 of all persons in the US holding an amateur radio license are active in the hobby...... That would mean that of the 221,000 or so currently active Amateurs, the 150,000 ARRL members constitute about 2/3 of the active hams in the US. Not exactly a "few" by any definition".

AS LONG AS WE ARE MAKING UP STATISTICS (# of active hams), how about we say that only 1/4 of US license holders are active. ok? That way, of the roughly 670,000 hams, only about165,000 are active. That way, you arrl lovers could claim that arrl has 90 some percent of so-called "active" hams! Better yet, why not claim that only 1/8 are "active" so arrl has 180% of "active" hams!

MAKE UP WHATEVER STATS YOU WANT. You cant ignore that there are around 675,000 US licenses and only around 140,000 some arrl members. (how many are "active arrl members, anyway?) Unless you use arrl math, that is still less then 25% of US licenses.

W9WHE


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
How many of arrl members are "active" anyway?


Why exclude so-called "inactive" hams but EXCLUDE "inactive" arrl members?

Once again, we see propiganda about arrl for what it REALLY is......propiganda!



W9WHE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
OOPS...LET ME TRY THAT ONE AGAIN....


How many of arrl members are "active" anyway?

IF YOU ARE GOING TO EXCLUDE "INACTIVE HAMS" WHY NOT ALSO EXCLUDE "INACTIVE ARRL MEMBERS"? After all, fair is fair, isn't it?

Once again, we see propiganda about arrl for what it REALLY is......propiganda!



W9WHE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K5PSB on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
To KB3LSR:

> I've only been a HAM for 1 1/2 years now, but I'd like
> to toss out something to think about. These OO's only
> tell you when you have poor operating skills, they do
> not commend you for working some difficult DX, superior
> QRP or doing something otherwise helpful to the
> community? I love it when people are there to only tell
> you your mistakes and never anything good, correct me
> if I am wrong here, which I'm sure I could be.

Actually, they do both. I had never even heard of the OO program until a few years back I got a card in the mail complementing me on my good operating practices on 20 meters. What I was commended for was no big deal, just seemed like ordinary politeness to me, but they do send out "attaboys" as well as the other. :)

mark-
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by AD5X on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W9WHE: "Unless you use arrl math, that is still less then 25% of US licenses."

20-25% participation of eligible folks is not so bad. Think about organizations you've belonged to and see how they compare. A few examples - are 20% of EEs in the IEEE? MEs in the ASME? Not in any engineering organizations I've worked in. Same with company representation in the TIA when I chaired one of their engineering committees. There are estimated to be 60 million households where one or more members of that houshold owns a gun, but the NRA only has 4 million members. And I wonder how many folks over 50 are members of AARP? I bet it is far less than 20%.

Phil - AD5X


 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K2GW writes:

"......Our esteemed attorney......has shown his true colors....This thread is just another ARRL bash".

Could it be that K2GW (arrl life member) is actually showing HIS TRUE COLORS?
Could a life member feel compelled to justify his decision to hand over a bunch of cash to arrl and so he will dogmatically defend anything and everything arrl does no mater what?


K2GW, how does YOUR OWN medicine taste?





 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
How about starting a new article for the purpose of bashing the ARRL in general? That way I don't have to continue reading this article, as it seems to be about fizzled out. Hopefully we won't have to revisit this again soon. But, it is always good to be able to provide accurate information regarding the OO program. I am sure our esteemed readers can sort out the wheat from the chaff, and if they desire more information can research the matter on the ARRL web site. Or, for links to lots of good info go to www.stpaulisland.net/oo.html

73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2GW on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks! W9WHE's four separate replies to my one post just proved my point that this is now an ARRL Bash thread!

The one third ratio of active hams versus persons holding a license comes from surveys conducted by both the ARRL and the FCC over the years. It's been pretty constant.

But I like the facts about participation rates in comparable organizations, such as IEEE, ACM, NRA, AARP. That proves the fallacy of the original "few" argument from a different angle.

73

Gary, K2GW

PS. Spending about $300 twenty five years ago to become an ARRL life member was one of the best investments I've ever made. Not exactly a pile of cash.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not Reply
by K2GW on April 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Historically, only about 1/3 of all persons in the US holding an amateur radio license are active in the hobby (having been on the air within the past year). That would mean that of the 221,000 or so currently active Amateurs, the 150,000 ARRL members constitute about 2/3 of the active hams in the US. Not exactly a "few" by any definition.<

::I wonder where the "1/3" statistic comes from, really? I'm not arguing the point at all, just wonder who comes up with this stuff. I'd personally estimate the number of "active" hams (meaning, they have stations and are actually on the air making contacts) as less than one-third of all licensees, based on this:

::I did a zip code search for my own zip code and the FCC ULS data base came up with a quantity of licensed hams in my neighborhood. Mine is a small zip code, it only covers my small community, which is nothing more than a neighborhood in L.A. I can drive the perimeter of the zip code in six or seven minutes. But the data base showed an awful lot of hams, so over the course of a couple of weeks, I went to visit every single address of all those licensed hams.

::Three of them I already knew. About twenty were XYLs of hams who became licensed because the OM must have talked them into it, and they're not on the air. I found four who forgot they had licenses. More than 50% of the licensed hams in my zip code have no visible antennas outside their homes, on the roofs or in their yards, despite the fact that almost none of them live in subdivisions with restrictive covenants. They could have antennas if they wanted to.

::Eight of the licensed hams were actually duplicate callsigns issued to "clubs" in the name of the trustee, who holds the primary license and most of these hams aren't even active -- I have no idea why they have "clubs." (Lately the FCC's been cracking down on this a bit and not allowing club licenses for individuals who cannot provide evidence a real club exists -- but it was pretty loose for many years.)

::Nobody was home at a lot of the addresses I visited, so I'm not sure if there's any ham stations behind those closed doors or not. But with no evidence of outside antennas, likely not. Maybe they operate mobile and the car with the antenna's in the garage. Could be. Maybe they operate from their boats, which are docked at the marina. That could be, too. But not all of them.

::Based on my impromptu investigation of my own community, I think about 1/4 or 1/5 of licensed hams are actually doing anything on the ham bands. The "one third" sounds high, to me...

-WB2WIK/6

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WB2WIK wonders:

"I wonder where the "1/3" statistic comes from, really?"

Its an arrl statistic, Steve.
It is "trotted" out by arrl supporters every time anyone points out how low arrl membership is.

But, given the breadth of our hobby, its hard to estimate. Even though I live in a small town (roughly 70,000) I often see ham plates with calls I have never heard on the air or met at frequent ham gatherings. Would someone pay the extra YEARLY state fee for a ham call license plate when they are inactive? Not likely, but possible.

Some might be strictly CW or PSK31. Some might be Ghz tinkerers. Some might be contesters or builder/restorers. Some might be strictly on 160. There are numerious reasons why a ham could be active, but unknown.

I have been around long enough (30 years) to know that just because some arrl supporter says it, does NOT mean it is accurate. arrl propiganda is everywhere. Remember that arrl told us that BPL was a "flawed technology" that "wont work". And we all know how accurate that was!

W9WHE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WB2WIK writes:

"Nobody was home at a lot of the addresses I visited, so I'm not sure if there's any ham stations behind those closed doors or not. But with no evidence of outside antennas, likely not"

Steve, no visible antenna at my house, but I'm active. Many, many hams have antenna restrictions, so you will NOT see visible antennas. You might be surprised how well a dipole in the attic or laying flat on the roof works. Mine has enabled me to confirm 256!

Food for thought.

W9WHE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." ~~ Mark Twain (1835 – 1910)
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Failures? Not at all. We've learned several thousand things that won't work." - Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Watch out for the Baloney Trolls!" {WV2B- 1964-?}
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K4JF on April 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"Remember that arrl told us that BPL was a "flawed technology" that "wont work". And we all know how accurate that was!"

Yep. 100% accurate.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
A 20-page supplement detailing Hare's February 20 findings accompanied the League's further complaint. The report indicates un-notched operation at one location extending into and through the 12 meter band "at very strong levels" on a communication receiver's S meter. At another site, apparently un-notched operation extends into and through 15 meters "at strong levels." Likewise, at a third location, un-notched operation extends into and through the 20 meter band "at very strong levels."

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Perhaps K4JF and W2VB don't know that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people get internet access through BPL, a technology that arrl insisted "won't work". Just because BPL might cause interferance to a few hobbyists like us does not detract from the fact that "IT WORKS". BPL deliveres internet service over power lines. You can deny facts all you want, but you can not make facts go away, no matter how much arrl propiganda you shovel.

W9WHE

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by K2GW on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Your experience in verifying the 1/3 estimate of active hams to licensees matches mine.

When we do recruiting drives for our local clubs or ARES/RACES using the FCC license data, about two thirds of the responses are "I'm not currently active in Amateur Rdaio".

But don't take my word for it or those disputing the the 1/3 figure as part of the "vast ARRL conspiracy" ;-) Just type in your own zip code at the following website:

http://hams.mapmash.com/hammap.php

I'll bet you'll find lot of licensees you never heard of before! And I'll bet they outnumber the local hams you do know in your area by two to one. Of course, they could be using stealth antennas and hiding in obscure modes in the microwave band. ;-)

So just pick ten of the unknown ones and call them on the telephone. I'll bet most of them will say "I haven't been on the air in the past year."

Getting back to the original subject, I appreciate the work of the OO's in helping good folks to stay in compliance and assisting the FCC in curtailing the activities of the miscreants.

73

Gary, K2GW
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
FCC statistics suggest minuscule market share for BPL (Apr 4, 2006) -- The latest FCC statistics on the status of high-speed Internet services indicate a minuscule market share for broadband over power line (BPL). The FCC Wireline Bureau report, "High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2005," puts at 4872 the number of business and residential "Power Line and Other" connections that deliver at speeds greater than 200 kbps in at least one direction. The total number of high-speed lines for all technologies is 42,866,469--the vast majority DSL, cable and traditional wireline connections. This puts the share for "Power Line and Other" at a bit more than 0.01 percent of the total. The number of residential BPL "advanced services" lines--greater than 200 kbps in both directions--is 3916 out of 34,259,411, the FCC report indicates. Although some data have been withheld as proprietary, the FCC report indicates there are 18 "Power Line and Other" high-speed providers nationwide. Facilities-based broadband providers must report the number of high-speed connections in service to the FCC twice a year.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
From ARRL Web Site:

"Radio amateurs are not opposed to broadband services. On the contrary, they tend to be early adopters of new technology. However, there are ways to deliver broadband that do not pollute the radio spectrum as Broadband over Power Line (BPL) does. These include fiber-to-the-home, cable, DSL, and wireless broadband. The ARRL--The National Association for Amateur Radio-- is supportive of broadband access for all Americans; however, it opposes BPL as a way to achieve this goal because of its high potential for causing interference to radiocommunication."


Please post the article or statement in entirety where the ARRL stated that BPL won't work.

Thanks
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W9WHE-II on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WV2B I refer to Ed Hare's and other arrl managers own statements given to IT groups and in other writings. To WHAT are you referring to? Kindly tell us why you posed that statement.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I would just like to see the "ARRL's statements" made that BPL "would not work". I have seen lots of statements why BPL is a bad idea, but I have never seen a statement claiming it wouldn't work. Please enlighten me with any such actual statements.

Thanks you.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WB2WIK on April 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I recall Dave Sumner writing that BPL is bad business and a lousy choice. I think he did say something about it not working -- referring to it not being successful because the chosen implementation was wrong...not that it technically can't work.

I have no idea what issue that was in, but I think in the past year...12 issues to look through, maybe.

Seems as though the "bad business" prediction is true, so far. With .01% market share, I doubt any utilities are making a killing on this.

I never thought they would, since all the places where something like BPL would be needed are the places where hardly anybody lives. Not rocket science.

WB2WIK/6
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on April 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
What in the world does BPL have to do with OOs. You guys just like to complain.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
BPL has nothing yo do with OOs. But if the Baloney Trolls can't successfully bash the ARRL one way, they chnage the subject to try another.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KB5DPE on April 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"W9WHE, who gored your ox? To read you, the ARRL is tanamount to the antichrist!

I'm sure that I'm not alone in saying that your anti ARRL diatribes grow very tiresome.

Get off your high horse and grow up!!!"

W5GA, I agree. ARRL may not be perfect, but it's pretty darn good. They've got my support!

73 Tom KB5DPE
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by KB3LXY on April 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"OO" Pretty simple issue here.

Do unto others etc. Can make a great hobby even better ! Wether your agree on the ARRL or not. We all have an investment in doing it better....
73
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA2JJH on April 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
To a chicken....Kentucy fried chicken is tantamount to the antichrist!

What does have to do with OO's......Nothin!
Just saw a cool line, and just had to use it in "Proper" context!

Now as to the ARRL being that bad or good. Many do feel as that the ARRL sold them a few too many times.
Not exactly my opinion. I am remaining neutral. No opinion. Too much of a "hot patatoe".

OO's...I never had an OO experience. However if one showed up at my door and demanded something of me.......I would be L.M.A.O. AND R.O.T.F.LAUGHING!
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on April 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
OO's...I never had an OO experience. However if one showed up at my door and demanded something of me.......

You are safe. OO never show up at your door. Their only contact with you would be by mail.

They also never demand anything of you. They will compliment you for something good they heard you do or may point out a particular rule you should review. But only by mail.

Only the FCC will show up at your door.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Anyone interested enough in the OO program to read this thread should go to this link to get information:

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/org/am_aux.html

Why get your information from the Baloney Trolls?

73,
Duane
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by W1RFI on April 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
> Remember that arrl told us that BPL was a "flawed
> technology" that "wont work". And we all know how
> accurate that was!

Yes, we do:

http://www.fortnightly.com/view_news.cfm?id=60

"Fundamental questions about the technology itself linger for larger utilities. First Energy 'commented that it is still not clear that BPL technologies live up to their hype,' while Con Edison cited 'credibility issues' with BPL. Even Cinergy acknowledged a 'significant problem' in integrating BPL with electricity meters. Nevertheless, the company 'believes that by installing BPL for current utility applications (even if another technology could perform equally well) utilities gain the advantage of extra bandwidth that will be useful in the future for more advanced utility applications (such as Intelligrid or Smart Grid applications).'"

Ed, W1RFI




 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
That is proof that the ARRL said "BPL Won't work"? Looks like ed Hare was quoting from utilities themselves expressing their own reservations. How is that relavent?
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
What is the point of that article related to the ARRL? It does not mention ARRL, Ed Hare, Amateur Radio, or anything even related. This is supossed to prove the ARRL said "BPL Won't Work"? I guess my brain just cannot make that leap.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Sorry Ed, I thought the quote was being attributed to you. That's why I didn't get the connection. Boy, I'll be glad when this article gets out of the top 10! Maybe it will be a while before the next OO article shows up. Amazing the lack of accurate information out there. Beware the Baloney Trolls!
73, Duane, WV2B
 
BPL is flawed technology  
by K8MHZ on April 11, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I give up.

The thread is yours.

mhz
 
RE: OO's Part of the Problem?  
by NN6EE on April 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Gentlemen,

The OO program as of late has proven to be VERY DIVISIVE in it's own right!!!

Also something else that is rather depressing is that if any of you take the time to even look at one state's "OO reports sent" statistics (Tennessee in this case) that it seems the rascals (OOs) are more interested in sending out negative reports to the various supposed violators rather that sending out "GORs" (def:Good Operator Report) to the other faction (Good Operators?).
Is this another instance of people (OOs)only harping on the BAD rather then the GOOD like our MASS MEDIA has a habit of doing???

That practice is rather shallow on their part isn't it???

Jim/nn6ee
 
RE: OO's Part of the Problem?  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on April 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
RE: OO's Part of the Problem? Reply
by NN6EE on April 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Gentlemen, The OO program as of late has proven to be VERY DIVISIVE in it's own right!!!

Other than this thread where do you see devisive?
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by GILLIAM_LINEBERRY_EX_N4VOX on April 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
==>HOLLINGSWORTH HEAPS PRAISE ON OFFICIAL OBSERVERS

FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth this week offered high praise for the work of the volunteer ARRL Amateur Auxiliary's corps of Official Observers. Long a strong supporter of the OOs, Hollingsworth's most recent burst of appreciation was inspired by investigative footwork done by an OO team that's assisting the FCC in an enforcement inquiry.

"It makes me realize that if it weren't for the OOs over the past 10 years, Amateur Radio would probably have imploded long ago and disintegrated from its own chaos," Hollingsworth said. "We really thank them very much for their work here."

The Amateur Auxiliary is composed of approximately 700 ARRL Official Observer volunteer appointees across the US. The program was developed as a result of a formal agreement between the FCC and the ARRL.

OOs function as helpers and advisors, not enforcers. They monitor the bands and notify amateurs of technical and operating discrepancies as a service. In cases involving serious rule violations such as malicious interference, however, they are trained and certified to gather and forward evidence that can be used by the FCC in enforcement actions. All OOs must pass a
comprehensive examination before they can be certified as members of the Amateur Auxiliary.

In recent months, Hollingsworth's office has been attempting to make greater use of the Amateur Auxiliary in tackling enforcement issues. He says the Official Observer program offers a way for amateurs to solve their own problems internally, without bringing in the FCC, but he notes that Oos often can provide valuable local perspective during enforcement inquiries.

"It's this type of devotion of personal time to Amateur Radio and to helping us that gives me enough adrenaline to last for months," Hollingsworth said.

The bottom line, according to Hollingsworth, is protecting the future of Amateur Radio for those who enjoy it. "Radio spectrum has extremely high visibility, and every time an operator gets on and degrades the bands, that operator is not only making Amateur Radio less enjoyable but endangering it as well.
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Good Op Reports- Yes they are sent out. But here is some further information for consideration:

"But, operating skill is a matter of individual cultivation. Thus, it is primarily operating technique that would be subject to recognition via the "Good Operator Report". Such reports should not be sent out wholesale, but reserved for only those amateurs who set an example for the rest of the community by displaying the "best" that Amateur Radio has to offer."

From OO training materials.

So, while it is readily apparent when there are technical problems with a signal, or transmissions otherwise in violation of FCC rules, it takes a lot more monitoring, and being in the right place at the right time to monitor something worthy of a "Good Op Report". And, contrary to some expressions on this thread, anyone who receives one should feel proud.

I think that OOs should be sending out more Good Op notices, you could ask the OOs in my section who hear it constantly from me. But, OOs are volunteers, most have limited time, and it honestly is not every day one hears operating which qualifies for a good op report.

I hear a lot of good operating out there, and often send out Good Op Reports when I hear operating which sets an example for the rest of the amateur community. But, often the time is spent with the bad operating which reaches out and grabs your attention while tuning around, or the technical problems which are immediately noticed, or complaints received from other amateurs in the section.

Good Op Reports are not meant for every amateur who happens to be obeying the rules at the time. This is our obligation as amateurs. They are meant for those who are setting an example, representing the best ham radio has to offer.

For example: I have issued a good op notice to a ham for turning his amplifier off when it wasn't needed. I have heard this occur exactly one time in my many years as an OO. How often have you heard this happen? That guy really set an example. I sent one to a net control station who was able to keep his cool and keep his net running effectively while ignoring intentional interference directed at him and his net. How often do you hear that happen? That guy really set an example.

I have also sent many for less dramatic circumstances, and more dramatic, like the net control assisting a woman on a sailboat while her husband lay on the deck after being shot by pirates. Talk about a stressful situation! And he managed to reassure her and guide the Coast Guard rescue boat, relaying their instructions to her despite the half dozen or so supposed "Amateur Radio Operators" who were transmittijng carriers in an effort to disrupt the rescue operation. Talk about a good example, and a example of folks who should have gotten more spankings as children!

At any rate, Yes, more advisories are issued than Good Op cards. Discrepencies are more obvious, and unfortunately occur more frequently than opportunities to issue Good Op notices. But, just because a good op notice isn't issued, doesn't mean a particular transmission wasn't monitored by an OO, and that it wasn't noticed that FCC rules were followed.

Just like an receiving an advisory doesn't mean you're one of the bad guys {just that there is something that might require your attention}, not receiving a Good Op notice doesn't mean you're not one of the good guys. Just that your good operating hasn't yet been noticed by an OO, or your good operating hasn't been to an extent yet justfying the issuance of one. The real import of either notice is that people are out there listening, not just hams, and it is up to each of us the impression we make.

73, Duane, WV2B

 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by NN6EE on April 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Obviously N4VOX you can't comprehend what I stated so I won't even bother replying!!!

Duane,

Again I was a "ARRL-OO" in the 70s as well as a member of ARRL's Intruder-Watch in the late 60's & 70's but we NEVER got into GRUDGES or PETTINESS as is ENDEMIC in the "OO program" now!!!

I should know as I've experienced it from BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE!!!

Jim/ee
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WV2B on April 14, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Endemic- Constantly Present. Hmmm.

Well, here we have some pretty vague accusations.

Grudges and pettiness are constantly present in the OO program. Hmmmm.

Funny, I probably know and deal with about as many OOs as anyone. I do not know of any OOs who have grudges, and none I would call petty. I suppose out of the group of about 700, there may be a couple out there some might consider petty, or who have a grudge {do they have a good reason?}.

How many OOs do you know or have you dealt with out of the 700 or so appointed OOs in the US? Do you really know that many that you can be considered an authority on what is or isn't endemic to the OO program. Or who really has a grudge?

Or perhaps have you had an incident with a particular OO, or the OO leadership in your ARRL Section, and so make the generalization about what you feel is endemic?

Just wondering.

73, Duane, WV2B
 
RE: OO's Part of Enforcement? -- It Seems Not  
by WA2JJH on April 15, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
NN6EE, AS ALWAYS...YOUR RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!!
SIEMPER PHI and very best of 73

DE MIKE JJH
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Recent Articles
IARU Region 3 and APT Agreement:
Breakall Sends Students on a 'Fox Hunt' to Learn Ham Radio:
Ham Radio Towers Stolen In Effort:
Amateur Radio Operators to Converge In Claremore on March 13-14:
YL 33: The First Female Ham Radio Operators, and Their Awesome Legacy: