FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaster Drill:
from
The ARRL Letter
on
October 29, 2009
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaster Drill:
On October 27, the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)
granted the first waiver that allows amateurs who participate in a
government-sponsored emergency preparedness and disaster drill to
communicate on behalf of their employers during the drill. The waiver
request was made on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. That state
conducted a full-scale exercise on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 from 8
AM-5 PM (EDT) to test their emergency response to the possible release
of chemical agents at Blue Grass Army Depot, located near Richmond,
Kentucky. Click here
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/10/28/11165/?nc=1 for more
information.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaster Dr
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on October 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One would think the FCC would refrain from going after hams that work for the State of Kentucky to coordinate emergency response activity with the Department of the Army.
Is this just a tad over-board or is it that I've been getting too many antioxidants in my cereal lately and got an extra dose of common sense this morning??
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaste
|
|
|
by WB6DGN on October 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE I don't do well with cryptography so I'm not sure exactly what you said but I'm very happy that the FCC is willing to oversee those that would try to grab amateur frequencies in the name of "security", whatever that means. Amateur frequencies are increasingly becoming the target of all sorts of "preemptions" and it is long past time to put some restraints on that. Hams have worked well ALONG SIDE emergency agencies, there is NO justification for them to be TAKEN OVER by the bureaucrats.
Tom DGN
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaste
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on October 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Crypto? Please, this isn't hard to understand.
Considering this is supposed to be a good example of the first waiver, why would the FCC be concerned about a drill between the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Army?
The Commission’s Rules specifically prohibit amateur stations from transmitting communications "in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer."
In this case, the amateur communications are between a state agency and a federal agency - the U.S. Army.
IMO, this ruling is unnecessary and reactionary - like a lot of things that occur these days. Just because a couple handful's of amateurs blatantly broke the rules and a few "General Alarmist's" rang the bell so loud you could hear it coast to coast (another problem in these times) this waiver requirement is written to cover the letter of the law.
The real essence of Part 97.3 and 97.113 is to prohibit the use of amateur communications for financial (or pecuniary) "gain" and replacing a commercial emergency communications service - especially with operators who are employees of that commercial service. A reasonable person who works for a state agency and just happens to be a ham should be able to volunteer some of his or her time for an emergency exercise without going through this.
What happen to common sense? Why is it in such short supply these days??
So in this case, we have an exercise between the State of Kentucky and the U.S. Army: where's the potential "gain" by the parties???
That's right, there is none.
As a side note, do you really think the FCC would put the screws to the State of Kentucky, the Army or the hams involved if they hadn't requested the waiver?
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaste
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on October 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A) Hams are not supposed to be paid for their activities.
B) Now..that being said...is an employee of the State of Kentucky (or the Army) who receives wages as a result of participation in an "exercise" getting paid for their ham activities??
Yes.
Let me play devils' advocate. Let's suppose an employee of one of these organizations showed up...and refused to work the radios. Refused to pass traffic. Used profanity on the air. Do you think that would adversely affect his' superiors opinion of his capabilities as not only a ham *but* also as an employee? Yes. The employee has a pecuniary interest in how he/she behaves during the "exercise".
Now that being said...what is "acceptable"?
Is it OK for police officers who are hams to use ham frequencies for police work? What about hospital staff? Utility workers? Sanitation workers? Meals on Wheels?
Where do you draw the line?
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaste
|
|
|
by KF7CG on October 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem as I seeit from other FCC actions is an intolerable uncertainty about their interpetation of pecuniaty and "on behalf for." Cuple this with an uncertainty about how long any interpretation will last and you have grist for the E-Ham and QRZ rumor and discontent mill forever!
KF7CG
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaste
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on October 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the bigger issue is this:
*In previous times* hams were interested in radio for radio's sake. If they were also involved in the government and just so happened to simultaneously be able to use their ham radio privileges at the same time...then so be it.
I don't think anyone has a problem with this.
*Now* we are creating a group of licensees who have *no interest* in ham radio other than...in the course of their employment. They're firemen, hospital workers, law enforcement officers who obtain a license ONLY to use ham radio in performance of their duties in times of disaster.
If we're going to do that....
Why not just make an "Emergency Communicator" license class? No testing, just show your public service credentials and you get the capability to transmit for bona fide drills and in times of emergency from places such as EOC's, hospitals, etc.
Then if you want to go ahead and get your "real" ham license, hey, that's fine too.
Heck, the FCC could charge a license fee and make a ton of money!!!
|
| |
|
FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaster Dr
|
|
|
by AI8O on October 31, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<Perhaps we should fire up the old RACES concept.>
Update the concept to get it into the 21 century.
Like changing the names from Civil Defense to FEMA, or "Emergency Management Communications Agency".
Maybe have some dedicated frequencies just like MARS.
Specifying by RULE in the new RACES regulations which types of drills are acceptable would do reduce the workload on the FCC to grant waivers for each drill.
ONLY truly exceptional or unusual cases would need FCC approval.
One specific rule would be that the ONLY paid employees of organizations allowed to participate in the drills would be FEMA, and state or local EMA employees.
Having the drills by hams under the direction and control of FEMA or state or local EMA would obviate the need for specific waivers, and only allowing drills to be conducted by RACES would cut down a lot on the unacceptable commercialization of activities that a lot of hams fear.
Implementation of this idea would probably require reactivation of <Part 99 ???> of the FCC rules or new legislation by Congress.
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsor
|
|
|
by KI4SDY on November 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is just the first of many rule changes, rulings and waivers to improve coordination and communications between the public and emergency services during annual disasters and any emergencies. I think it is great!
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsored Disaste
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on November 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE4MOB said;
A) Hams are not supposed to be paid for their activities.
B) Now..that being said...is an employee of the State of Kentucky (or the Army) who receives wages as a result of participation in an "exercise" getting paid for their ham activities??
Yes.
>>> Who said the employees are:
1) Using amateur frequencies as a primary means of communications?
2) On the clock receiving wages EXCLUSIVELY for "ham activities"?
Who's to say they are not similar to RACES exercises that I participate in, where state Emergency Management employees utilize SEVERAL means of communications.
It is very likely they are simply verifying amateur communications READINESS. That is not the same as using amateur frequencies as a PRIMARY means of communications.
"Let me play devils' advocate. Let's suppose an employee of one of these organizations showed up...and refused to work the radios. Refused to pass traffic. Used profanity on the air. Do you think that would adversely affect his' superiors opinion of his capabilities as not only a ham *but* also as an employee? Yes. The employee has a pecuniary interest in how he/she behaves during the "exercise".
Now that being said...what is "acceptable"?
>>> Let's also say the sky is falling. Who cares how an employee behaves on the air and what his supervisor thinks- that's not the issue.
"Is it OK for police officers who are hams to use ham frequencies for police work? What about hospital staff? Utility workers? Sanitation workers? Meals on Wheels?
Where do you draw the line? "
>>> No it is not OK for police officers to use ham radio frequencies for police work. Once again, what has that got to do with this? If you are implying a similarity to the recent incident involving the Indianapolis Police when amateur gear was installed in cruisers, please....
...This is what I'm referring to with people going off the deep end just because of some isolated incident. When is the last time you heard of such an incident? The Indy police ordeal is definitely an aberration as I have never heard such a thing occurring in my 36 years as a ham.
So the next time there is a 1-off incident like this, does everyone scream to the FCC to write a new waiver requirement??
IMO, the only action that was required by the FCC was to publish an official notice clarifying Part 97.3 and 97.113 and warning people about any consequences.
Another reason that Common Sense should be taught in schools from grade school on up to the college grad level.
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: FCC Issues First Waiver for Government-Sponsor
|
|
|
by KI4SDY on November 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ignore the voices of the past and listen to the leaders of the future!
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Middle School Looks to Start Ham Radio Club:
Mile High Radio Club Connects the Mountain:
DX News -- ARRL DX Bulletin #47:
This Week on the Radio:
FCC Looks to Revise, Clarify Vanity Call Sign Rules:
|
