As posted on the ARRL web site: Please note: The ARRL and the FCC are currently working together to update and to make changes to the Official Observer/Amateur Auxiliary program. Because of these expected upcoming revisions and changes, ARRL has placed a moratorium on applications for new Official Observers and new Official Observer Coordinators at this time. What are the changes that the ARRL want's to make that need FCC involvement or approval?
This was discussed here last fall after the former ARRL CEO wrote an editorial about it. https://tinyurl.com/y7f4gnjf Note in particular - ""It’s important to bear in mind that the principal end-user of all Official Observer activity is the FCC. The Commission, as our client, alone must determine which violations it chooses to pursue (enforcement policy), and which violations it will deemphasize in favor of accomplishing higher priorities. The OO program strives to harmonize its activities with enforcement policies." https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/official-observers-something’s-coming.577143/ It sounds like the ARRL submitted a plan and questions to the FCC and are awaiting official answers. Back then the ARRL Second VP N5ZGT was heading that effort, but did not run for re-election. Unknown by me if his successor, W6RGG, or anyone else, is following up. Traditionally OO's have been just helpful Ham-to-Ham advisers. However, IMO, the editorial contains some tone that suggests a possibly wider and more serious role for future OO / Amateur Auxiliary program, possibly to the point of becoming informally deputized junior FCC investigators. That, along with reported regulatory investigations the ARRL has assisted with outside of the amateur community not long ago, has made me curious if there is an intent to enlist the OO / Amateur Auxiliary program into assisting the FCC and other agencies with field work, reports & data involving regulation outside Part 97, ie, unlicensed clandestine operations, EMI compliance / labeling of products, RFI-hunting / mitigation, perhaps even when not affecting amateur spectrum allocations. 73, John, WØPV
Agreed. I remember that causing a stir. According to the ARRL: "OOs are helpers and advisors, not "band cops." In cases involving serious rule violations, such as malicious interference, 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. LICs, appointed by their ARRL Section Managers, address local interference issues." SOURCE: http://www.arrl.org/amateur-auxiliary When it comes to serious rule violations, that sounds great. If we spend our time reporting people who wait 10 minutes and 3 seconds to ID to the FCC, then the idea becomes a little more troublesome from an FCC standpoint. Presumably, they must address every single report in some way, and that takes time, money and staff. I could see new agreement going either way...it could be the FCC dictating a stricter guidline on what is an actionable (serious) violation, and what is not. Or, it could be the FCC wanting to dismantle the amateur auxiliary and the ARRL justifying the role of the amateur auxiliary and all the good they do for amateur radio. It's hard to say what's going on at the ARRL anymore.
That's my concern. I was aware of everything mentioned up to this point, but it sounds like a different proposal is being advanced and if the ARRL is saying what it is, I can't find it. That's what I'm wondering.
Agree...I despise these pseudo 'committees for the defense of the revolution'. Thank goodness we don't have vigilante services up here...yet. One of the few things that have not been 'harmonized'. If and when this 'efficient' way of policing the hamradio service arrives here, I hope it takes the form of a 'snitch line' rather than an OO 'program'.
If that's the case then some official and technical standard of vetting needs to come into play. Not a 'buddy system' of passing out badges.
Yup, mushroom time yet again. Anyone else remember when the ARRL attempted to have their band plan become enforceable as "good amateur practice"? I wonder if this time around they will pay attention to the outright illegal activities of some of the digital operations? I've tried in the past to get help cleaning up some overly wide and truly awful digital signals, took it all the way to HQ level, and one of the answers I got was "we don't monitor those frequencies". Filed a formal documented complaint at the FCC, which was another exercise in futility........about 4 years ago! Oh, the feedback I got from some of the OO's in the chain indicated they couldn't monitor the particular modes, had to provide sound samples so they knew what to look for. I'll wait and see what they come up with this time but I do know that recently some OO's resigned, no reasons given though.
Again, hard to say what's happening in Newington. In their defense, OOs are volunteers. I've known a few Barney Fife's, but for the most part they want to help not harm. It could be that the Barney Fifes are in danger of losing some power, or it could be that OOs are going to get more power than some of the volunteers are comfortable with. And so goes the riddle. Which reminds me.... you know anyone who has received a "Good Operator Report"? I don't, although the Amateur Auxiliary claims they are sent. I know plenty of people, myself included, who have received advisory notices for nit-picky stuff, which the Amateur Auxiliary says the OOs should avoid. I can easily find a copy of what an Advisory Notice looks like on the ARRL website, but there's no sign of a Good Operator Report. If you want to play, you've got to play fair and patrol both sides of the street. That's just my opinion, but I think if the same amount of Good Operator Reports were sent as the number of Advisory Notices, the OOs wouldn't have such a bad rap.
My past discussions with OOs have left me with the feeling that some are very serious wannabes. It is not good to give enforcement authority to individuals with "lack of power" identity problems. Further, the FCC uses very sophisticated equipment - far above that owned/used by amateurs for $$$ reasons if nothing else. I firmly believe only government agencies with statutory responsibilities should enforce laws/regulations. That said, a good snitch line would cure a lot of today's ham radio problems. Providing there was an interest at the FCC in following up on tips and actually cleaning things up. Burn a few offenders loudly and publicly and you would be amazed how quickly things improve.
I can just see the kind of "tips" they will be getting... Mostly a flood of sheer nonsense and ham radio drama that has absolutely nothing to do with any actual rule violations. Bad idea if you should ask me.
Likely not much different than the output of the OOs. The difference with tips is that they can be 'filtered' by the regulator, before people are inconvenienced. Vigilantism is a much worse. The 'snitch line' tips to the regulator should not be anonymous.
OO's can be trained, tested and certified by an authoritative entity to report and/or document things that are actually appropriate. I don't exactly see this as "vigilante" anything if implemented correctly. On the other VFO dial, a general public snitch line is just that.... A free for all where anything goes.... So how many additional staff will be needed to sort through the dirty laundry?
Are they "trained, tested and certified by an authoritative entity to report and/or document things that are actually appropriate" now? Then, for now at least, it's vigilantism. And if they do get the 'credentials', what kind of oversight is there going to be? Is the certification to be done via a multiple choice exam, with the question bank available before hand? What about monitoring equipment? Walking around with an HT or MW radio is not enough. Correct implementation is easier said than done, and costly. I would not be surprised if they said the OO program was 'correctly implemented' back in the day. Not if 'reporters' must identify themselves, and certainly face the consequences for malicious accusations. Like paying for the inspector's 'call out'. Not that many if the reports are legit, if not, punish the accusers. They have to be removed from the hobby as well. It may be ugly and busy in the beginning, but worth it. We all dislike governments, and their agents, but they are needed sometimes. If the ARRL is so gung-ho on this, maybe they should take the call, make the triage, and send the legit reports to the FCC.
I wonder if the system you describe was used when our Division Director appointed the 4th DXCC Field Card Checker to fill a shortage in Michigan. Now we have 4, all of whom are in the southern 1/4 of Michigan's lower peninsula. Now that we have our 4th field checker we will probably see them regularly at the U.P. swaps. After all, it's only a 9 hour drive, one way. Thanks guys, for looking out for the needs of the membership.
