"Amateur radio is “self policing” by mutual agreement of the FCC with amateur groups, and has been for decades."
Self policing via the ARRL's OO program, I know of no such agreement with the FCC other than to heed proper, substantiated information submitted by "official" observers.
And self-policing as understood in day-to-day operations by the FCC, and in many official documents submitted by the FCC to courts and governing bodies. This verbiage is used officially and frequently to describe certain aspects of Amateur activities in both documents submitted to the FCC for consideration and in documents generated by the FCC.
For example (just a few of hundreds that can be found in minutes):
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/fcc96375.txt
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-178A1.pdf
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/DA-07-2184A1.html
To support the position that this has been the policy for decades; In a Congressional report (97-765), the “Communications Amendment Acts of 1982”, submitted to Congress: “The Amateur Radio Service has been praised for being self-regulated. The Commission has reported that less time has been devoted to monitoring and regulating the Amateur Service than to any other service because of its self-policing and discipline.”
If the FCC does not recognize and agree that amateur service is self-policing can you point to one document where the FCC objects to the inclusion of such wording in official documentations and request?
Is not the fact that the ARRL, along with other amateur groups less well known, and the FCC both call the service “self-policing” an indication of “mutual agreement”? They both call it that, after all.
Of course the OO program, via the Amateur Auxiliary, is the preferred conduit to present matters for possible action. It is not the only way, but it is the preferred way. Someone has to have the knowledge of how to properly document cases, and the OO’s are supposed to have this skill.
Anyone can present a complaint of interference or action, but the OO’s supposedly already know how to do it.
"If no one reports the offenders to the FCC, in the proper way with the proper documentation, then the FCC absolutely will do nothing about it."
Only because the Enforcement Bureau is severely underfunded and understaffed to the point where the monitoring stations were closed years ago.
Not a real argument that they are understaffed in key areas. Are they underfunded? Possibly, or possibly like other government agencies they have lost touch with their basic functions, and are top heavy with an emphasis on lawyers and managers instead of technicians and engineers.
But I fail to see how that in any way is contrary to what I said. The fact is if no one reports offenders then the likelihood of the FCC undertaking enforcement is essentially non-existent. Sure, if they had a larger pool of personnel tasked with enforcement they would be more likely to take action, but for as long as I can remember first hand (first licensed in 1967) and from what I heard at that time from “old timers” then, the FCC has mostly responded to reports/complaints within the amateur service. They may have had more cases of self-initiated actions when they had a large monitoring arm but they still responded to a lot of reports/complaints. Was this the larger percentage of actions? I do not know, I have never seen any hard data one way or the other.
"Not because they don’t want to, but rather because they have agreed with the amateur community not to."
Citation needed, please back up your claim with valid proof, not speculation or conjecture.
As per the ARRL web site:
Q. Isn't the OO doing work that should be more properly done by the FCC?
A. The ARRL and the FCC have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that defines the relationship between the two. By agreement, the ARRL Amateur Auxiliary does initial fact finding for the FCC, referring appropriate cases to the Enforcement Bureau for consideration. The FCC may also request the Amateur Auxiliary to gather information as needed.
That certainly sounds to me like they have an agreement, documented, with the amateur community to rely heavily on them for such activities. Can you point to a document claiming otherwise?
As you said, the FCC is understaffed and possibly underfunded (although I am not sure I agree to underfunded, probably more along the lines of improperly funded, IMO). Because of this they cannot do everything they would ideally like to do in the area of enforcement. Because of this they have agreed to put so a large part of this work on an available resource, the self-policing nature of amateur radio.
And perhaps my wording was a bit too strong. I said “If no one reports the offenders to the FCC, in the proper way with the proper documentation, then the FCC absolutely will do nothing about it. Not because they don’t want to, but rather because they have agreed with the amateur community not to.”. What I probably should have said was “If no one reports the offenders to the FCC, in the proper way with the proper documentation, then the FCC _probably_ will do nothing about it. Not because they don’t want to, but rather because, _due to matters of priority_, they have agreed _to lean heavily on the amateur community for such task instead of doing them themselves_.
T!
