-----------------------------------------------
ARRL's intruder
watch program is run from ARRL HQ.
By ARRL's own admission, reports
received are only sent to FCC:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/intruder.htmlFCC is
the telecom authority for USA territory, but is perfectly
capable of
raising matters of intruders or harmful interference from
outside its
patch. The mechanism is in the ITU Radio Regulations.
Is a bit too
much work this early in the morning to dig them up for
you, but after over
a decade as our national society's president &
dealing with our telecom
authority, I'm rather familiar with them
(familiar enough that when pushed,
our TA has been told by the ITU
that how they tried to interpret them was
wrong & what we said they
meant was right).
For the past three
years, I have compiled the IARU Region 3
Monitoring System report with
VU2UR. During that time, ARRL has
not shared any reports on intruders
& appears to have not taken up
with the FCC anything we've found with a
connection to USA. I've
been to two Regional conventions as a
delegate, ARRL raised no
intruder matters at them. In the decade that
I was president of our
IARU member-society, I can't recall anything being
brought up or
the sort of post-problem-solved PR that would be expected if
ARRL
had actually brought a case to the attention of anyone on the
other
side. And definitely nothing during the past three years that
I've
been very much involved with IARU R3 MS.
Closer to home, for
such a large country with so many hams who
one might expect to be inclined
to complain about intruders &
harmful interference, there's no sign of
ARRL involvement in
published IARU Region 2 Monitoring System reports &
very little
involvement from amateurs in USA:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=21#pdfhttp://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=22#pdfhttp://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=23#pdfhttp://www.iaru-r2.org/counter/getfile.php?id=26#pdfAnd
USA makes no contribution to the ITU Monitoring System,
which does have the
ability to pursue reported cases, which would
be where something reported
by ARRL would be pursued before
would be raised directly
state-to-state:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/terrestrial/monitoring/Ineffective
is being polite. I reckon ARRL isn't doing squat. Heck,
on that
IW page they don't even correctly list which allocations
are exclusive
amateur & which are not. They talk the talk, but don't
walk the
walk.
What they do seem to be good at is making folks think
they're
doing something. I know better. And we deserve
better.
73, Brett/p.