Amateur Radio Licensing - Some Musings.

[Yorkie]

Some musings and ramblings about the widely misunderstood amateur radio licensing regime:

Some amateurs who continue to oppose the 3-stage licence structure which has been in place for 7 years now nonsensically talk of ‘dumbing down, getting a licence off a plate, getting it out of a cornflake packet’ and scornfully refer to the Foundation Licence (FL) as the ‘Fool’s Licence’. This is ludicrous and offensive to prospective newcomers – any prospective amateur, however erudite – even with a PHD in Electronics, must follow all three stages. There is only one licence that stands on its own – the Foundation Licence. The Intermediate and Advanced, bolt on to that. You can’t apply for an Advanced Licence and skip the other two exams as the 'Advanced' syllabus is an add-on to the FL and IL – it isn’t a ‘stand alone’ syllabus.

Some amateurs assert that the ‘privilege’ of a licence should be ‘earned’. Again, this shows a woeful ignorance of regulatory regimes – any licence for any activity is not a ‘privilege’ – it is a legitimate expectation if the applicant meets the minimum criteria. Neither is it a test of commitment to be ‘earned’. Any effort involved is proportionate to the risks. That’s why kids aren’t allowed to drive cars or fly planes, but bright kids as young as seven have obtained amateur radio licences.

Anyone who thinks the skill level in amateur radio can be enhanced or diminished by tinkering with the entrance exam (‘dumbing-down’ or ‘skilling-up’) is mistaken and fails to understand how regulatory regimes are required to operate. Any regulations – whether it’s to build a house, fly a plane, ride a bike, walk a dog or whatever, must conform to what is known as the ‘principle of proportionality’. Any impositions by public bodies must be justified as being both proportionate and necessary to any real or perceived risks. They can go no higher.

Proportionality in regulatory regimes:

You don’t need to pass an exam to obtain a fishing licence or TV licence as no risks to life and limb are involved, but you do to drive a car, fly a plane or operate an amateur radio transceiver. In each case, the standard that must be attained is the minimum needed to reduce the risks to an acceptable level. In the case of a car or plane, the requirements of the test for the licence, including the minimum age, are commensurate to minimising the risks to life of oneself and other members of the public. If you break the terms of the licence and are found out, there are sanctions proportionate to the transgression, including the withdrawal of the licence.

In the case of amateur radio, the main risks that the licence seeks to minimise is that of interference to other services, notably the emergency service – police, fire ambulance, air traffic control etc, and to not radiate signals outside of the allocated frequency bands, or at higher than permitted power levels. These risks are very low indeed when using a commercial transceiver as most amateurs do these days. That is why the Foundation licence is so elementary. It is limited to 10 Watts output using either commercial equipment or approved kits. It does not permit any on-air experimentation. It requires about 20 hours of study.

To quote the Radio Communications Foundation, (‘RCF’) which administers the exams via local RSGB affiliated Clubs and Societies:

Key Features of the Foundation Licence:

• Part of a progressive system of learning designed to promote an understanding of radio communications science, technology and practice sufficient to allow the licensed operator to work safely on the amateur radio bands.
• Clear presentation of content for easy reference.
• The examination suite as a whole provides a backbone of theoretical knowledge whilst at the same time requiring ‘On-air’ experience and practical skills.
• A student’s workbook is available covering the syllabus and is suitable for self study if desired.
• Can be used within schools to enrich the Science and Technology curriculum.

The Assessment:

Two methods of assessment are used. A practical assessment detailed in sections 8e and 8f of the syllabus requires demonstration of setting up a radio transmitter/receiver and correct on-air operating. These items must be assessed by a registered assessor, who may also be the tutor. This is followed by an examination of 26 multiple-choice questions, each with 4 possible responses, which covers the remainder of the syllabus. The examination lasts 45 minutes. Papers are available at short notice and are marked locally with results normally available on the same day.

Prior Learning and Progression:

As this is the entry point, no prior subject knowledge is required. There are no set age limits. Progression is to the Intermediate licence and may be subsequently followed by the Full licence examination. The candidate may progress at his or her own pace, but must pass the examinations in ascending order. At Foundation and Intermediate level the practical assessment must be completed before taking the relevant examination. It is permissible to undertake Intermediate practical assessments before sitting the Foundation examination but the candidate should then sit the Intermediate within 12 months. The Advanced level examination does not include a practical assessment.

Source: http://www.commsfoundation.org/rce/pdf/f...llabus.pdf

For anyone who'd like to know more about what is involved in obtaining a licence, the syllabus for each licence, together with two sample exam papers of each one, can be found at these links:

http://www.rsgb.org/tutors/foundation/pdf/sample.pdf
http://www.rsgb.org/tutors/foundation/pd...aper-2.pdf

http://www.commsfoundation.org/rce/pdf/i...llabus.pdf

http://www.rsgb.org/tutors/intermediate/pdf/sample.pdf
http://www.rsgb.org/tutors/intermediate/...aper-2.pdf

http://www.commsfoundation.org/rce/pdf/a...llabus.pdf

http://www.rsgb.org/tutors/advanced/pdf/...%20_2_.pdf
http://www.rsgb.org/tutors/advanced/pdf/...-Final.pdf

Hope these ramblings might be of interest anyone who hasn't nodded off while reading this diatribe

[pwdrive]

I don't see any problem with a three stage licence either, some of the views of certain long time licence holders beggars belief on some of the regular amature nets that I have listened to in the past, it's the usual topics (which are banned on this forum) plus anything else they can slag off, he who has done no wrong has done bugger all in my book.
At least with the system as it is it does allow youngsters and newcomers to get on air quickly and see if the hobby is for them, I would have thought that that is a good thing.

Lawrence.

[Skywave]

My 'take' on all of this is as follows.

Fact 1: Amateur Radio does not have the appeal to youngsters that it did in the 1960's and prior to that. This was recognised many years ago when the sparsely-occupied VHF / UHF bands were opened up to aspiring Radio Amateurs, resulting in the Class-B licence. Moreover, at a later date, Class-B licensees were granted the use of all the AmRad bands, since an ability with Morse was deemed to be no longer a 'technical requirement'.
Fact 2: The strength - and the very existence - of Amateur Radio is largely determined by the size of its population.
Fact 3: Many young hopefuls now use the Internet and mobile phones for their personal 'communications requirements'.
Conclusion: Put those three facts together and you come to one obvious conclusion: more young people must be encouraged to become Amateur Radio members.
Caveats: Obviously, a method of assessing such hopefuls' ability to use and control their transmitting and receiving equipment is an absolute necessity: hence, a form of testing is required, prior to granting a licence. But if such a 'test' is set at too high a level, it will become self-defeating - and Amateur Radio will suffer as a consequence. Hence, the validity is having a series of steps - with 'rewards' for progressing to a higher level.

Just my considered opinion.

Al. (G8DLH)

[boiss]

Please tell me how the newly licensed guy who has bought his Yaesu transceiver knows that his kit is NOT causing interference in some other part of the EM spectrum, and how he can maintain and be sure that this will not happen in the future?

[Yorkie]

He can't, but that isn't confined to newly licensed amateurs - few radio amateurs, however long they've been licensed, have the competence or the test gear to be sure of that - I doubt it will ever cross their minds. They rely on equipment designed to a high standard which experience of the years has shown has excellent immunity from harmonic radation outside the amateurs bands.

Any impositions by public bodies, be it Ofcom or the 'jobsworths' at the local council, must be both proportionate, and necessary to minimise the risks which those impositions seek to obviate or minimise. In the case of amateur radio, the prime risk is to other spectrum users, notably the risk to the emergency service and air traffic control. The reality is that no such instances arise, except where deliberate and intentional. Sadly, most of the complaints and prosecutions brought about by Ofcom have been caused BY radio amateurs TO radio amateurs, notably, repeater jammers. One such guy in Hull was caught a few years ago in a joint police/Ofcom operation and put through the courts.

When I was first licensed (as G8JIN for a few months in 1974 till I passed the needless Morse test to gain access to the HF bands, and became G4EBT), a GPO inspector came to visit me to check that I had the necessary test gear to check if I was actually within the amateur bands, and to check for harmonic radation. At that time, the 'Burns TC1 Wavemeter' was the standard bit of kit, and really, not much better than an amateur could design and build.

But that was back in the era when some amateurs still built their own equipment. To a large extent, SSB put paid to that, and with the falling price (in relative terms), of equipment, and the lack of availability and cost of items such as coils, tuning caps etc, plus the time involved, the hobby has metamorphosed from the immediate post-war era, when it was primarily a technical, experimental and practical hobby, with many amateurs having skills gained in the armed forces, or radio and TV trade, into a hobby which is primarily one of 'appliance operating'. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense - the same could be said of hobbies such as photography. How many amateur photographers have a dark room, and enlarge, develop and print their pictures? Next to none would be my guess.

I'd always been interested in radio and electroncs since a schoolboy in the early 1950s, but didn't take the RAE until I was in my mid 30s as I always considered it to be an 'old mans' hobby', as indeed it still largely is. I only really took the exam to be able to legally construct and experment with low power transmitters, but by the mid 70s, amateurs were already saying on air 'We're strictly non-technical at this end, I'm using a Kenyasuicom Mk 3 do dah', the weather here in Bristol today is sunny but cold'. I just don't have time for that malarkey. Tony Hancock's depiction of radio 'hams' was too close for comfort - more like a documentary than a comedy.

There is of course the notable exception of QRP operation, which is where most of the expertise of the former hobby still clings on, and there are excellent kits such as Elecraft in the States, and some in the UK too.

One of the consequences of shop-bought transceivers with solid state PA stages is that wheres amateurs with a full licence are entitled to put out 400 Watts PEP on SSB, almost all commercial equipment is limited to 100 Watts, and by the time the signal has reach the anternna feed point, (probably a shop-bought G5RV), with losses and mismatches, and built in auto-tune aerial matching systems which progressivley reduce tramstted power, the radiated signal will be much less than that. But it doesn't really matter much anyway, because 100 Watts isn't ten times the signal strength of ten watts - it's only double, and 1 KW is only double that of 100 Watts.

It's a fact that lots of people derive immense enjoyment from amateur radio operating, but to me, it holds no fascination at all. Too sedanrary, and it would make me old before my time to be sitting in a 'virtual park bench', exchanging pointless pleasantaries with other old buffers. I don't think I'll live long enought to develop that mindset, and if I do, I'll probably be in a care home!

Really, I'm a 'RHINO' - 'Radio Ham In Name Only' and it's just my take on things - I don't seek to impose my views on those who may see it differently, as many will do. I think that with social meda and what not, it's largely become a hobby that old men used to engage in in their garden sheds before internet came along.

Waffled, dribbled and opined Yorkie (sounding too much like an old man on a 'virtual park bench'!)

[Skywave]

Boiss: "Please tell me how the newly-licensed guy who has bought his Yaesu transceiver knows that his kit is NOT causing interference in some other part of the EM spectrum and how he can maintain (his equipment) and be sure that this (interference) will not happen in the future?"

Yorkie: "He can't, but that isn't confined to newly licensed amateurs - few radio amateurs, however long they've been licensed, have the competence or the test gear to be sure of that - I doubt it will ever cross their minds".

Hmm, interesting. So, have the licence conditions changed then? I am under the impression that having 'suitable equipment' to check (even if approximately) the frequency / frequencies of one's radiated signals was a condition of the licence, plus the occasional use of that 'equipment' for that purpose - and recording the results.
And as for 'the equipment' to meet that licence requirement, surely any Amateur Radio operator can assemble & use a simple absorption wavemeter, or failing that, even buy a ready-made & manufactured item?

So, has that part of the licence conditions now been deleted?

Al.

[Yorkie]

No - the wording is the same as in the former 'BR68' Al, but really, as written, the condition is impractical and unenforceable for reasons that I'll explain. I doubt that many amateurs have even bothered to read it. As to recording tests, it was manadatory to keep a log of all calls, however brief, even for unanswered CQ calls. But there was no sustainable proportionate argument to retain this, hence Ofcom conceded that this mandatory requirement would be removed, as no other spectrum users have to keep mandatory logs. (The only exception for amateurs is if requested to do so by Ofcom, or if operating from a vessel, to keep a log at the request of the vessel's master).

When mandatory logging was in place, any tests would have been automatically entered into the log book. I think most of us used to periodically test for TV Interference rather than wait for a complaint from a neighbour - I certainly did and entered it in my log book.

Here's what the licence says:

Quote:

Equipment:

7 (1) The licensee shall ensure that:

a) The emitted frequency of the apparatus ...is as stable and as free from unwanted emissions as the state of technical development for amateur radio equipment reasonably permits; and

b) Whatever class of emission is is use, the bandwidth occupied by the emission is such that not more than 1% of the mean power of the transmission falls outside the nominal carrier bandwidth.

Unquote.

I'd assert that a) above is so subjective as to be meaningless and has no force is law. (See below on 'ambiguity'). 'Reasonably permits' in whose opinion? It would be for Ofcom to prove to the criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt' that the equipment does not meet that requirement.

As to b) I'd further assert that few radio amateurs have the equipment or expertise (eg, spectrum analyser or whatever), to ascertain whether this requirement can be met. (0.9% meets the terms of the licence, 1.1% does not). I'd also assert that Ofcom enforcement officers quite possibly don't have the means to prove, (to the criminal standard required for them to take enforcement action), that the equipment does not meet that standard.

The truth is that Ofcom rarely get complaints about amateur radio, and when they do, as I said earlier, it's usually amateurs causing problems to other amateurs, by for example repeater jamming, which Ofcom will be reluctant to get involved in and will tend to see it as 'in-band QRM'.

From my personal experience in dealings with Ofcom, even the Head of Enforcement didn't understand the regulations as they stood until revision. Regulations of any kind must be written in clear and unambiguous terms and the aamteur radio licence was not.

Heres is what international (not just national) law states:

Quote:

The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly manifested by unmistakable and unambiguous language.

General words will rarely be sufficient for that purpose if they do not specifically deal with the question because, in the context in which they appear, they will often be ambiguous on the aspect of interference with fundamental rights.

End quote.

If there is any ambiguity, the wider interpretation is held to be so.

Few amateurs have bothered to read the terms of the licence - many thousands through their own negligence have even failed to re-register and are technically now unlicensed and outside the law.

A common misunderstanding was (and among some amateurs still is), that it was/is outside the terms of the licence to discuss religion or politics. That has never been so, certainly since the UDHR in 1948. True, you couldn't send news or messages 'of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of any commercial, religious or political organisation', but that's quite another matter. Few amateurs wish to discuss religion or politics, but not only are they allowed to if they so wish, their rights to do so are protected in law. All wording as to religion, politics, propaganda has been removed from the licence, as it had to be, and the licence now conforms to the UDHR and uses the same wording: 'To seek receive and impart any information and ideas'. (11 Messages; (1)).

Really, the bottom line is that Ofcom let sleeping dogs lie. Using a commercially made amateur radio equipment which conforms to all regulatory requirements needs little skill and will cause few problems. They'll just assume that if the digital display says they're within the band, that they will be, just as we assume that our car speedos tell us what speed we're going.

Of course, to get the best out of the hobby calls for knowledge of such things as time zones, when the propagation conditions are most favourable for which band, and so on. But that isn't a licence matter, it's just the same as fishing - you need to know where and when to fish, what bait to use, what depth to fish at. The few amateurs who do build equipment, generally have the knowledge to ensure that it works properly and operates on permitted frequencies.

Pedantically postulated Yorkie

[Joe]

Pedantry is something else that's subjective but it's damned interesting whatever.

Any chance of Chapter and Verse on that bit of "International Law?"

- Joe

[pwdrive]

I would have thought that off the shelf TX's would comply to the regs as most seem to have digital frequency readout, if you are unknowingly transmitting on an out of band frequency then the clue would be no contacts. Modulation in the case of over modulation can be monitored on a scope.
If you are on frequency but unknowingly over modulating then other amatures would probably let you know.

Homebrew is a different thing as you need the knowledge and test gear.

Lawrence.

[Yorkie]

Pedantry is something else that's subjective but it's damned interesting whatever.

Any chance of Chapter and Verse on that bit of "International Law?"

- Joe

Strewth Joe, I didn't think anyone would actually read it!

Well you did ask, so here it is. I only quoted that bit of case law that I felt was relevant, but here it is in full:

Quote:

Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union [2004] HCA 40; 221 CLR 309 at [20] et seq per Gleeson CJ
In Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 437., Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ said:

"The insistence on express authorization of an abrogation or curtailment of a fundamental right, freedom or immunity must be understood as a requirement for some manifestation or indication that the legislature has not only directed its attention to the question of the abrogation or curtailment of such basic rights, freedoms or immunities but has also determined upon abrogation or curtailment of them. The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly manifested by unmistakable and unambiguous language. General words will rarely be sufficient for that purpose if they do not specifically deal with the question because, in the context in which they appear, they will often be ambiguous on the aspect of interference with fundamental rights."

The joint judgment in Coco went on to identify as the rationale for the presumption against modification or abrogation of fundamental rights an assumption that it is highly improbable that Parliament would "overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law" without expressing its intention with "irresistible clearness". In R v Home Secretary; Ex parte Pierson [1997] UKHL 37; [1998] AC 539 at 587, 589., Lord Steyn described the presumption as an aspect of the principle of legality which governs the relations between Parliament, the executive and the courts. The presumption is not merely a common sense guide to what a Parliament in a liberal democracy is likely to have intended; it is a working hypothesis, the existence of which is known both to Parliament and the courts, upon which statutory language will be interpreted. The hypothesis is an aspect of the rule of law.

Unquote.

Ofcom, or rather its predecessor the now defunct Radiocommunications Agency, thought that the terms, conditions and limitations of the amateur radio licence could override the 'principle of proportionality', the UDHR, the ICCPR, the UN (of which the Inernational Telecommunication Union (ITU) is a subsidiary body) the Human Rights Act and case law. I had unfortunate dealings with the RA back in 2003, and couldn't believe their ineptitude, which stemmed from the fact that they were RF engineers with little knowledge of the law and were clueless when it came to interpreting the amateur radio licence terms correctly.

Hence, the licence as written was unnforceable, because if the Head of Enforcement couldn't understand it until he consulted a lawyer and learnt that his interpretation was incorrect, then how on earth could radio amateurs? Hence, the licence did not meet the requirement outlined in case law to be written in 'clear, unmistakeable and unambiguous terms'.

Freedom of Expression – ICCPR, (International Covenant of Civil and Poltical Rights), Article 19 states:

1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any media of his choice.

3) The exercise of the rights provided in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

• For respects to the rights and reputations of others
• For the protection of national security or public order, or of public health and morals

Note:

a) “Freedom to seek, receive, impart information and ideas of ALL kinds”. It does NOT state “except religion and politics”.

b) Either orally, in writing or in print.

“Orally” - on-air on amateur radio; or “in writing or print” - as with the amateur radio packet messaging system.

c) “Through any media of his choice” - there are no stated exceptions.

It does NOT say “any media except amateur radio”

d) “Regardless of frontiers”. (Anywhere in the free world).

You'll be sorry you asked!

All of the above of course refers to public bodies not being permitted to interfere with these fundamental rights. It has nothing to do with the running of an internet forum for example, in which the person who provides that facility can make as many rules and place as many restrictions upon users as they wish. It is then up to users whether they wish to operate within those rules or to go elsewhere. We're all free spirits, which is why I'm here - not somewhere else. The rules are sensble and proportionate, and sensibly applied. It's why we all rub along well together.

I have one very simple rule as to internet in all its forms - I'm choosy about the company I keep, so don't invite anyone onto my computer screen who I wouldn't invite into my home.

Whatever it is they want to sound off about, if I haven't read it, they haven't said it.