IARU Discussion Paper:
The International Regulations Affecting the Amateur Service

1.5. We now summarise what we see as the issues, and identify the matters on which we seek responses:

2.2. On 30 November, 1995. the President of the IARU, Richard Baldwin, W1RU, announced the appointment of a committee, to be known as the Future of the Amateur Services Committee ("FASC") with the following terms of reference:

A Examine the international regulations governing the Amateur Service and the Amateur-Satellite (other than frequency allocations) with a view to formulating the changes, if any, that are desirable to properly reflect the objects, needs, obligations and privileges of the services for the next century, so that the services remain viable and valuable, meaningful and relevant to both the community and to those licenced in the services, having regard to

• the definition of the services,

• the nature and content of transmissions of stations licenced in the services,

• the provision of emergency communications,

• the means to facilitate the international recognition of amateur licences,

• the technical and operational qualifications for licencees in the amateur services, and

• any other matters considered by the Committee to be relevant.

with a view to formulating appropriate changes (if any) to the Radio Regulations.

B Undertake its task :

• encouraging full discussion of these matters by preparing discussion papers providing background information, identifying issues and proposing possible solutions,

• inviting comments from individuals, groups, member societies and regional organisations,

• participating as appropriate in international and other meetings, and taking into account the comments it receives, preparing reports, recommendations and proposals for the consideration of the Administrative Council, member societies and regional organisations and ultimately preparing such material as is necessary to ensure that administrations accept proposals adopted by the Administrative Council,

all of the foregoing being an ongoing task bearing in mind the regional conferences and the likely agenda for WRC-99.

2.3. The following were appointed members of the committee:

Michael Owen, VK3KI, Chair
John Bazley, G3HCT
Tom Atkins, VE3CDM
Terry Carrell, ZL3QL
Larry Price, W4RA
David Sumner, K1ZZ

In addition, President Baldwin is an ex officio member of the Committee.

2.4. The IARU must develop and advocate a coherent and relevant policy in respect of that agenda item and the committee has been given the task of assisting the development of that policy. This Discussion Paper is the first step in that process.

2.5. The purpose of this Discussion Paper is provide a basis for informed debate by the amateur community on the issues that are raised. It attempts to identify the relevant issues, provide the background, and offer some possible solutions. It is a discussion paper; and should not be interpreted as expressing any final view of the Committee, or the view of any region or the Administrative Council.

2.6. We believe that the issues are complex. We do not pretend that we will have identified all the issues or options. That is why we seek as many responses as possible to the issues raised by the consideration of Article S25.

4.1. We believe that the opportunity that has been presented to the amateur services for the review of Article S25 should be welcomed. It is an opportunity for the IARU to examine in a meaningful context the appropriateness of the Regulations. We must question whether the Regulations are capable of improvement to better reflect the requirements of the services for the next century. We must ask if change is desirable as a result of changing technology, of changing interests and the special requirements of the less developed countries.

4.2. If we seek change we should, we think, look for improvement to make the amateur service more valuable and meaningful to those countries that presently encourage it, and more attractive to those that do not.

4.3. We suggest that all involved in this process should attempt to take a global approach to the issues, trying to understand and accept differences, with a view to seeking change, if change is desirable, that will enhance amateur radio for the future and throughout the world.

4.4. Unlike spectrum allocation issues, we are not in competition with other services. If we present a single world wide position, and we have sound and logical reasons for that position and that position is sensitive to the differing needs of the different countries, we have every prospect of that position being accepted.

5.4. We believe that it is essential that a final position and supporting material be adopted well before WRC-99, and the latest that can occur is immediately following the 1998 Region 2 Conference, so that the member societies and the regions are able to present the IARU position to their administrations.

5.5. We now discuss in some detail some of the issues that we are asked to consider.

5.6. In referring to the Radio Regulations we use the numbering adopted by the Report by the Voluntary Group of Experts to Study Allocation and Improved use of the Radio Frequency Spectrum and Simplification of the Radio regulations (the "VGE Report").

6.3. The essential element of the definition, the concept of "a duly authorised person interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest" has remained part of the definition since the first international regulation of the service.

6.4. The present definition is:

S1.56 Amateur Service: A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorised persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

6.5. We are of the opinion that the definition of "Amateur Service" in the present Regulations is entirely appropriate and that no change should be considered.

7.2. We would suggest that, at the time that these provisions were first adopted, there were at least two policy objectives that were sought to be satisfied. One was a concern as to security, the requirement that transmissions should be in plain language.

7.3. The second objective, reflected particularly in the language "limited to messages of a technical nature relating to tests and to remarks of a personal character for which, by reason of their unimportance, recourse to the public telecommunications service is not justified" and the prohibition of international communication on behalf of third parties, was the desire to preserve a government monopoly of communications. With the notable exception of the United States, the common carrier was almost inevitably government owned and government controlled.

7.4. We wonder, if that identification of policy objectives is correct, whether either objective is as important today. In particular, the traditional government monopoly of communications has shifted, and will no doubt continue to shift, to a deregulated and competitive market, in an increasing number of countries. We question whether the words "for which, by reason of their unimportance, recourse to the public telecommunications service" are either necessary or appropriate today.

7.5. The fact is that today many countries permit their amateurs at a national level to transmit communication on behalf of third parties, in some cases as an exception to a general rule to facilitate emergency communication and for training for such communication, in other cases a more general permission to transmit non commercial, non political, non religious, non entertainment and unpaid messages. It is also the fact that many countries have specifically entered agreements to give effect to S25.4.

7.6. Our tentative view is that what is loosely called "third party" by amateurs, which does not include any commercial or paid messages, should not be prohibited by the international regulations. Certainly the removal of the prohibition would remove any doubt as to the legality of modes of international communication using store and forward techniques. It is appropriate to emphasise that this change would not in any way obligate an administration to permit its amateurs to conduct communications on behalf of third parties, international or otherwise.

The second of these provisions is the appropriate place to begin this discussion.

9.2. The international Radio Regulations have the force and effect of a treaty. In considering what provisions should be included in the Radio Regulations, it is necessary to distinguish between the regulations that may be desirable for an administration to enact for the amateur service, on the one hand, and the regulations that it should be required to enact as a treaty obligation, on the other. Clearly, a higher standard of need applies in the latter case.

9.3. It is of fundamental importance to administrations as well as to radio amateurs that the amateur service be limited to operators who are qualified both technically and operationally. Amateurs share the radio spectrum with a myriad of other radiocommunication services, and share their relatively narrow bands with one another. They must be qualified to assume the responsibility for the safe installation and proper operation of their stations. They must possess the ability to intercommunicate with one another, to ensure that their equipment will not cause harmful interference to other services in normal operation, and to resolve such interference whenever it may arise. They must understand the obligations that arise from the privilege of operating radio transmitters.

9.4. The radio spectrum is an international resource. In addition, it is desirable for administrations to be in a position to accord recognition to licences issued to radio amateurs by other administrations, without having to bear the administrative burden of examining the qualifications of individual visitors. Therefore, it is indeed appropriate that the Radio Regulations continue to recognise the obligation of administrations to verify the operational and technical qualifications of its amateur licencees.

9.5. However, the Radio Regulations themselves are a poor medium for setting out the standards for these qualifications. Amendment of the Radio Regulations is too difficult, and such standards do not rise to the level of a treaty obligation. Under the new ITU structure, endorsing such standards may be appropriate at the level of the Radiocommunication Assembly.

9.6. We have examined Article S37, dealing with Operators Certificates for the control of aircraft stations and aircraft earth stations and Article S47 dealing with the control of ship stations, as well as Tables [S47-1] and [AR55B], as well as the other provisions relating to the aeronautical and maritime services.

9.7. We believe that these provisions may provide a broad model for the amateur service. The effect of these provisions is to, in effect, allow the international recognition of qualifications (and therefore may be relevant to the issue we raise in respect of the international recognition of amateur licences for temporary operation) and set out the topics on which the candidate must demonstrate knowledge.

9.8. The identification of topics goes a long way beyond the present provision in S25, but still allows each administration to set its own standard of knowledge of the specified topics. We would not see the specification going to the detail set out in CEPT Recommendation T/R 61-02, given the need to accommodate the requirements of different countries.

9.9. We see a difficulty in persuading a WRC to incorporate such a detailed provision in Article S25. An answer may be the incorporation by reference of the specification of the technical and operational qualifications required for licencing in the amateur service. We refer to Resolution COM4-4 and its annex and Resolution COM4-5 of WRC 95. As these Resolutions are so recent, we have annexed a copy of them.

9.10. That in itself raises an issue. Resolution COM4-4 and its annex draw a clear distinction between the incorporation by reference when the reference is non-mandatory and where reference may be made to 'the latest version" of a Recommendation, and where the reference is mandatory, in which case the reference has the same treaty status as the Regulations themselves. In the latter case the reference must be adopted by the Plenary of the next competent WRC.

9.11. If we propose the incorporation by reference of the technical and operational qualifications for the amateur service, do we wish them to be mandatory or not? Is the fact that they exist enough to provide sufficient pressure on administrations to have regard to them? There is much to be said for the standards being mandatory, and under the present procedures of the ITU as we understand them, while a change in the standard would require the approval of a WRC Plenary, at least the drafting would be removed from the WRC.

9.12. Turning now to S25.5 (RR 2735), in 1994 the IARU CW Ad Hoc Committee concluded that it remains essential for radio amateurs using the bands below 30 MHz to be able to intercommunicate without regard to equipment or language barriers, to ensure the orderly shared use of a limited resource. This committee found that "[a]t the present time, the Morse code is the only practical means of ensuring that all amateur stations possess this capability for intercommunication." However, the committee "...does not rule out the possibility that future technical developments may provide an alternative means for ensuring that amateur stations can intercommunicate, and that these new means could become sufficiently universal to obviate the present requirement. Neither is the possibility ruled out, that as the spectrum requirements of other HF radio services diminish, there may be the possibility for sufficient expansion to the frequency band allocations to the Amateur Service, so that the need to retain the RR 2735 requirement would become less compelling."

9.13. If we could assess the desirability of retaining the provisions of S25.5 solely on the basis of amateur service requirements in 1996, we might well conclude that little has changed since 1994 and the provision, therefore, should be retained. However, this is not the case. World Radiocommunication Conference agendas are very crowded. There is talk of certain items now scheduled for consideration at WRC-97 being dropped from that agenda for lack of time. It is unrealistic to expect that Article S25, having been placed on the agenda for WRC-99, will again be reviewed at another conference in the foreseeable future. Any changes to Article S25 that may be desirable in the next decade or two, must be considered now.

9.14. On that basis, the Committee has concluded that S25.5 should be removed as a treaty obligation of administrations.

10.7. Article 3 provides:

"The IARP will be issued by the permit holder's home Administration, or to the extent consistent with the home country's domestic laws, under delegated authority by the IARU organisation of that State Party. It should conform to the standard form for such permit which is contained in the appendix to this Convention"

10.8. While the IARP provides for temporary operating permission, it does not cover the importation, or movement across national borders, of amateur radio equipment.

10.9. CEPT permits non CEPT countries to issue CEPT licences. A UK licence, for example, permits the holder to operate under the CEPT conditions in New Zealand. The CEPT arrangements have this effect: a country in the Americas that is party to the CEPT arrangement grants a right to operate in its country to amateurs from the CEPT countries in return for its amateurs having a right to operate in those countries. On one view of the CEPT arrangements, the amateur from the Americas country does not thereby acquire a right to operate in, for example, a Pacific country that has also become party to the CEPT arrangements, nor do amateurs from the Pacific country enjoy any right to operate in the Americas country. We appreciate that at least one administration interprets the arrangements differently, but it does at least highlight the difficulty of achieving a true international recognition of amateur licences.

10.10. The CITEL arrangements apply only to the OAS countries who have become party to the treaty.

10.11. There is no regional telecommunications organisation in Regions 1 and 3 equivalent to CITEL. CEPT is essentially a Western European organisation, not a regional organisation, and does not effectively encompass Africa, where there are some 55 countries. In Region 3 the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity (APT) is developing. Again, this is illustrative of the difficulty of achieving a true international regime without recourse to Article S25.

10.12. We consider that there is a need for the Radio Regulations to provide a basis for the global recognition of amateur licences issued by all administrations to permit amateurs to operate while visiting.

10.13. CEPT and CITEL provide two quite different models. We doubt, even if it was appropriate, that the ITU would be able to provide a mechanism whereby equivalent qualifications would be identified. We also have to recognise that whatever is proposed to be inserted in the Radio Regulations must be simple and respect the sovereignty of the member countries of the ITU. The formulation of such a provision is not easy.

11.2. That may make it a breach of the law of one country if an amateur of that country communicates with an amateur in a country if the administration of that country has notified that it objects to its amateurs engaging in international communication.

11.3. We suggest that this could be replaced by a provision that provides, in effect, that Article S25 does not oblige an administration to authorise amateur stations under its jurisdiction to engage in international communication except for distress and safety communication.

12.2. "Space stations" are defined by the Radio Regulations as a "station located on an object which is beyond, is intended to go beyond, or has been beyond, the major portion of the earth's atmosphere."

12.3. The Regulations define "satellite" as "a body which revolves around another body of preponderant mass and which has a motion primarily and permanently determined by the force of attraction of that other body."

12.4. In the definition of the "amateur satellite service" the term "space stations" is qualified by the phrase "on earth satellites." That definition may be contrasted with, for example, the definition of "Broadcasting-Satellite Service" as "a radiocommunication service in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by space stations are intended for direct reception by the general public."

12.5. Why should that qualification be incorporated in the definition? We wonder whether the words "on earth satellites" could in the future be restrictive.

12.6. We suggest that the following change to the definition could be considered:

S1.57 Amateur-Satellite Service: A radiocommunication service using space stations for the same purposes as those of the amateur service.

12.7. We seek views, particularly from the satellite community, as to whether seeking such a change is justified.

12.8. The other provisions of S25 dealing with the amateur-satellite service, which are section II of the Article, are:

S25.10 S6. The provisions of Section I of this Article shall apply equally, as appropriate, to the amateur-satellite service.

S25.11 S7. Space stations in the amateur-satellite service operating in bands shared with other services shall be fitted with appropriate devices for controlling emissions in the event that harmful interference is reported in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article S15. Administrations authorising such space stations shall inform the Bureau and shall ensure that sufficient earth command stations are established before launch to guarantee that any harmful interference which might be reported can be terminated by the authorising administration (see No. 22.1).

12.9. Some may question is why is there a separate satellite service, rather than a single amateur service. We believe that the structure of the Radio Regulations, for example the general provisions applying to all Space Radiocommunication Services found in S22, make the present structure necessary and appropriate. The separate definition of the service may have the advantage that it puts beyond doubt the right of the amateur service to use space stations.

12.10. S25.11 has a number of elements. It must be read having regard to at least two other provisions. One is the general provision S22.1:

Space stations shall be fitted with devices to ensure immediate cessation of their radio emissions by telecommand, whenever such cessation is required under the provisions of these Regulations.

12.11. Another is the present footnote S5.282 (previously numbered 664), which applies to the most used amateur satellite bands above 146 MHz and which, in part, provides:

... the amateur-satellite service may operate subject to not causing harmful interference to other services operating in accordance with the Table ...Administrations authorising such use shall ensure that any harmful interference caused by emissions from a station in the amateur-satellite service is immediately eliminated in accordance with the provisions of S25.11 ....

12.12. The effect of the footnote is to make the amateur satellite service secondary to the secondary, as well as to the primary, services in these bands.

12.13. There are two views with regard to S25.11. One view is that any approach to change S25.11 could be counter productive, as essentially it is a reasonable provision. The other view is that S22.1 is sufficient and that S25.11 is redundant and should be deleted.

12.14. There are also two views with regard to S5.282, which in any case cannot be addressed except in the context of an allocation conference. One is that the position of the amateur-satellite service would be strengthened by the addition of these bands into the body of the Table of Frequency Allocations. The other is that such a change would be purely cosmetic unless an upgrade in relative status also could be achieved, which would be very difficult without supportive sharing studies that might result in undesirably severe power flux density limitations on amateur satellite operations.

12.15. We invite the satellite community and others interested in this area to assist us with their views on the matters we have discussed.