Second Report Following Release of Discussion Paper
Since our first Report, all of the members of the Committee attended the Region 1 Conference at the end of September and beginning of October, 1996 in Tel Aviv. There we observed the discussion of the issue of Article S25 by the Region 1 Common Licence Group, chaired by a member of our Committee, John Bazley, G3HCT.
In addition we met and reviewed our work and the future of our work. We concluded that we would best advance the discussion by formulating a new approach to the issue, by preparing a substantially revised version of the Article. This we did over the balance of the conference, by a series of consultations in respect of various drafts that we prepared.
We thereafter sought advice from a number of experts in the ITU.
We appreciate the help that we have been given, but stress that what is proposed in this Report should not be seen as reflecting the opinion of any individual who we consulted. We sought their technical advice, and on the basis that they would not wish to attempt to influence the amateur service to take any particular position.
We have continued to receive submissions, and have continued to give them full consideration.
We regret that this Report will not be released as early as we had hoped.
| The Region 1 Conference |
We appreciated the depth of debate that had taken place within the Region in preparation for the Tel Aviv Conference. This preparation meant that all Common Licence Group ("CLG") representatives were fully briefed, by their individual societies, to vote on any issue or proposal to change the current definition of the Amateur Service defined in S1.56 S1.57 and S25.
The CLG were happy with the existing definitions contained in S1.56 and S1.57.
Referring to S25 the following points were made during the CLG meeting.
S25.1 #1.
The meeting agreed that this should remain unchanged. Member Societies should be encouraged to approach their Administrations to ensure that the information in the ITU Operations Bulletin was correct as far as their Country was concerned.
S25.2 #2. (1)
It was agreed that the introduction of digital message transmission had caused confusion in the understanding of the term "plain language," but it was felt best to leave its interpretation to individual Administrations.
S25.3 #2. (2)
S25.4 #2. (3)
The meeting considered that there was need to improve the understanding of third party traffic, that is that traffic from amateur to amateur was not classed as "third party traffic".
The meeting emphasised the need for the amateur service to continue to support the provision of emergency communications facilities. Concern was expressed that current regulations do not specifically encourage training for emergency communications, but it was not considered necessary to modify S25 to meet this requirement.
S25.5 #3 (1)
Although the debate was lively it was agreed that the requirement for Morse should remain within S25. It was stressed that to enable this to continue FASC would require reasoned arguments for its retention. Member Societies were requested to address this issue and submit their proposals to FASC. It was made quite clear to the meeting that it will not be easy to retain the "status quo" at WRC99 as ITU tends to reach decisions by consensus rather than simple voting.
S25.6 #3 (2)
It was agreed that IARU should play a major role in maintaining standards while allowing freedom for Administrations to set appropriate levels.
S25.7 #4
S25.8 #5 (1)
S25.9 #5 (2)
These three clauses should remain.
S25.10 #6
It was agreed that this should remain.
S25.11 #7
The meeting recommended that the word "earth" be deleted and that FASC should take into account the views expressed in the RASC document submitted to the Conference.
2. The CLG was broadly in agreement with the original S25 but they have raised a number of issues for FASC to consider.
3. The final Recommendations that were put to the Region 1 Plenary, and endorsed by the 54 Member Societies present were:-
The discussion of the issues was not the only important matter that emerged at the Conference.
| Comments of Director Robert Jones |
On 30 September 1996, at the opening of the IARU Region 1 Conference, Robert Jones, Director, International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Bureau, representing the ITU, said:
For the 1999 World Radiocommunication Conference, there is an item on the proposed agenda which calls for a consideration of Article S25, concerning the amateur and amateur satellite services. Already, the IARU has a committee established under the leadership of your President, Dick Baldwin, to prepare for this matter. I wish him and all of you every success with the work of this important committee."
| A New Approach |
We took advantage of our meeting in Tel Aviv to review our work.
We reached the view that while our Discussion Paper has been successful in achieving its object, that is discussion of the issues against the Article as it is, our Discussion Paper necessarily focused on the Article in its current form, using that as the springboard to raise the issues as we saw them. We felt that the problem with that is that the comments that we have received focus on the present Article and it would be constructive if we offered an alternative for discussion. So, we took advantage of being together and developed a first draft of an alternative Article, having particular regard to those matters on which there was an obvious consensus.
Then, over the next months we consulted with a number of experts in the ITU area. The purpose of our consultation was in no way to ask these people to formulate policy, but to look at the approach that we as a committee wished to take and to criticise and improve our draft, having particular regard to how the changes we proposed should fit in with the other provisions of the Radio Regulations and the current approach to regulation in the ITU.
We felt that any full revision of the Article should delete provisions that were already applicable to the amateur service by virtue of other provisions in the Radio Regulations, delete provisions that were unnecessary, provide a better mechanism for ensuring that the very important qualification requirement is addressed and address the issues of emergency communication and the international recognition of amateur licences.
We wondered whether, in the light of the conclusion of the Region 1 Conference that there should be no change to S25, it was appropriate for us to publish our further work. It may have been preferable for the Region 3 and 2 Conferences to have reached their own conclusions without the publication of an alternative that appears to run contrary to the conclusion of the only Conference to date to have the opportunity to consider the issue. However, if we did that, then we would publish for comment an alternative approach at about the same time, immediately after the Region 2 Conference, as we would be inviting the Administrative Council to formulate a position for the amateur service. By then WRC99 will be only a year away and time will be very short for the member societies to advance the world wide amateur position to their administrations.
We have reached the conclusion that it is proper, in all the circumstances, for us to not only make available the views of Region 1 but also to make available our further thoughts, stressing at the same time that by doing this we are in no way diminishing the importance of the Region 1 Conference's conclusions or implying in any way that we reject those conclusions.
We simply invite further comment.
We set out the Article as we would propose it.
We do not set out where we make change, as we prefer to see what we propose examined as a whole in the context of whether it meets our needs in a flexible and sensible way, rather than in the examination of a series of amendments, which are likely to be examined in the context of each variation.
| ARTICLE S25 Amateur Services |
| Section 1. Amateur Service |
S25.1 1. Administrations shall verify the technical and operational qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station. A person seeking a licence to operate an amateur station may be required to demonstrate a knowledge of the topics specified in ITU-R Recommendation M-XXX.
S25.2 2. (1) Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service or of a personal character.
S25.3 3. Administrations are urged to take the steps necessary to allow amateur stations to prepare for and meet communication needs in the event of a natural disaster.
S25.4 4. A person who has been granted a license to operate an amateur station by an administration that requires the demonstration of a knowledge of the topics specified in ITU-R Recommendation M-XXX before granting such a license, may be permitted by second administration to operate an amateur station in its territory while the person is temporarily in that territory, subject to such conditions or restrictions as it may impose. The administration permitting such operation is not required to issue a licence to that person temporarily in its territory.
| Section II. Amateur-Satellite Service |
S25.5 5. The provisions of Section I of this Article shall apply equally, as appropriate, to the amateur-satellite service.
S25.6 6. Administrations authorising space stations in the amateur-satellite service shall ensure that sufficient earth command stations are established before launch to ensure that any harmful interference caused by emissions from a station in the amateur-satellite service can be immediately eliminated.
We now comment on what we propose.
We have in our proposed S25.1 placed the need for qualification as a prerequisite to operating an amateur station as the first provision - "Administrations shall verify the technical and operational qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station".
We have "incorporated by reference" the topics to be specified in a Recommendation, though we have used language that will not make that mandatory - "A person seeking a licence to operate an amateur station may be required to demonstrate a knowledge of the topics specified in ITU-R Recommendation M-XXX".
We believe that the non mandatory guidance as to the "topics" in respect of which a knowledge should be demonstrated is a significant improvement on the present Article, which provides no mechanism for guidance and leaves each administration free to take whatever measures they judge as necessary to verify the qualification of a person seeking to operate an amateur station.
By topics we have in mind the identification of areas of knowledge required, for example we would refer to Table [AP S13} of the Radio Regulations, the "Conditions for the Issue of Operator's Certificate," "Knowledge of the principles of electricity and the theory of radio and of electronics sufficient to meet the requirements specified below." We would not see the Recommendation going into the detail of, for example, CEPT Recommendation T/R 61-02.
If the Recommendation was to be consistent with the present Radio Regulations one of the topics that would be specified for operation below 30 MHz would be the ability to send and receive Morse code.
We would expect that the Recommendation would be initially formulated by a working party of Study Group 8, which is primarily responsible for the amateur service, and would finally be adopted by a Radiocommunication Assembly.
The fact that what we propose would be non mandatory has two advantages. The first is that referral to a WRC for adoption is not necessary before the Recommendation becomes effective. The second is that a non mandatory incorporation by reference still allows an administration to have regard to any special needs in its territory that it may perceive.
Our proposed Article S25.2 (1) addresses what an amateur station should transmit - "Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall be limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service or of a personal character." Of course, it only applies to international communication.
The current definition of the amateur service has received almost total support. The definition - "a .... 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" is a definition turning on "purpose."
Limiting amateur communications to "communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service" or to communications of a personal nature is simple and logical.
We believe that amateurs will understand that language, and the adoption of that language should avoid some of the discussion that presently occurs.
Our proposed S25.2 (2) addresses the issue of "plain language" - "Except with the authority of the relevant administration granted to meet a particular operational need, transmissions between amateur stations shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning."
We believe that the phrase "not encoded for the purpose of obscuring .... meaning" is clear and achieves what is intended.
Our proposed Article S25.3 - "Administrations are urged to take the steps necessary to allow amateur stations to prepare for and meet communication needs in the event of a natural disaster"- may not be seen as usual "regulatory" language. But we believe that this provision is entirely an appropriate way of addressing a matter that many (including ourselves) see as extremely important.
The language we have used is chosen to avoid any suggestion that any obligation is imposed on the amateur station.
Such a provision is fully justified by Resolution 36, adopted by the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, at Kyoto in October 1994 and which endorsed Resolution 7 of the First World Telecommunication Development Conference held in Buenos Aires in April 1994, and urged administrations to take all practical steps to facilitate the rapid deployment and effective use of telecommunications for disaster mitigation and disaster relief operations.
Resolution 7 referred to the Amateur Radio Service's ability to supplement the possibly vulnerable elements of the national, regional and global communication networks in the case of a disaster and in turn noted the support that the Tampere Declaration had received.
The Tampere Declaration was the result of the Conference on Disaster Communications held in Tampere, Finland in May 1991. The Declaration identified need to "encourage the development of the amateur radio service and their application to disaster communications."
Our proposed Article S25.4 addresses the international recognition of amateur licences. - "A person who has been granted a license to operate an amateur station by an administration that requires the demonstration of a knowledge of the topics specified in ITU-R Recommendation M-XXX before granting such a license, may be permitted by another administration to operate an amateur station in its territory while the person is temporarily in that territory, subject to such conditions or restrictions as it may impose."
Again, it provides guidance to administrations and should not, we believe, cause any concern as an attack on the sovereignty of any ITU Member State. Importantly, it recognises that a licence issued by an administration that has followed Article S25.1 should be particularly recognised.
The heart of the provision is the final sentence - "The administration permitting such operation is not required to issue a licence to that person temporarily in its territory" as it would otherwise be required to do.
Our proposed Articles S25.5 and S25.6 address the Amateur-satellite Service, the first - "The provisions of Section I of this Article shall apply equally, as appropriate, to the amateur-satellite service" follows the present provision.
The second - "Administrations authorising space stations in the amateur-satellite service shall ensure that sufficient earth command stations are established before launch to ensure that any harmful interference caused by emissions from a station in the amateur-satellite service can be immediately eliminated." addresses what we see as the only provision that should be additional to the general requirements of the Radio Regulations dealing with space services that apply to the amateur satellite service.
We have used language consistent with those other provisions.
We believe that an Article along the lines we suggest meets all the needs of the international regulation of the amateur services, enhances the need for qualification and addresses important new issues and recognises that the world of telecommunication has changed in the decades since the Article was first adopted, but loses none of the fundamental features of the amateur services. It leaves for national regulation those matters that should be a matter of domestic regulation.
Having looked back to identify the issues, now let us look forward to finding a simpler, shorter and clearer basis for the regulation of our service.
The language we have used in our draft is language that we accept will itself raise discussion. We do not pretend it is necessarily the most appropriate. It is simply the best we could achieve, taking into account the expert advice we have sought. We also accept that any language submitted to a WRC is likely to be changed in the course of the Conference, unless of course, it is a proposal that has substantial prior support, and is not seen as a contentious issue.
We urge that serious consideration be given to this proposal.
We stress that the suggestions that we offer in this Report are only raised for discussion, and do not constitute a proposal that any Society should put to their administration. To do so would be premature, and would ignore the process that we have suggested in our Discussion Paper and our first Report, a process that has been accepted by the Administrative Council.
| A final point: |
May we repeat something that we have already set out?
That is the comment of Bob Jones, Director ITU Radiocommunication Bureau: -
The Committee believes that this warning is timely and should not be ignored.
The Future of the Amateur Services Committee
Michael Owen, VK3KI, Chair
John Bazley, G3HCT
Tom Atkins, VE3CDM
Terry Carrell, ZL3QL
Larry Price, W4RA
David Sumner, K1ZZ
IARU President Richard Baldwin, W1RU is an ex officio member of the Committee.
| Further comments |
We continue to welcome further comments. Please communicate to the Committee as follows:
By Mail:
By FAX:
By electronic mail:
|
|
|
|
|
|