Here is the second set of video clips from my January 30, 2016 one-day Tech class that discuss FCC rules.
Rules, Regulations, Enforcement
One-Day Tech Videos: FCC Rules I & II
We’re in the home stretch now. There are only six more to post from my January 30, 2016 one-day Tech class, and they all cover FCC rules. Here are the first two installments.
Will we ever get the license structure right?
Ever since the incentive licensing fiasco of the 1960s, amateur radio operators have been complaining about the licensing structure. I’m not sure why we seem to constantly debate the topic. I guess hams think that if we just keep tweaking it, we’ll finally get it calibrated just right and everyone will be motivated to upgrade to Extra and the bands will be jammed 24/7.
One of the latest proposals is on eHam. There, W2EV, asks us to consider giving Technicians some limited phone priveleges on the HF bands. He writes:
Technicians already have (vastly unused) CW privileges on 80 meters, 40 meters and 15 meters. Suppose they had HF voice privileges on those same bands, too! Something as simple as the same spectrum that General Class licensees enjoy, but restricted to 10 watts (I’m just spit-balling the power-level, for discussions’ sake).
Of course, this proposal was met with much opposition, many of whom said that the General Class test is not that much harder than the Tech test, and it’s really not that much to ask that people who want to operate HF upgrade to General. Another interesting comment was that Techs be given digital privileges in addition to CW privileges. I kind of like that idea.
Another, more radical approach was proposed by that iconoclast, Jeff, KE9V. He suggests doing away with testing altogether. I think a lot of what he has to say is true, but there are several problems with his approach.
First, article 25.6 of the ITU Radio Regulations states:
25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station. Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the most recent version of Recommendation ITU-R M.1544. (WRC-03)
That is generally taken to mean administering tests, although Recommendation IRU-R M.1544 does seem to give some leeway. It recommends, “that administrations take such measures as they judge necessary to verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station.” I suppose this verification could take place by a method other than by testing.
Therein lies the rub. Jeff doesn’t really propose a new method for issuing licenses, except to suggest that local clubs somehow facilitate the process. I’ve been to a lot of clubs over the past ten years or so, and I don’t think that many of them are really set up to do this. Nor do they have the desire or wherewithal to do it.
I don’t think we’re ever going to get it right. Besides, if we did, what would we complain about?
Rule making petition calls for vanity call sign rule change
I had a chuckle when I read this. It’s really a shame to have to implement a rule like this, but I guess this situation could have been anticipated when the FCC dropped the vanity callsign fee. I’m not sure that requiring a vanity callsign holder to keep it for the term of the license is really necessary–I think that requiring it to be held for two years or five years would be sufficient. I also think that the rules governing how a call gets returned to the pool could be changed so that if someone gives up a vanity callsign it would be returned immediately to the pool….Dan
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB039
ARLB039 Rule Making Petition to FCC Calls for Vanity Call Sign Rule Changes
ZCZC AG39
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 39 ARLB039
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT October 27, 2016
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB039
ARLB039 Rule Making Petition to FCC Calls for Vanity Call Sign Rule Changes
The FCC is inviting comments on a Petition for Rule Making (RM-11775) from a Nevada radio amateur that seeks changes to the rules governing the Amateur Radio Vanity Call Sign Program. Christopher LaRue, W4ADL, of North Las Vegas, is proposing that any licensee obtaining a vanity call sign be required to keep it for the full license term. LaRue contends in his petition that excessive and frequent vanity call sign filings are hampering the ability of other qualified licensees to obtain vanity call signs in one of the more desirable 1 x 2 or 2 x 1 formats. LaRue said that since the FCC dropped the fee to file for a vanity call sign, some applicants are taking advantage by regularly obtaining new call signs, thereby keeping them out of circulation.
The petition can be found on the web in PDF format. “Some are changing call signs almost monthly, just to keep the newer code-free Extra class operators from obtaining a shorter call sign,” he said in his petition. “I even saw an older operator that said he does it all the time and has not even owned a radio in over 6 years. When I looked him up, he has had 16 different [call signs] in 18 months.”
LaRue said his proposed minor rule change would require any licensee applying for and obtaining an Amateur Radio vanity call sign “be required to keep it for the duration of the license, which is currently 10 years.”
He said this would “alleviate a lot of the stress on the ULS system and manpower requirements” at the FCC. “It will also keep inactive amateurs from changing call signs regularly, thereby tying up call signs for 2 years after dismissal of said call.”
Interested parties may comment using the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Comments are due within 30 days of the October 26 posting date.
NNNN
/EX
Why there’s a license exam
On Quora, a website where people ask (and answer) all kinds of interesting (and dumb) questions, someone asked, “Why does a person still need a ham radio license?” There were the usual answers:
- Without a license, amateur radio would turn into the morass that is CB.
- Ensures that the operators have at least some basic understanding of radio and the rules and regulations they need to follow.
- Provides a way to more easily contact radio amateurs should they be causing interference to other radio services.
My answer was a bit different. I knew that the reason that amateur radio operators must pass an examination to be licensed is that it’s required by international treaties, but I didn’t know the specifics. So, I did a little Googling.
I found out that Article 25.6 2) of the ITU Radio Regulations states:
Administrations shall verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station. Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the most recent version of Recommendation ITU-R M.1544. (WRC-03)
ITU-R M.1544 goes on to state:
The ITU Radiocommunication Assembly recommends:
- that administrations take such measures as they judge necessary to verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station;
- That any person seeking a licence to operate an amateur station should demonstrate theoretical knowledge of:
- Radio Regulations
- international
- domestic
- Methods of radiocommunication
- radiotelephony
- radiotelegraphy
- data and image
- Radio system theory
- transmitters
- receivers
- antennas and propagation
- measurements
- Radio emission safety
- Electromagnetic compatibility
- Avoidance and resolution of radio frequency interference.
- Radio Regulations
File this under the category “you learn something new every day.”
FCC Proposes Rule Changes in Response to ARRL’s “Symbol Rate” Petition
ZCZC AG27
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 27 ARLB027
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT July 29, 2016
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB027
ARLB027 FCC Proposes Rule Changes in Response to ARRL’s “Symbol Rate” Petition, Seeks Comment
The FCC has proposed to revise the Amateur Service Part 97 rules in response to the ARRL’s so-called “Symbol Rate” Petition for Rule Making (RM-11708), filed in late 2013, and it has invited comments on its recommended changes. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in WT Docket 16-239, released on July 28, had been making the rounds at the FCC since May. ARRL had asked the FCC to change the Part 97 rules to delete the symbol rate limits in Part 97.307(f) and replace it with a maximum bandwidth for data emissions of 2.8 kHz on amateur frequencies below 29.7 MHz.
The NPRM can be found on the web in PDF format at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0728/FCC-16-96A1.pdf.
“[W]e believe that the public interest may be served by revising the Amateur Service rules to eliminate the current baud rate limitations for data emissions, consistent with ARRL’s Petition, to allow Amateur Service licensees to use modern digital emissions, thereby furthering the purposes of the Amateur Service and enhancing the usefulness of the service,” the FCC said in its NPRM.
“We do not, however, propose a bandwidth limitation for data emissions in the MF and HF bands to replace the baud rate limitations,” the NPRM concluded, “because the rules’ current approach for limiting bandwidth use by amateur stations using one of the specified digital codes to encode the signal being transmitted appears sufficient to ensure that general access to the band by licensees in the Amateur Service does not become unduly impaired.”
Under the current rules, “specified digital codes” in Part 97 may be used with a symbol rate that does not exceed 300 baud for frequencies below 28 MHz, with the exception of 60 meters, and 1200 baud in the 10 meter band. The baud rate limits were adopted in 1980, when the FCC amended Part 97 to specify ASCII as a permissible digital code.
Comments in the proceeding will be due 60 days after the date that the NPRM appears in the Federal Register.
NNNN
/EX
FCC Seeks Comments on Waiver Request from Expert Linears
ZCZC AG28
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 28 ARLB028
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT July 29, 2016
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB028
ARLB028 FCC Seeks Comments on Waiver Request from Expert Linears
The FCC is inviting comments on a June 11 request from Expert Linears America LLC to waive Part 97.317(a)(2) of the Amateur Service rules to permit it to import, market, and use its model 1.3K FA amplifier in the US. The Texas company is seeking the waiver pending resolution of its earlier Petition for Rule Making (RM-11767), which called on the Commission to eliminate the 15 dB gain limitation on Amateur Radio amplifiers altogether. Expert said the version of the model 1.3K FA amplifier it now imports has been modified to comply with current rules.
“Expert seeks a waiver in order to be able to import the unmodified version of the Model 1.3K FA, which is capable of considerably more than 15 dB amplification,” the FCC explained in a July 29 Public Notice. “Expert argues that the public interest would be served by permitting use of a higher-powered amplifier, because it would improve the communications capabilities of amateurs using portable, low-power transmitters by enabling them to approach the maximum legal power output.” Expert assured the FCC that its model 1.3K FA has proprietary software to prevent it from transmitting in the 26-28 MHz band, so it cannot be used in the Citizens Radio Service.
The Public Notice can be found on the web in PDF format at, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0729/DA-16-864A1.pdf.
On May 26, ARRL told the FCC that it “strongly supports” Expert’s petition seeking to eliminate the Amateur Service rule, spelled out in Part 97.317(a)(2), that amateur amplifiers not be able to boost the RF input signal by more than 15 dB.
Comments on Expert’s waiver request are due by August 29, reply comments by September 13.
NNNN
/EX
FCC says “no” to lifetime amateur radio licenses
I don’t know about you, but I saw no purpose in this petition, especially since renewing a license is now free and very easy to do online…..Dan
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB021
ARLB021 FCC Says “No” to Lifetime Amateur Radio Licenses
ZCZC AG21
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 21 ARLB021
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT June 24, 2016
To all radio amateurs
SB QST ARL ARLB021
ARLB021 FCC Says “No” to Lifetime Amateur Radio Licenses
The FCC has denied the petition of an Arizona radio amateur, who had petitioned for lifetime Amateur Radio licenses. Mark F. Krotz, N7MK, of Mesa, had filed his Petition for Rule Making (RM 11760) with the FCC last November, and the FCC invited public comments in February. Krotz wanted the FCC to revise Part 97.25 of its rules to indicate that Amateur Radio licenses are granted for the holder’s lifetime, instead of for the current 10-year term. Hundreds of radio amateurs commented on the petition, but the FCC was not swayed by those favoring the idea.
“Based on our review of the record, we are not persuaded that the petition discloses sufficient grounds for the requested rule change,” the FCC said in a June 21 Order. “Krotz’s primary argument is that extending the term of amateur licenses to the lifetime of the holder would reduce the Commission’s administrative and personnel costs, but it is not clear to us that the proposal actually would enhance administrative efficiency.” That’s because the vast majority of license renewals are submitted online and processed automatically by the Universal Licensing System (ULS), “with minimal staff involvement,” the Order said.
The FCC said it had further reduced its overhead by no longer routinely mailing out paper licenses. “[I]f license terms were extended to the holder’s lifetime, we likely would receive more cancellations on account of the licensee’s death, which are labor-intensive, because staff must carefully verify the deceased’s identity and licenses in order to guard against erroneous cancellations,” the FCC said in its Order, signed by Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Deputy Mobility Division Chief Scot Stone.
Krotz argued that the General Radiotelephone Operator License (GROL) already is issued on a lifetime basis, but the FCC said that’s not a comparable situation, because an Amateur Radio license is both an operator’s license and a station license, “and there is no Commission precedent for issuing a lifetime station license.”
In 2014 the FCC granted lifetime credit for examination elements 3 and 4, but applicants seeking relicensing under that provision still must pass examination element 2. The FCC pointed out in its Order that this was done to address the concerns of commenters that a licensee who had not renewed also may not have maintained or expanded his or her knowledge and skills.
NNNN
/EX
ICQPodcast #213 discusses pirate radio, amateur radio parity act
ICQPodcast #213 has just been released and includes yours truly in the roundtable discussion. In this episode, we discuss:
- Pirate Radio in the Digital Age
- 2016 HF Propagation Update
- Northern Ireland Radio Star
- FCC Bans Custom Firmware (for routers)
- ARRL National Field Day 2016
- Amateur Radio Parity Act Agreement
- Radio Ham Praised for Service to Emergency Planning
- 100 Sprite Satellites to be Deployed
- Yaesu Extend UK Warranties
Appearing on this podcast has been a real blast, and if any of you listen to it, I’d love to hear your feedback.
Repeater testers (NOT) wanted
I found this in the June 2016 issue of the Eastern Michigan ARC Sparks…...Dan
If you want to use a repeater, make a legal transmission (see Section 97.119 Station identification).
If you want to “kerchunk” a repeater, just to see if it is working, don’t bother.
If you want to use it, go ahead and use it. If it is down, you will know right away.
If you are “just testing” and the control operator turns off the repeater because of your illegal transmission, then everyone loses.
-Mike AA8K