[CW] New Regulations For The Amateur Services WRC-03

[Ed Tanton]

Thanks to Dr Marvin Moss, W4UXJ,  for bringing this release to my 
attention. I thought you would all like to read it.

P.S. If it's already been on here, I apologize-I surely missed it.

>NEWS RELEASE
>International Amateur Radio Union
>P.O. Box 310905
>Newington, CT 06131-0905 USA
>FAX: +1 860 594 0259
>E-Mail: iaru@iaru.org
>3 July 2003
>
>For immediate release
>
>
>By Michael Owen, VK3KI
>WRC-03 IARU Observer Team Member
>Introduction
>
>On 4th July 2003 the World Radiocommunication Conference, Geneva, 2003 ended
>and on the following day, the 5th July 2003 the new international
>regulations governing the amateur and amateur satellite services, Article 25
>of the Radio Regulations, that had been adopted by the Conference come into
>effect.
>
>
>The language of many provisions in Article 25 as it was before 5th July 2003
>was the language of many years ago, reflecting the priorities, structures
>and attitudes of a time long gone. Provisions such as requiring amateur
>stations to use "plain language", that communications be limited to messages
>"relating to experiments", and remarks "for which by reason of their lack of
>importance, the use of the telegraph service could not enter into
>consideration", the prohibition of "international communications emanating
>from third parties", though that provision "may be modified by special
>arrangements between the interested countries", the requirement for Morse
>Code, and a number of other provisions are to be found in Article 8 of the
>General Radio Regulations annexed to the International Telecommunication
>Convention, Madrid, 1932.
>
>
>The IARU policy was to seek the simplification of the Regulations affecting
>the amateur services by removal of regulations that were no longer
>necessary, the removal of provisions that were redundant because the subject
>matter was covered elsewhere in the Radio Regulations, the updating of
>provisions to reflect today's attitudes and activities, the identification
>of some standards for the qualification of amateurs and the addition of
>provisions that encouraged amateurs to be given the ability to provide
>emergency communications and to encourage the international recognition of
>amateur licences.
>
>
>The Radio Regulations, the international regulations, define the
>fundamentals of the amateur services, and regulate international
>communications between stations in the amateur and amateur-satellite
>services. Administrations may and do make additional regulations, and
>regulate in detail the amateur services in their country.
>
>
>This article compares the previous regulations with the new regulations and
>attempts to identify what is new and what is different. It does not attempt
>to explain why the particular provision was adopted in a particular form,
>which is another story told elsewhere. The numbers used to identify
>provisions are the temporary numbers used by the ITU in the course of the
>WRC.
>
>Banned countries list
>
>The first provision of Article 25, the so called "banned countries" list is
>a provision that is to be found in the 1932 Regulations, and is almost the
>same as the previous regulation except that it is now expressed positively
>rather negatively. The provision reads:
>
>
>25.1 Radiocommunications between amateur stations of different countries
>shall be permitted unless the administration of one of the countries
>concerned has notified that it objects to such radiocommunications.
>
>
>That is a provision that has only a limited effect on most amateurs.
>
>
>The balance of Article 25 is more directly relevant to the day to day
>activities of radio amateurs.
>
>What may be transmitted by Amateur Stations
>
>The old international regulation relating to what an amateur station may
>transmit was as follows:
>
>
>"When transmissions between amateur stations of different countries are
>permitted, they shall be made in plain language and shall be 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."
>
>
>This dealt with two distinct matters, the content of messages and the
>encryption of messages.
>
>
>The phrase "messages of a technical nature relating to tests and to remarks
>of a personal character" could be construed unnecessarily narrowly, and did
>not reflect today's world, and the qualifying phrase "which, by reason of
>their unimportance, recourse to the public telecommunications service is not
>justified" was both vague and uncertain, and certainly reflected a time when
>in most countries the common carrier was a government monopoly.
>
>
>So, the old provision was replaced by a new provision as follows:
>
>
>25.2 Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall be
>limited to communications incidental to the purposes of the amateur service,
>as defined in No. 1.56 and to remarks of a personal character.
>
>
>The term "incidental to" is wide, certainly not requiring a narrow
>connection with the "purposes of the amateurs service" and as the "purposes"
>of the amateur service set out in the definition are "self-training,
>intercommunication and technical investigations", the subject matter goes
>much beyond "tests". The new provision much more accurately reflects what in
>fact is the subject matter of amateur transmissions today.
>
>Coded Messages
>
>It is assumed that the phrase in the old provision requiring transmissions
>to be in "plain language" meant something transmitted by either voice or
>Morse that anyone could hear and understand. But today amateurs use many
>codes, and so what is meant by the phrase "plain language" could become a
>question in some countries. The language is no longer really appropriate.
>And, in any event a total prohibition is not appropriate as encryption is
>required for the control of satellites by command stations.
>
>
>The requirement is not for "plain language" but a prohibition of messages
>encoded for the purposes of obscuring their meaning.
>
>
>So, the simple phrase in the old regulation was replaced by a new provision,
>as follows:
>
>
>25.2A Transmissions between amateur stations of different countries shall
>not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except for
>control signals exchanged between earth command stations and the space
>station in the amateur satellite service.
>
>
>The IARU had suggested that it would be desirable for the exception to be
>expressed more widely than limited to satellite control signals, but a
>number of countries resisted this for security reasons. Of course the
>provision applies only to international communications. Therefore, repeater
>control signals, which are almost invariably transmitted within a single
>country and so are subject to national rather than international,
>regulation, may be encoded unless prohibited by national regulation.
>
>
>"Third party" messages
>
>One of the most difficult areas was the old provisions dealing with so
>called "third party messages." The provisions were as follows:
>
>
>It is absolutely forbidden for amateur stations to be used for transmitting
>international communications on behalf of third parties.
>
>
>The preceding provisions may be modified by special arrangements between the
>administrations of the countries concerned.
>
>
>That prohibition of international communication on behalf of third parties
>is very wide. What is a communication on behalf of a third party? School
>children speaking to an astronaut is a communication on behalf of a third
>party, as is participation in the Jamboree on the Air. The provision
>inhibited preparation for disaster communication, and indeed, international
>disaster relief communications unless a special arrangements were in place
>between the two countries concerned.
>
>
>The requirement that the prohibition could be modified by "special
>arrangements between the administrations of the countries concerned" was
>slow and clumsy, in many countries involving the ministry responsible for
>foreign relations.
>
>
>The IARU suggested the suppression of both provisions, taking the view that
>each administration was fully empowered to regulate its amateurs, and in
>particular to define what communication could and could not be carried by an
>amateur station both nationally and internationally.
>
>
>Of course, the fundamental requirement that the amateur service is non
>commercial is to be found in the definition of the amateur service and
>Article 25.2 set out above.
>
>
>The new provision reads as follows:
>
>
>25.3 Amateur stations may be used for transmitting international
>communications on behalf of third parties only in the case of an emergency
>or disaster relief. . An administration may determine the applicability of
>this provision to amateur stations under its jurisdiction.
>
>
>The exception to the blanket prohibition for cases of emergency and disaster
>relief is important, and when read with the new provision intended to
>encourage emergency communication by amateur stations will hopefully lead
>administrations to adopt new regulations to facilitate such activities.
>
>
>This second sentence of this provision enables each administration to define
>what is a communication on behalf of a third party, and with whom the
>stations under its jurisdiction may exchange such communications. If the
>other station's administration permits the same communication, then the
>communication may be exchanged internationally.
>
>
>The removal of the requirement for bilateral agreements between countries is
>significant as the new regulation certainly provides the means by which each
>administration can permit many activities, such as disaster relief, practice
>for emergency communication, and educational communications to take place
>internationally.
>
>
>Morse Code
>
>The old regulation that Morse was a requirement for the operators of amateur
>stations below 30 MHz was found in a provision that read as follows:
>
>
>Any person seeking a licence to operate the apparatus of an amateur station
>shall prove that he is able to send correctly by hand and to receive
>correctly by ear texts in Morse code signals. The administrations concerned
>may, however, waive this requirement in the case of stations making use
>exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz.
>
>
>That was replaced with a provision giving each administration the right to
>decide whether or not Morse is a required qualification as follows:
>
>
>25.5 Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a
>licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send
>and receive texts in Morse code signals.
>
>
>The alternative of simply deleting the old provision was rejected because a
>number of administrations thought that the matter was so important that a
>positive decision not to require Morse as a qualification was appropriate.
>The effect is actually the same: Morse code is no longer an internationally
>required qualification for an amateur licence, though an administration may
>still require it.
>
>
>The Qualification of Amateurs
>
>Apart from the Morse code as a qualification, the previous regulation
>provided:
>
>
>Administrations shall take such measures as they judge necessary to verify
>the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to
>operate the apparatus of an amateur station.
>
>
>This was replaced by a new provision as follows:
>
>
>25.6 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.
>
>
>The reference to the Recommendation is a non-mandatory reference. That is,
>an administration is not bound to follow it, but it is expected that all
>administrations will take the Recommendation into account when setting the
>qualification for an amateur licensee.
>
>
>The Recommendation is very general, for example providing that any person
>seeking a license to operate an amateur station should demonstrate a
>"theoretical knowledge of: Radio regulations, international, domestic", and
>under the heading "Radio system theory", "transmitters, receivers, antennas
>and propagation and measurements." Consistently with the decisions of the
>Conference, the Recommendation does not suggest any requirement for a Morse
>skill.
>
>
>That accords with the IARU position that the Radio Regulations should give
>some guidance as to the qualification appropriate for an amateur licence,
>but should not attempt to set a syllabus, as the diversity of environments
>for which a standard must be set is very great.
>
>
>The identification of a standard, the topics on which knowledge is required,
>reflects one of the essential elements of the amateur service, namely that
>an amateur is a person who has demonstrated an operational and technical
>qualification, distinguishing that amateur from many other users of the
>spectrum.
>
>
>Power
>
>
>The next provision in the new Regulations is:
>
>
>25.7 The maximum power of amateur stations shall be fixed by the
>administrations concerned.
>
>
>That is almost the same as the old regulation, but with the words after
>those words in the old provision being omitted, so the words "having regard
>to the technical qualifications of the operators and to the conditions under
>which these stations are to operate" are no longer part of the provision.
>
>The application of other provisions of the Radio Regulations
>
>
>Again, Article 25.8 is a shortened version of the previous article, and
>reads as follows:
>
>
>25.8 All pertinent Articles and Provisions of the Constitution, the
>Convention and of these Regulations shall apply to amateur stations.
>
>
>That changes the reference to "general rules" to "pertinent" provisions of
>the current ITU documents and omits the sentence "In particular, the emitted
>frequency shall be as stable and as free from spurious emissions as the
>state of technical development for such stations permits." which is
>unnecessary as the requirements apply to amateur stations in any event.
>
>
>In reality, there is no change arising from the different wording. Probably
>the provision is unnecessary in any event, but it offered some assurance to
>administrations that amateurs will abide by all pertinent rules.
>
>
>Call signs
>
>
>Finally, a provision that is the same as the previous provision:
>
>
>25.9 During the course of their transmissions, amateur stations shall
>transmit their call sign at short intervals.
>
>Emergency Communications
>
>
>Then, a completely new provision is included in Article 25, a provision that
>really needs no explanation.
>
>25.9A Administrations are encouraged to take the necessary steps to allow
>amateur stations to prepare for and meet communication needs in support of
>disaster relief.
>
>
>That provision should be read in conjunction with Article 25.3, and it is
>hoped that administrations will make regulations that facilitate amateurs
>preparing for emergency situations and providing communications in
>emergencies and for disaster relief. This was an important IARU objective.
>
>The international recognition of the licences of visiting amateurs
>
>
>A further completely new provision is added to Article 25:
>
>
>25.9B Administrations may determine whether or not to permit a person who
>has been granted a licence to operate an amateur station by another
>administration, to operate an amateur station while that person is
>temporarily in its territory, subject to such conditions or restrictions it
>may impose.
>
>
>This provision has been interpreted by some to mean that an administration
>may, if it wishes, permit a licensee from another country to operate in its
>territory without issuing a licence, as would otherwise be required by
>Article 18 of the Radio Regulations. There is some substance in
>interpretation, as the provision deals with "permissions" and applies only
>to a person temporarily in the territory of the other administration.
>
>
>The interpretation of the provision is, of course, a matter for
>administrations, but hopefully it is a provision that will encourage
>administrations to allow amateurs to enjoy their hobby while travelling by
>recognising the foreign licence. A global recognition would fill in the gaps
>left by the CEPT Recommendation T/R 61-01 and the International Amateur
>Radio Permit of the OAS.
>
>
>The Amateur-satellite service
>
>
>The final two provisions deal with amateur-satellite service, the first
>being unchanged and reading as follows:
>
>
>25.10 The provisions of Section I of this Article shall apply equally, as
>appropriate, to the amateur-satellite service.
>
>
>The next provision is the only operative provision in Article 25 dealing
>with the amateur-satellite service. The previous provision read as follows:
>
>
>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 22. Administrations authorizing such
>space stations shall inform the IFRB 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 authorizing
>administration (see No. 2612).
>
>
>The provision was unnecessarily complex, repeating obligations that are
>found elsewhere in the Radio Regulations, particularly Article 22.
>
>
>In the end, the following simplified provision was adopted:
>
>
>25.11 Administrations authorizing 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 terminated
>immediately (see No. 22.1).
>
>
>The new provision avoids the repetition in different words of regulations
>that already apply to the stations, and simply requires that sufficient
>earth command stations are established before launch.
>
>The Definition of the Amateur Service
>
>When, in 1996, the IARU commenced its examination of the issues raised by
>placing Article 25 of the Radio Regulations on the agenda of a future World
>Radiocommunication Conference, it very quickly saw that the definition
>remained as relevant and appropriate as it had been over the many years that
>it been a part of the Radio regulations.
>
>
>It is worth setting out that definition for the sake of completeness:
>
>
>1.56 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.
>
>
>Similarly, the definition of the amateur-satellite service remains
>unchanged:
>
>
>1.57 Amateur-satellite service: A radiocommunication service using space
>stations on earth satellites for the same purposes as those of the amateur
>service.
>
>
>The Conference decided that no change was required to those definitions in
>Article 1.
>
>
>Conclusion
>
>The Radio Regulations are the written result of the welding together of the
>different views of different people with different languages and from
>different cultures. It is no doubt easy to say that some of the provisions
>could be expressed more elegantly, and that some of the provisions are not
>necessary.
>
>Of course, it is true that the narrower provisions of the old international
>regulations have not really inhibited the amateur service in many countries,
>with administrations preferring a liberal interpretation. But in the long
>run, the amateur service cannot afford to have countries ignore the
>international regulations. It is fundamental that the amateurs have
>appropriate "operational and technical qualifications." A speed limit that
>is unrealistic and not enforced is going to be ignored. What was appropriate
>in 1932 may not be appropriate in 2003.
>
>In the end it is suggested that the meaning of Article 25 is clear, even if
>expressed in language different from the language suggested by the IARU.
>What is important is the substance, not the form, and it is suggested that
>the changes and additions made to Article 25 by WRC 2003 will meet the needs
>for the future of the amateur service identified by the IARU.

73 Ed Tanton N4XY <n4xy@earthlink.net>

Ed Tanton N4XY
189 Pioneer Trail
Marietta, GA 30068-3466

website: http://www.n4xy.com

All emails <IN> & <OUT> checked by
Norton AntiVirus with AutoProtect

LM: ARRL QCWA AMSAT & INDEXA;
SEDXC NCDXA GACW QRP-ARCI
OK-QRP QRP-L #758 K2 (FT) #00057

--------------------------------------------------
"He that gives up a little liberty to gain
temporary security will lose both and
deserve neither".
--Benjamin Franklin

"Suppose you were an idiot ...
and suppose you were a member of
Congress...  but I repeat myself."
--Mark Twain
--------------------------------------------------