11-02-2013, 10:20 AM
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
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
