Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Unlicensed radio check / emergency  (Read 3654 times)
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3239




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2019, 03:22:02 PM »

Peter,

The USA is a signatory to the ITU 1979 radio regulations but I do not believe that the USA is a signatory to the many subsequent editions. Do you know otherwise?

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
SM0AOM
Member

Posts: 254




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2019, 05:45:32 AM »

These two representatives for the United States signed the Final Protocol of the 2015 WRC;

"For the United States of America
Decker ANSTROM
Julie ZOLLER"

Regarding formal ratification, the latest entry for ratification by the US of the Radio Regulations is for the 1995 WRC.

Later conferences are stated as "ipso facto", which is shared by the majority of the ITU Member States.
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3239




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2019, 09:38:33 AM »

Thanks, Karl-Arne. I will need to do some more research. I would be very surprised, however, if the USA agreed to any ipso facto proviso.

Regarding the general question of international treaties and USA law, this is a very complicated subject. But in general, international agreements such as treaties, are given the effect of law in the USA only if they are self-executing or if Congress takes specific action to make it have the effect of law.

Most of the applicability of self-executing international agreements or treaties is observed in the USA court system. It has generally been the case that if Congress has implemented a law (or effectively delegated this authority to FCC rule making, for example) and the resulting law or regulation does not contradict the international agreement or treaty, then the law or regulation will prevail. If there is some dissimilarities, the court will generally try to find a compromise rather than declare a violation of an international agreement or treaty.

Specific to amateur radio regulations, the FCC has substantially implemented the treaty language. If a party of standing disagrees with this assertion, they will need to seek remedy through the court. This is often a time consuming and very expensive venture as the defense will be the USA government.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
SM0AOM
Member

Posts: 254




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2019, 12:33:07 PM »

In many, if not most, countries before deregulation the provisions of the ITU-RR were "incorporated by reference" and thus had legal force in national law and radio rules.

This had the effect that e.g. amateur radio regulations could be quite to the point and only deal in detail with purely national subjects, such as licence classes, requirements for operator proficiency and allowed power levels.

After deregulation, many administrations got instructions not to regulate anything more than absolutely necessary, as the ITU regulations were seen by the politicians as impeding market-based decisions regarding spectrum allocation and use.

For this reason, law-makers specifically instructed the writers of new legislation and rules not to refer to the ITU-RR, so the only regulations were actually those expressly written.

This may have made telecom markets more adapted to modern business practices, but had unintended consequences for less market-oriented pursuits such as amateur radio.

It had to be specially pointed out that a radio amateur needed licences and officially recognised callsigns to operate, which the rule-makers were reluctant to do.
In their views, amateur radio was just another form of CB.

It was only by repeatedly pointing to the EU Radio Equipment Directive, in which the competence of radio amateurs is stated as the sole reason for exemptions from requiring compulsory type-acceptance of equipment and as a measure for avoiding harmful interference, that they finally budged and required an examination and the issue of a call-sign.

Currently, many of the provisions of the ITU-RR are incorporated verbatim in the FCC regulations.
This is a sign that deregulation still is quite far away in the US telecom markets.

When the FCC finally decides to deregulate spectrum access, there may be quite drastic changes to amateur radio.

One change, which seems entirely plausible in the light of what has happened in other countries, is that the FCC will finally "off-load" all licencing, handling of call-signs and enforcement matters to a third party, most likely the ARRL.
 
Logged
K6CPO
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2019, 04:14:42 PM »

All of this quoting of obscure FCC and international regulations is pointless.  It does nothing but muddy the issue.  The best thing anyone can say in answer to the OP's question is "If the radio service in question requires a license and you don't have one, DON"T TRANSMIT ON THAT SERVICE!  Period..."
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3239




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2019, 04:26:18 PM »

All of this quoting of obscure FCC and international regulations is pointless.  It does nothing but muddy the issue.  The best thing anyone can say in answer to the OP's question is "If the radio service in question requires a license and you don't have one, DON"T TRANSMIT ON THAT SERVICE!  Period..."

The OP's question has already been well answered early in the thread. The OP has acknowledged that.

Regarding your statement, that isn't fully accurate. There are several services where no license is required. There are other services where an individual or entity holds the license but you may transmit if given permission - even though you don't have a license. And if you are an amateur radio operator, Part 97 describes scenarios where you may transmit on any mode or frequency without regard to licensure.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
K6CPO
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2019, 12:10:11 PM »

All of this quoting of obscure FCC and international regulations is pointless.  It does nothing but muddy the issue.  The best thing anyone can say in answer to the OP's question is "If the radio service in question requires a license and you don't have one, DON"T TRANSMIT ON THAT SERVICE!  Period..."

The OP's question has already been well answered early in the thread. The OP has acknowledged that.

Regarding your statement, that isn't fully accurate. There are several services where no license is required. There are other services where an individual or entity holds the license but you may transmit if given permission - even though you don't have a license. And if you are an amateur radio operator, Part 97 describes scenarios where you may transmit on any mode or frequency without regard to licensure.

- Glenn W9IQ

Did you read my post completely?  I said "if the radio service in question requires a license..."  It's a given there are services that don't require a physical license (FRS, MURS, CB.)  And yes, I am aware of the provisions of Part 97 regarding emergencies.  However, the FCC has never definitely outlined just exactly what constitutes enough of an emergency to trigger that section.  A lot of people interpret that to mean they can transmit when it's an emergency in their eyes. Perhaps what I should have said that if there's any doubt about what constitutes an emergency, stay off the air.
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3239




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2019, 12:14:23 PM »

As I said:

Quote
Regarding your statement, that isn't fully accurate. 

I think that was a fair assessment.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1225




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2019, 05:32:47 PM »

It is however interesting that the 'Unwanted Emissions in the Spurious Domain ' limits in the ITU Radio Regulations for the Amateur Service - to which the US signed up - are tighter than those for US Amateur Stations in Part 97. (By 7 dB at HF for power greater than 5 watts, and up to 26 dB at VHF for power over 5watts)
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3239




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2019, 04:05:41 AM »

It is however interesting that the 'Unwanted Emissions in the Spurious Domain ' limits in the ITU Radio Regulations for the Amateur Service - to which the US signed up - are tighter than those for US Amateur Stations in Part 97. (By 7 dB at HF for power greater than 5 watts, and up to 26 dB at VHF for power over 5watts)

It is just another example of the many freedoms that Americans enjoy...

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!