|
Scope of the term "Amateur"
The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a
license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? -- Rick C |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
"rickman" wrote in message
... The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? How appropriate that you should confuse, "license" with, "licence"! |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? How appropriate that you should confuse, "license" with, "licence"! This is an international group. Trying to make an issue out of different national spelling conventions is a bit silly. -- Roger Hayter |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:11:21 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: "rickman" wrote: The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? How appropriate that you should confuse, "license" with, "licence"! This is an international group. Trying to make an issue out of different national spelling conventions is a bit silly. .... and just about Gareth's only "contribution". |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
|
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On 6/29/2016 5:11 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339 wrote: "rickman" wrote in message ... The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? How appropriate that you should confuse, "license" with, "licence"! This is an international group. Trying to make an issue out of different national spelling conventions is a bit silly. We are all better off ignoring pointless posts. I seem to recall that you are one of those who have trouble remembering not to feed the troll. No? -- Rick C |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:41:21 -0400, rickman wrote:
The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I believe the term was used to describe anyone that indulges in RF but does NOT charge for their efforts. The FCC wanted to distinguish between commerical (for profit) services, and amateur (not for profit) services. For reception only, the term was "SWL" or short wave listener. I guess that also applies to only listening on just about any frequency from ELF to satellite communications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_listening No license required to just listen. I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? Mostly yet. However, some bands do not require a license and operate under FCC Part 15: http://www.lwca.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LowFER http://www.arrl.org/lf-low-frequency https://hackaday.io/project/6882-lowfer-transmitter-for-your-arduino etc... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On 6/29/2016 10:59 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:41:21 -0400, rickman wrote: The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I believe the term was used to describe anyone that indulges in RF but does NOT charge for their efforts. The FCC wanted to distinguish between commerical (for profit) services, and amateur (not for profit) services. For reception only, the term was "SWL" or short wave listener. I guess that also applies to only listening on just about any frequency from ELF to satellite communications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_listening No license required to just listen. I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? Mostly yet. However, some bands do not require a license and operate under FCC Part 15: http://www.lwca.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LowFER http://www.arrl.org/lf-low-frequency https://hackaday.io/project/6882-lowfer-transmitter-for-your-arduino etc... Very interesting. I see a difference between the ARRL article and the Hackaday page. ARRL says the power limit on the US 1750 meter "free band" is 1 W into the "transmitter's final stage" while the Hackaday page says the limit is 1 W into the "feedline" and antenna system. -- Rick C |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
"rickman" wrote in message
... On 6/29/2016 5:11 AM, Roger Hayter wrote: This is an international group. Trying to make an issue out of different national spelling conventions is a bit silly. We are all better off ignoring pointless posts. I seem to recall that you are one of those who have trouble remembering not to feed the troll. No? Oddly enough, both of the above are now in my KF because of their *REPEATED* behaviour of trolling with personal abusive remarks. |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:29:12 -0400, rickman wrote:
Mostly yet. That should be "yes". In a hurry today (like all other days). However, some bands do not require a license and operate under FCC Part 15: http://www.lwca.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LowFER http://www.arrl.org/lf-low-frequency https://hackaday.io/project/6882-lowfer-transmitter-for-your-arduino etc... Very interesting. I see a difference between the ARRL article and the Hackaday page. ARRL says the power limit on the US 1750 meter "free band" is 1 W into the "transmitter's final stage" while the Hackaday page says the limit is 1 W into the "feedline" and antenna system. This might help: http://www.lwca.org/sitepage/part15/index-what.htm http://lwca.org/library/reference/ Note that it's a bit out of date. Adjust the links for 2016. You want part 15.217 (Operation in the band 160-190 kHz.) http://www.ka7oei.com/ct_lowfer_archive.html I see that kind of stuff quite a bit in the FCC rules-n-regs. They sometimes fail to specify WHERE the transmit power is to be measured. Is it at the input to the xmitter, output of the xmitter or at the end of a lossy feed line. What does one do if the system is not 50 ohms? I don't have an answer and since the FCC never will admit to making a mistake, it's unlikely to be fixed. Should you ask for clarification, you'll probably get an answer from the FCC which you don't want to hear. Been there, many times. My best advice is do your best with what you have, don't try to play FCC attorney, and muddle onward into the unknown. Gone... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On 6/29/2016 12:19 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:29:12 -0400, rickman wrote: Mostly yet. That should be "yes". In a hurry today (like all other days). However, some bands do not require a license and operate under FCC Part 15: http://www.lwca.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LowFER http://www.arrl.org/lf-low-frequency https://hackaday.io/project/6882-lowfer-transmitter-for-your-arduino etc... Very interesting. I see a difference between the ARRL article and the Hackaday page. ARRL says the power limit on the US 1750 meter "free band" is 1 W into the "transmitter's final stage" while the Hackaday page says the limit is 1 W into the "feedline" and antenna system. This might help: http://www.lwca.org/sitepage/part15/index-what.htm http://lwca.org/library/reference/ Note that it's a bit out of date. Adjust the links for 2016. You want part 15.217 (Operation in the band 160-190 kHz.) http://www.ka7oei.com/ct_lowfer_archive.html I see that kind of stuff quite a bit in the FCC rules-n-regs. They sometimes fail to specify WHERE the transmit power is to be measured. Is it at the input to the xmitter, output of the xmitter or at the end of a lossy feed line. What does one do if the system is not 50 ohms? I don't have an answer and since the FCC never will admit to making a mistake, it's unlikely to be fixed. Should you ask for clarification, you'll probably get an answer from the FCC which you don't want to hear. Been there, many times. My best advice is do your best with what you have, don't try to play FCC attorney, and muddle onward into the unknown. Thanks for the links. I found 15.217 and it says, 15.217 Operation in the band 160–190 kHz. (a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage (exclusive of fila- ment or heater power) shall not exceed one watt. Since they specifically exclude the filament power I supposed that 1 watt limit is on the power from the supply rather than the "input" power to the grid/base/gate of the active element. So in reality the 1 watt limit at the input to the final stage will produce less than 1 watt at the output of the final stage. With the frequency being so low, a class D output could potentially provide nearly the full watt to the feedline I expect. Some amount of filtering would be needed to prevent the carrier from making it out the antenna, but using sigma-delta techniques should help to minimize that. With such low power and simple output stage, it could be placed at the antenna which would allow the full 15 meters to be antenna. -- Rick C |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:53:28 -0400, rickman wrote:
I'm back from the dentist drilling holes in my teeth and bank account. Thanks for the links. I found 15.217 and it says, 15.217 Operation in the band 160–190 kHz. (a) The total input power to the final radio frequency stage (exclusive of fila- ment or heater power) shall not exceed one watt. Yep, that's it. Since they specifically exclude the filament power I supposed that 1 watt limit is on the power from the supply rather than the "input" power to the grid/base/gate of the active element. So in reality the 1 watt limit at the input to the final stage will produce less than 1 watt at the output of the final stage. With the frequency being so low, a class D output could potentially provide nearly the full watt to the feedline I expect. Some amount of filtering would be needed to prevent the carrier from making it out the antenna, but using sigma-delta techniques should help to minimize that. Yep, except why bother with an amplifier? You could just modulate a 200Khz switching power supply and get similar results. Lots of other options available, but few of them involve a traditional amplifier multiplier chain. With such low power and simple output stage, it could be placed at the antenna which would allow the full 15 meters to be antenna. Any way you look at it, it's going to be flea power buried under tons of atmospheric noise. Everything you do up to about 300 meters range is near field. http://www.part15.us/forum/part15-forums/general-discussion/part-15-am-communications-near-field http://www.part15.us/forum/part15-forums/general-discussion/longwave-broadcast-dx-171-khz -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 07:59:51 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? Mostly yet. However, some bands do not require a license and operate under FCC Part 15: I forgot to mumble something about which bands require an amateur license and which do not under Part 15. The lowest frequency band that requires a ham license is 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 MHz). http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations The various bands below that fall under Part 15.xxx as intentional radiator rules and do NOT require a license. However, 135.7 to 137.8Khz (2200 meters) is designated as an amateur radio band by the ITU. However, since it more easily falls under unlicensed Part 15 rules, the FCC does not require an amateur license to operate there. These bands are not world wide and vary by national jurisdiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LowFER https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2200-meter_band Most LOWFER experimenters have ham radio call signs and use them on the LOWFER frequencies. There is no requirement to identify with an amateur call sign, but it is convenient. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
"rickman" wrote in message ... The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? =============================================== I would say no. Can we term such people radio experimenters, please? There are certainly radio experimenters who neither need or want to hold licenses to use the amateur bands and I have NO objection to their choice of what they want to build and try. I think the folks who hold ham licenses can legitimately lay claim to the moniker "radio amateur." I wish language had the same certainties as, say, physics. It doesn't. Language has wiggle room and we're stuck with it. "Sal" |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
"rickman" wrote in message ... The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? No. My understanding of "amateur radio" is having a license to transmit on "amateur" bands. Receiving, studying receivers, building receivers, etc. does not require a license....at least in civilized countries :) |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 6:05:19 PM UTC+10, Wayne wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? No. My understanding of "amateur radio" is having a license to transmit on "amateur" bands. Receiving, studying receivers, building receivers, etc. does not require a license....at least in civilized countries :) That makes you an SWL. |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Jeff wrote:
I forgot to mumble something about which bands require an amateur license and which do not under Part 15. The lowest frequency band that requires a ham license is 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 MHz). http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations That of course depends on which country you live in. In the UK 137kHz is an band that requires an amateur licence, with a power limit of 1W ERP (a significant difference to 1W into the PA stage)!! 427 to 479kHz is also an amateur band in the UK with a 5W erp limit I think the US is a tad behind, but that may have already changed. Here in Canada we definitely have one of the new LF bands, but I can't remember the details. As long ago as WARC 79 there was talk of making that low frequency license free band a ham band, so finally that's come to fruition, more or less. Michael |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016, rickman wrote:
The term "amateur" is often applied to people who have obtained a license to use radio equipment for communications. Is this term inclusive of those who don't obtain a license but use receivers for various uses? I have been looking into design of receivers in the LF to ELF frequency ranges. Is this part of "amateur" radio? It's complicated. One reason amateur radio exists is because once Marconi spanned the Atlantic with radio, it was out of the lab and people played with it. There was a time when daily newspapers would have articles about it, so i gather. INitially, nobody had a use for radio, that came through use. So when the Titanic sunk in 1912, the rules were tightened and then later tightended more. Amateur radio was there from the start, the rules getting tighter as the years progressed. So you didn't need a license at first, and then later people started broadcasting because they were aware more people were playing with radio receivers than actually had transmitters. There probably was no distinction initially, but as time went on, yes "amateur radio" does mean a licensed ham radio operator. There are people who have similar interests, but not in transmitting (or they don't want to bother with the license), they are "amateurs" but not "amateur radio operators" or whatever you want to call them. SOme have mentioned shortwave listeners, and a subset of that is interested in building, but I think most SWLers are just interested in receiving, maybe building small projects to enhance reception. SOmeone brought up part 15. That may be a grey area. 100mW walkie talkies on the CB band were part 15, and in the sixties there were even projects (and commercial units) for improving performance, "you can DX so long as you keep within the rules", unlike CB that was only intended for local communication. So those would place the transmitter and integral antenna up a tower, and then use a decent shortwave receiver for reception. That gave you height, but the better receiver probably helped a lot, since those 100mW walkie talkies generally used superregenerative receivers. But that wouldn't have classified as "amateur radio". And in the sixties and seventies there were articles in the hobby magazines about that 160 to 190KHz band, promoting it as a hobby. Every few years there'd be an article, often a construction article, but then nothing. I think it was the late seventies when we'd start to hear about serious work on that band, though perhaps it just wasn't visible before. But as someone said, often by hams who were interested in using those low frequencies. But the users of that band would be called "radio hobbyists" even though the more serious users probably did have ham licenses. Michael |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
Michael Black wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Jeff wrote: I forgot to mumble something about which bands require an amateur license and which do not under Part 15. The lowest frequency band that requires a ham license is 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 MHz). http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations That of course depends on which country you live in. In the UK 137kHz is an band that requires an amateur licence, with a power limit of 1W ERP (a significant difference to 1W into the PA stage)!! 427 to 479kHz is also an amateur band in the UK with a 5W erp limit I think the US is a tad behind, but that may have already changed. Here in Canada we definitely have one of the new LF bands, but I can't remember the details. As long ago as WARC 79 there was talk of making that low frequency license free band a ham band, so finally that's come to fruition, more or less. Here in the Netherlands amateur radio licenses have been scrapped some ten years ago. We have no licenses anymore. The amateur bands are now all "license free bands with obligatory registration", like maritime VHF radio. You just apply for a callsign and away you go, without license. To apply for a callsign you still need to pass an exam, just like with maritime VHF. So to the outsider the system may look the same. And in fact, many amateurs still talk about "the license". But there isn't any. |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
Rob wrote:
Michael Black wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Jeff wrote: I forgot to mumble something about which bands require an amateur license and which do not under Part 15. The lowest frequency band that requires a ham license is 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 MHz). http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations That of course depends on which country you live in. In the UK 137kHz is an band that requires an amateur licence, with a power limit of 1W ERP (a significant difference to 1W into the PA stage)!! 427 to 479kHz is also an amateur band in the UK with a 5W erp limit I think the US is a tad behind, but that may have already changed. Here in Canada we definitely have one of the new LF bands, but I can't remember the details. As long ago as WARC 79 there was talk of making that low frequency license free band a ham band, so finally that's come to fruition, more or less. Here in the Netherlands amateur radio licenses have been scrapped some ten years ago. We have no licenses anymore. The amateur bands are now all "license free bands with obligatory registration", like maritime VHF radio. You just apply for a callsign and away you go, without license. To apply for a callsign you still need to pass an exam, just like with maritime VHF. So to the outsider the system may look the same. And in fact, many amateurs still talk about "the license". But there isn't any. Does that mean anyone in the Netherllands can transmit on amateur frequencies provided they don't a callsign that sounds like an amateur one? -- Roger Hayter |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
Roger Hayter wrote:
Rob wrote: Michael Black wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Jeff wrote: I forgot to mumble something about which bands require an amateur license and which do not under Part 15. The lowest frequency band that requires a ham license is 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 MHz). http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations That of course depends on which country you live in. In the UK 137kHz is an band that requires an amateur licence, with a power limit of 1W ERP (a significant difference to 1W into the PA stage)!! 427 to 479kHz is also an amateur band in the UK with a 5W erp limit I think the US is a tad behind, but that may have already changed. Here in Canada we definitely have one of the new LF bands, but I can't remember the details. As long ago as WARC 79 there was talk of making that low frequency license free band a ham band, so finally that's come to fruition, more or less. Here in the Netherlands amateur radio licenses have been scrapped some ten years ago. We have no licenses anymore. The amateur bands are now all "license free bands with obligatory registration", like maritime VHF radio. You just apply for a callsign and away you go, without license. To apply for a callsign you still need to pass an exam, just like with maritime VHF. So to the outsider the system may look the same. And in fact, many amateurs still talk about "the license". But there isn't any. Does that mean anyone in the Netherllands can transmit on amateur frequencies provided they don't a callsign that sounds like an amateur one? In practice yes, but I think that is true in any country. However, to legally transmit on the amateur bands you need to register a callsign at the authorities. You can register any callsign within the range PA1-PH9 that has not yet been registered by someone else. To be able to do such a registration, you must first prove your technical knowledge by passing an exam at an accredited organization. Before this change, the authorities organized the exams and those that passed were issued a license, with associated callsign. The change was motivated as "deregulation" and "cost saving" (the license had a yearly fee and the registration was free), but in the meantime a yearly fee for registration has been introduced, albeit much lower than the previous fee for a license. Some hams believe that without a license they have less protection against interference and intruders. They believed that the license not only allowed them to transmit on the bands but also got them some protection against others doing so (including unintentional transmissions like interference from digital equipment). Interference is becoming worse and worse, and involvement from authorities is becoming less, but there is no real indication that it is related to that change. |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
Rob wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote: Rob wrote: Michael Black wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Jeff wrote: I forgot to mumble something about which bands require an amateur license and which do not under Part 15. The lowest frequency band that requires a ham license is 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 MHz). http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations That of course depends on which country you live in. In the UK 137kHz is an band that requires an amateur licence, with a power limit of 1W ERP (a significant difference to 1W into the PA stage)!! 427 to 479kHz is also an amateur band in the UK with a 5W erp limit I think the US is a tad behind, but that may have already changed. Here in Canada we definitely have one of the new LF bands, but I can't remember the details. As long ago as WARC 79 there was talk of making that low frequency license free band a ham band, so finally that's come to fruition, more or less. Here in the Netherlands amateur radio licenses have been scrapped some ten years ago. We have no licenses anymore. The amateur bands are now all "license free bands with obligatory registration", like maritime VHF radio. You just apply for a callsign and away you go, without license. To apply for a callsign you still need to pass an exam, just like with maritime VHF. So to the outsider the system may look the same. And in fact, many amateurs still talk about "the license". But there isn't any. Does that mean anyone in the Netherllands can transmit on amateur frequencies provided they don't a callsign that sounds like an amateur one? In practice yes, but I think that is true in any country. However, to legally transmit on the amateur bands you need to register a callsign at the authorities. You can register any callsign within the range PA1-PH9 that has not yet been registered by someone else. To be able to do such a registration, you must first prove your technical knowledge by passing an exam at an accredited organization. The difference between passing an exam so that you can register a callsign in order to obtain government permission to transmit and the licence scheme in most other countries is much too subtle for me. What is the difference? If transmitting without a callsign remains illegal, this looks remarkably like a transmitting licence. Before this change, the authorities organized the exams and those that passed were issued a license, with associated callsign. The change was motivated as "deregulation" and "cost saving" (the license had a yearly fee and the registration was free), but in the meantime a yearly fee for registration has been introduced, albeit much lower than the previous fee for a license. Some hams believe that without a license they have less protection against interference and intruders. They believed that the license not only allowed them to transmit on the bands but also got them some protection against others doing so (including unintentional transmissions like interference from digital equipment). Interference is becoming worse and worse, and involvement from authorities is becoming less, but there is no real indication that it is related to that change. -- Roger Hayter |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
Roger Hayter wrote:
The difference between passing an exam so that you can register a callsign in order to obtain government permission to transmit and the licence scheme in most other countries is much too subtle for me. What is the difference? If transmitting without a callsign remains illegal, this looks remarkably like a transmitting licence. The difference as felt by some amateurs is that a license (is perceived to) gives some rights, where a registration is just a system to know who to contact when there is a problem with a certain amateur's transmissions, more or less like a telephone number. |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
On 7/4/2016 5:34 AM, Rob wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote: Rob wrote: Michael Black wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Jeff wrote: I forgot to mumble something about which bands require an amateur license and which do not under Part 15. The lowest frequency band that requires a ham license is 160 meters (1.8 to 2.0 MHz). http://www.arrl.org/frequency-allocations That of course depends on which country you live in. In the UK 137kHz is an band that requires an amateur licence, with a power limit of 1W ERP (a significant difference to 1W into the PA stage)!! 427 to 479kHz is also an amateur band in the UK with a 5W erp limit I think the US is a tad behind, but that may have already changed. Here in Canada we definitely have one of the new LF bands, but I can't remember the details. As long ago as WARC 79 there was talk of making that low frequency license free band a ham band, so finally that's come to fruition, more or less. Here in the Netherlands amateur radio licenses have been scrapped some ten years ago. We have no licenses anymore. The amateur bands are now all "license free bands with obligatory registration", like maritime VHF radio. You just apply for a callsign and away you go, without license. To apply for a callsign you still need to pass an exam, just like with maritime VHF. So to the outsider the system may look the same. And in fact, many amateurs still talk about "the license". But there isn't any. Does that mean anyone in the Netherllands can transmit on amateur frequencies provided they don't a callsign that sounds like an amateur one? In practice yes, but I think that is true in any country. However, to legally transmit on the amateur bands you need to register a callsign at the authorities. You can register any callsign within the range PA1-PH9 that has not yet been registered by someone else. To be able to do such a registration, you must first prove your technical knowledge by passing an exam at an accredited organization. Before this change, the authorities organized the exams and those that passed were issued a license, with associated callsign. The change was motivated as "deregulation" and "cost saving" (the license had a yearly fee and the registration was free), but in the meantime a yearly fee for registration has been introduced, albeit much lower than the previous fee for a license. Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't see what the difference is between "license" and "registration". Both require passing a test, getting a call sign and paying a yearly fee, even if the fee is less and the test easier to pass and picking your own call sign. What am I missing? BTW, the range PA1-PH9 is only 80 unique combinations, no (or is it only 72 since it seems to exclude '0')? How can that work? Maybe PA1 means something other than what I am thinking? -- Rick C |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
In message , Roger Hayter
writes The difference between passing an exam so that you can register a callsign in order to obtain government permission to transmit and the licence scheme in most other countries is much too subtle for me. What is the difference? If transmitting without a callsign remains illegal, this looks remarkably like a transmitting licence. It's definitely a severe case of 'double-Dutch'. -- Ian |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
|
Scope of the term "Amateur"
Jeff wrote:
BTW, the range PA1-PH9 is only 80 unique combinations, no (or is it only 72 since it seems to exclude '0')? How can that work? Maybe PA1 means something other than what I am thinking? The PA1-PH9 is the prefix, so the callsigns run from PA1AAA to PH9ZZZ Yes byt also from PA1A to PH9Z and from PA1AA to PH9ZZ. PA0 is excluded as a compromise to old guys who have a PA0 call and don't want newbies to share that privilege. A proposal has been made to end that situation but it has not been implemented yet. |
Scope of the term "Amateur"
rickman wrote:
Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't see what the difference is between "license" and "registration". Both require passing a test, getting a call sign and paying a yearly fee, even if the fee is less and the test easier to pass and picking your own call sign. What am I missing? There is no real difference, but it is felt that way by some. Note that most of the regulations that originally were attached to the license have been dropped. Essentially the authorities don't care what you do, as long as you do it within the bands and with proper identification. About the only exception is willful interference to others and unattended/automated transmission. For that, a license is still required and issued. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com