[Waverley ARS] ACMA rules Foundation licensees cannot use digital voicemodes

Sun Oct 21 16:34:49 UTC 2007

Adam,
thanks for your thoughts. 

I'm not so sure about the reasoning about complexity of the syllabus.  
Neither standard or advance license syllabi require training or 
assessment for operating digital mode stations in practical or theory.

If a newly licensed standard or advanced call wishes to operate any mode 
beyond what is assessed in the common practical assessment, they must go 
out and learn how to do it.  A foundation call would do exactly the 
same.  F-calls are not trained or assessed for CW, yet they are 
permitted to operate it.

My belief is that the decision has probably nothing at all to do with 
syllabus and qualification, and everything to do with a desire for a 
limitation of privileges and have an incentive based licensing system, 
on the part of ACMA.  D-star has a lot of potential to be really, really 
brilliant and I think that it just comes down to incentive based exclusion.

I've always thought that F-calls should have been given a taste of data 
modes with PSK-31.  It is ideal with low power, and it is easy to setup 
and operate a PSK31 station.  It would be a great introduction to data 
modes, and would appeal to the computer literate eg young ops - look at 
the plethora of Echolink nodes under F-calls.  Learning, enthusiasm and 
activity - great stuff.  Sadly, that's not the case.

Now to open the can of worms-
In regard to your comment on tx power:  ACMA approved 10w pX and pY very 
early on in the life of the post '05 licensing structure.  This was back 
in early '06, but it has yet to appear in the LCD.  So that will 
probably happen soon on paper.  In reality, well......

The technical problem of the 5w HT transceivers are only the beginning. 
Did they expect people to operate at 1w low power because 5w was more 
than what's on the LCD?  Of course not.  So where does that end?  What 
about 2m/70cm mobile type rigs, typically with a L/M/H settings? average 
tx power is 30w, some go up to 60w - but oh yeah, there's a 5w low power 
setting.  I won't even talk about HF, people can draw their own 
conclusions about LCD compliance based on their own monitoring and 
knowledge of propagation and transmission. 

Having said that, I have always considered the 10w power limit a joke.  
the UK 10w model works well in Europe, but in Australia, it doesn't work 
(10w is nominally less than CB and much less than HF land mobile).  
Introducing the foundation license with 10w at the bottom of the solar 
cycle was just asking for non-compliance from the start.  If they had 
wanted incentive licensing to work properly, they should have permitted 
the full 100w from the start, but restricted HF to the old novice bands, 
80m, 15m and 10m.  This would have provided a useful power limit, 
allowed self regulation (the benefit of a distinctive class callsign) to 
co-exist with human nature (cynical, I know) and yet have a structure in 
place to allow meaningful incentive based licensing to function.  In 
terms of HF, upgrade to standard to get 40m and 20m and to advanced to 
get the WARC bands.

I am a great fan of the foundation license and I am all for incentive 
based licensing - I just think that it needed to be structured in such a 
way that it is meaningful in its function and yet encourage the new 
generation of computer literate ops to fuse their knowledge of computers 
with amateur radio.

So that's another $0.02 in the pot - not that 2c will buy anything..... 
nor do "Monday's experts" contribute much more.......

Personally, I'm waiting to hear about revised reciprocal licensing from 
ACMA.  In preparation for some traveling, I checked out licensing in 
various countries.  Neither the UK (which has essentially the same 
licensing structure as we do) or Hong Kong would give me operating 
privileges with my standard license.  The one country amongst those that 
I asked that will, is wait for it...........the People's Republic of 
China!  Go figure...

73 DE ED VK2VEL

Adam Carmichael wrote:
> I agree with the ACMA's decision (and this may come as a surprise as I'm 
> an F-call!).
>
> Playing with the more fun modes of digital land would probably take away 
> a lot of the incentive to upgrade. And more to the point, why make a 
> simple thing like the Foundation license more complicated.
>
> I have my own opinion on the Foundation course: it has proven itself 
> successful for a weekend course, but it's a very packed weekend 
> especially for those with very little electronics background. It doesn't 
> need to be further complicated. That's what license classes are made for.
>
> Pushing for 10W power for all currently permitted modes makes more sense 
> to me given a lot of portables come out of the box at 2W over their 
> owner's permitted power levels unless they're crippled to under their 
> permitted power output (which is fine for repeater users like us I can 
> hit paddo at 1W from the VK2BV QTH with almost any rubber duck I've 
> tried on a VX7).
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adam
>
> 73 VK2FNRD.
>
> vk2sob at box701.com wrote:
>   
>>> Believing it desirable that Foundation licensees embrace the new the modes 
>>> with the emergence of digital technologies, the WIA has sought 
>>> clarification fro the ACMA, requesting a number of changes to the 
>>> Foundation conditions.
>>>
>>> Schedule 3A of the Amateur Licence Conditions defines the modes that may 
>>> be used by Foundation licensees, and does not include the appropriate 
>>> emission mode designator for digital voice modes such as D-Star. D-Star 
>>> requires the callsign to be embedded in the transmission stream to use a 
>>> voice mode.
>>>
>>> The WIA formed the view that requiring the callsign to be embedded to 
>>> enable voice communication essentially no different from other permitted 
>>> voice modes was not a difference the should exclude Foundation licensees 
>>> from using these new modes, and did not change the character of the 
>>> licence as an entry-level licence. Accordingly, the WIA approached the 
>>> ACMA seeking a further amendment to the LCD to permit such use.
>>>
>>> The WIA argued that as the Foundation licensee can only use a transmitter 
>>> that has “been manufactured commercially” the programming of the necessary 
>>> identification is no more difficult a task than programming a mobile 
>>> phone, and that the additional information required for qualification was 
>>> minimal.
>>>
>>> The WIA proposed the addition of an appropriate emission mode designator 
>>> for Foundation licensees in the 144.000 to 148.000 MHz and 430 to 450 MHz 
>>> bands, with the additional provision in paragraph 29 of the LCD to permit, 
>>> if the emission mode was digital voice, any data necessary to enable the 
>>> use of the voice mode.
>>>
>>> ACMA has now responded to the WIA’s approach, rejecting the proposal.
>>>
>>> ACMA argues that the entry-level licence is meant to be easy to obtain, 
>>> the amendment proposed to permit digital voice mode “would require 
>>> expansion of the current syllabus and add a level of complexity to the 
>>> qualification.”
>>>
>>> http://www.wia.org.au/news/2007/20071021-01.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ACMA also contends that adding digital voice modes would erode the 
>>> difference between the Foundation and the other higher levels of licence, 
>>> and that the digital voice mode would require the transmission of digital 
>>> data, incompatible with the Foundation licence and finally, a further 
>>> amendment as requested would create further delay in the implementation of 
>>> the outcomes announced 2003.
>>>
>>> The WIA is surprised by the response from ACMA.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there will be no amendment at this time to Schedule 3A of 
>>> the LCD to permit digital voice modes by Foundation licensees.
>>>
>>> Wireless Institute of Australia -  http://www.wia.org.au
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at us.cactii.net
>> http://us.cactii.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>>     
>
>
>   