Julian G4ILO wrote:
bands permitted in the destination country. There is nothing to stop
anyone constructing a transmitter that can transmit on any frequency,
therefore it is illogical to restrict a kit simply because the design
has the capability to do so.
But, on my reading of admittedly confusing wording [A], that is what the
UK amateur radio licence does do so for use by Foundation licensees. It
doesn't, in itself, restrict possession [B], or construction.
Whilst constructing a transceiver probably isn't illegal for an
unlicensed user, there are many things that require relatively limited
technology (firearms, drugs) that are illegal even to produce without a
licence, that may have very limited issue.
Such restrictions interfere with the ability of operators who wish to
take their radios abroad to operate in countries where different
Only full licence holders can do this without getting an independent
licence from the foreign country.
limits apply. They also restrict the ability to use radios to generate
low levels of RF on other frequencies for test purposes, e.g. as a
stable signal generator.
Of course, where countries impose import restrictions on built
equipment that require such restrictions there is nothing that can be
done about it. But why enforce limitations where they are not
Whilst one would need to consult a lawyer to be sure of the actual legal
position, which may well have a loop hole, I don't think the amateur
radio kit exemption to the CE marking rule was ever intended to cover
the K3 case. It was intended to cover the case where actual compliance
is, to a significant extent, dependent on the builder. One of the K3
kit's selling points is that this is not the case. I think it also
exists because the self training element of amateur radio is considered
desirable, and learning the ability to create something compliant from
parts which are not intrinsically compliant is part of that self
training. Being able to assemble an Ikea book case doesn't really make
you a trainee cabinet maker.
If there is a loop hole, it is better that Elecraft not exploit it
because exploited loopholes generally get closed in the next round of
legislation after the legislators become aware of them.
required? Back when I was first licensed, analogue VFOs were not able
to be strictly confined within the licensed band, and operators were
expected to use a crystal calibrator to ensure that they stayed within
Back when you were first licensed, there was no Foundation licence.
[A] The current licence restricts kits constructed by Foundation users
to those which "satisfy" the interface definition for amateur radio
equipment for CE marking purposes. As that definition is just a
schedule of frequencies, etc., like that in the back of the licence, not
a statement of requirements, one has to try and work out what the,
presumably junior, drafter actually intended.
Especially if one considers earlier versions of the licence, which don't
rely on references to external documents, I believe that the intent is
that the only allowed kits for that class of licence are those which are
designed to be incapable of operating outside the parameters in the
interface definition.
The 2003 version of the Foundation Licence
<http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/publication/ra_info/br68f/br68f.htm>uses
the following wording, which clearly indicates the kit must be designed
for amateur bands only use:
4(1) The Licensee shall only use transmitting equipment conforming
to EC standards *or commercially available kits transmitting
inside amateur bands only*.
(I believe there is a legal principle that every word counts, so the
"inside amateur bands only" must refer to the kits, not the operation,
as that restriction is imposed on operation elsewhere in the licence
(2(1)a).)
I believe the "satisfy IR 2028" part of the current licence is an
attempt by someone at a more formal definition of the amateur bands only
requirement.
[B] I think the Wireless Telegraphy Act may restrict possession with
intent to use, but I doubt that many cases are brought - if they are it
is probably more likely for radar detectors, or when some other
equipment was proven to be used illegally. (See
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/acts/en2003/03en21-h.htm> for an indirect
reference.) One presumes that the intent being to do so only after
upgrading the licence would be a valid defence.
I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
