Trevor M5AKA

A New BR-68 ?

Rumours that the Amateur Radio licensing document BR-68 was going to be re-written have been circulating for a couple of years now but so far nothing has emerged from Ofcom.

The existing documents are a mess, they are unclear as they are not written in plain English and they are out of date.

For a new Foundation holder to fully understand what they can and cannot do they not only need to read BR-68F but also BR-68I and BR-68 plus all the Notices of Variation.

To take a case in point, Foundation holders are currently not allowed to use the Amateur Satellite Service despite the fact that they are allocated the satellite frequencies, but nowhere in BR-68F does it say this.

The only way to find this out is by reading BR-68F in conjunction with BR-68 you will then spot that the Amateur Satellite Service has a completely separate column in the frequency table in BR-68 that is not present in BR-68F.

But it gets worse because in reality Foundation licence holders are actually allowed part of the Amateur Satellite Service. Just over 2 years ago Ofcom agreed that Foundation holders could have QSO’s with Astronauts who are regulated under the Amateur Satellite Service but to date Ofcom have not published this in BR-68F or a Notice of Variation. The only mention you’ll find of it in print is if you look in the Newcomers Column of the February 2004 RadCom. There the column editor reports that he had spoken to an Ofcom official who told him this change had taken place, a strange way to document changes to the licence.

A recent Intermediate Exam paper contained the following question:

A Temporary Location may be identified during transmissions by reference to the address or other geographical description correct to within
A. 1 km
B. 3 km
C. 5 km
D. 10 km

Do you know the right answer? I certainly didn’t!! You have to make sure you read all the footnotes in the licence document. If you do you’ll see the correct answer is A. 1 km. Look in BR68i, under the section on /P identifiers there is reference to 5 km but then look at (v) in the subsection at the end of BR68i where it states 1 km.

We urgently need the licence document to be brought up to date, to incorporate all the Notices of Variation for the last 4 years and for it to be written in clear Plain English. Ofcom should at the same time give consideration to simplifying the three BR-68’s and some of the restrictions they impose on the Amateur Radio Services.

Do We Need Three Variants of BR-68 ?

It has never been clear to me why we needed three separate BR-68’s in the first place. It would be far better if there were a single BR-68 document, which clearly gave the privileges allocated to each grade of licence.

Do We Need A Mandatory Logging Requirement?

Now I’m sure this radical thought will upset up lot of people but does the requirement to log each transmission need to be mandatory?

How many Amateurs do you know who have had their logbook inspected by an Ofcom official in the last 5 years?
I certainly don’t know of any.

Now I believe that a well-kept logbook can be invaluable to a Radio Amateur and that how to log should continue to be taught as part of the Foundation licence. If, however, an Amateur chooses not to log some or all of their contacts then that should be up to them.

It could be said that Ofcom officials may use the logbook when investigating cases of interference to the neighbour's TV/Radio, but what happens in practice is that the Ofcom official will fully check out the transmitting equipment rather than rely on what the logbook may or may not say.

Ofcom are currently introducing a new Automated Nationwide Direction Finding system produced by QinetiQ. This will enable them to pinpoint the location of any transmission made anywhere in the UK. If an Amateur is inadvertently causing interference to a protected service Ofcom will be able to find out exactly where the transmission is coming from and can immediate act to remedy it. Logbooks will not even enter into the matter.

The bottom line is that if Ofcom do not use the information contained in the logbook then there is no valid regulatory reason in making it mandatory to keep one.

Do We Need Separate NoV’s for Internet Linking?

Currently in-order to run an Internet Gateway you need to apply and pay for a separate NoV. Now this may be sensible for unattended operation on co-ordinated frequencies in shared bands but do we really need this for attended operation? If I wish to set up an Echolink Node for use at a Scout Camp for a few hours should I really need to go through all the bureaucracy of applying for an NoV?

The need for NoV’s in this area acts as a deterrent to experimentation.

Why are Foundation Holders Denied Access to Amateur Satellites?

Why are Foundation Holders allowed to transmit on frequencies allocated to the Amateur Satellite Service but banned from actually using any Amateur Satellites? It makes no sense.

There is no reason to treat Amateur Satellites any differently from terrestrial repeaters.

What Do You Think?

What are your views on the current BR-68 documents, how could they be improved?

73 Trevor M5AKA

Latest news stories..

• Get our news headlines for your website • Submit your news story

Plain English - totally agree.
BR68, Three Variants - No but a clear, concise delineation of privileges within a revised document.
Logging - Part of the purpose of Amateur radio is the self training in communications. Part of any "training" should include the discipline of documentation, in short keep logging as is.
Seperate NOV's for Internet linking - Maybe not but some form of control otherwise I see allsorts of problems with co-channel interference.
Foundation Holders and Satellites - I do trust you are playing Devil's Advocate here Trevor? You only have to listen to some of the full licence holders using terrestrial repeaters to realise that perhaps training / knowledge in this area is sadly lacking!
I know of one M3 whose answer to working through the ISS cross band repeater was to lock the PTT down and shout until heard.