[Ground-station] Paid personnel as operators or license grantees of Amateur Satellites

[Bruce Perens]

This is a difficult issue. As I've commented to FCC, Part 97 doesn't
adequately state Amateur Radio's educational mission. However, some
University cubesats don't really belong in Amateur spectrum.

First of all, some are performing military research and while I doubt they
have been Amateur licensed, to do so would endanger the acceptance of the
Amateur service by foreign governments. This will result in their failure
to license their local people, and difficulty for dxpeditions. And then we
have the University cubesats that are Amateur licensed and do little with
the Amateur world but put up a beacon. Do they really belong in the Amateur
service?

Every University has a pecuniary interest in its own operation, whether or
not it is a non-profit organization. The one here in Berkeley costs over
$50,000 per year for in-state students and about $75,000 for out-of-state
ones, with tuition and other fees. Their non-profit status is a joke and
they operate mainly to educate the most economically fortunate. I lectured
on Open Source at the law school, Boalt Hall, last month. On campus it is
very clear that you are among an elite group.

However, one would think that satellite operation might require a higher
degree of diligence than we can legitimately expect of volunteer staff, and
thus I wonder what the problem of having them on salary is.

I think ultimately the definition of pecuniary interest should get some
work, and should be coupled with a requirement that the satellite is of
benefit to Amateur Radio.

There is no such effort going on as far as I am aware. If you want to get
changes in ITU regulations, that can be a 20-year effort (I've been there
with no-code). I'd support such an effort.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Zach Leffke via Ground-Station <
ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:

> I apologize in advance for the length of this email.  Also, I apreciate
> those that take the time to read it and would greatly appreciate feedback
> on my proposed scenario and the opinions of those on the list concerning it.
>
>
> This is a topic I'm acutely interested in as I am a member of research
> faculty at Virginia Tech and run our (mostly Amateur Radio) satellite
> ground station.  For the record, so far everything we've been up to is
> receive only operations.  Additionally, the current cubesats underway at VT
> all have Experimental licensing (despite my vigorous, though failed,
> attempts to convince the powers that be to go the Amateur route).  But for
> the rest of this email, lets ignore that fact, and assume that we were
> doing things under the Amateur Satellite Service.
>
> Also, one of my personal goals is to somehow, someday prove to the
> University cubesat community that the concept of 'Amateur vs Scientific'
> doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, and that University built cubesats
> can be Amateur Radio related, provide a service to Hams, educate students,
> *and* conduct science that a non-ham PI might care about.  I believe this
> is in keeping with the spirit of Amateur Radio and pushing the limits of
> science through experimentation (granted there are very specific details to
> pay attention to with this, like how the experimentation should advance the
> state of the art of radio.....not just collect a bunch of science data
> about the sun or whatever).
>
> Since I was an undergrad (summer 2011), doing a summer internship (first
> time I got paid for research!) related to the prototype of our current
> system (again RX only at the time), I've been concerned about this.  Let me
> pose a specific, though currently hypothetical scenario, and I would love
> the opinions of those on the list concerning this.
>
> One of the exceptions Paul mentioned is an educational exemption.  Here is
> the legalese excerpt from 47 CFR Part 97 (hint search for the term
> 'educational', there is only 1 instance of this in the document, some
> emphasis added, but the words are verbatim):
>
> §97.113 Prohibited transmissions.
> (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a
> *pecuniary interest*, including communications on behalf of an employer,
> with the following exceptions:
> (iii) A control operator may accept compensation as an incident of a
> teaching position during periods of time when an amateur station is used by
> that teacher as a part of classroom instruction at an educational
> institution.
>
> OK, so that's the specific legalese concerning 'educational exemptions.'
> We currently have a cubesat mission we are calling the Virginia Cubesat
> Constellation (VCC).  Three 1Us, each built by a VA University (VT, UVA,
> ODU).  The mission is funded through an Undergraduate STEM initiative from
> NASA (so technically, federally owned).  The number 1 stated goal of the
> mission (literally the purpose of the existence of the project) is to get
> students 'hands on education in the design, construction, and operation of
> spacecraft.'  Operation of the cubesat involves radio communication.  These
> satellites are currently getting licensed under the Experimental service,
> and will operate outside of the Amateur Satellite Service (401 MHz
> satellite band).  However, originally, they were planning for 435 MHz band,
> and they were planning a crosslink to measure pseudorange between the three
> birds.  Befoe the change, I was pushing heavily for Amateur licensing, and
> for the team to open up use of the crosslink on weekends for 'multi-hop'
> comms to the Amateur Community.  So for the proposed scenario, lets say
> they had gone this route and the satellites were licensed in the Amateur
> Satellite Service.
>
> Almost done.....a few remaining items for the proposed scenario.
>
> 1.  Most of the students involved in the institutions are receiving class
> credit for their involvement in the project (some getting 'Senior Design
> Project' credit, some getting undergraduate research credit, some getting
> credit in the courses that rolled this project into their lab requirements,
> etc.).
> 2.  It is my goal to one day train up a corps of (amateur licensed)
> student operators that run the day to day operations of the VTGS, that I
> would oversee.  Communications would be under the Amateur Radio Service,
> hopefully using a 'Space Communications Club' callsign that I would be the
> trustee of (so ultimately, I bear the responsibility, with my license on
> the line).
> 3.  I am not a member of teaching faculty.  However, I consider all of my
> work with students as a form of teaching ('hands on, minds on' principles
> of VT education), though I tend to think of it more as training (harkens
> back to my USMC days, its like training junior Marines on how to operate a
> SatCom terminal and practical engineering principles behind ground station
> design and implementation).
>
> So in my opinion, my compensation would be incidental to a teaching
> position (#3), during periods of time (during on orbit operation, each
> pass) when an Amateur Station (#2, the club station, aka the VTGS) is used
> by that teacher (or students under the club call, so ultimately me), as
> part of classroom education (#1, the students are receiving course credit).
>
>
> To me that all seems to be a legitimate use of the Amateur Radio Service.
> My compensation for operation of the station meets the exemption criteria
> in my opinion.  More to the point, I'm not in this game for the money, the
> money is incidental.  I'm in this game to teach people about SatCom, Space,
> Amateur Radio, etc.  All things that align directly with VT principles (Ut
> Prosim!) and the Charter of the Hume Center and 'preparing the next
> generation of National Security leaders....' (space communications are a
> key part of our National Security, and using Amateur Radio to teach the
> fundamentals just seems to make sense to me).
>
> On a larger scale, many organizations seem to be aligned in their goals,
> but the 'legalese' seems to get in the way.  NASA has STEM goals, Amateur
> Radio is highly STEM oriented, ONR, AFRL, ARO, etc. all have STEM Goals,
> NSF has STEM goals, AMSAT has the words 'education' in their Charter, ARISS
> is educationally aligned.
>
> It seems silly to me that I would be considered to be 'breaking the law'
> if I ran an ARISS contact (involving AMSAT, NASA, VT, etc.) using the VTGS,
> during working hours (I'm salary, so time of day doesn't really matter).
>
> If someone can point out to me any fallacies in my logic, I would be very
> appreciative.
>
>
> Very Sincerely and Respectfully,
>
> Zach, KJ4QLP
>
> Research Associate
> Aerospace Systems Lab
> Ted & Karyn Hume Center for National Security & Technology
> Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
> Work Phone: 540-231-4174
> Cell Phone: 540-808-6305
>
> On 4/11/2018 1:45 AM, Bruce Perens via Ground-Station wrote:
>
> I asked ARRL what their position was, through my director a few days ago.
> So far, they don't see a need to change the rules.
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 10:41 PM Paul Williamson <paul at mustbeart.com> wrote:
>
>> This summary fails to mention that there is a list of four exceptions to
>> the pecuniary interest rule in Part 97.113(3). This suggests that the FCC
>> could grant a further exception for satellite operators if it saw fit to do
>> so, without running afoul of the ITU.
>>
>> One of those exceptions was added in Docket 92-136, which also relaxed
>> the rule prohibiting any "business" communication. My point is simply that
>> rules can be changed, even rules we've come to view as immutable.
>>
>>   -Paul
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Perens via Ground-Station <
>> ground-station at lists.openresearch.institute> wrote:
>>
>>> Paid Ground-Station Control Operators and Amateur Sattelites
>>>
>>> Paid personnel are not allowed to be control operator or license grantee
>>> of Amateur Satellites. In the United States, this means that a paid
>>> employee of the sponsoring organization of the satellite, for example a
>>> professor at the university that has built the satellite, can not be a
>>> control operator or the license grantee.
>>>
>>> I recently corresponded with our IARU Divison 2 representatives
>>> regarding this issue. Thanks to Edson W. R. Pereira PY2SDR and Ray Soifer
>>> W2RS for this information:
>>>
>>> The issue regarding paid operators is due to the definition of the
>>> amateur radio service as defined by the ITU.
>>>
>>> ARTICLE 1 Terms and definitions
>>>
>>>    - No. 1.56 amateur service: A radiocommunication service for the
>>>    purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations
>>>    carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in
>>>    radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
>>>    - No. 1.57 amateur-satellite service: A radiocommunication service
>>>    using space stations on earth satellites for the same purposes as those of
>>>    the amateur service.
>>>    - No. 1.96 amateur station: A station in the amateur service.
>>>
>>> The same definition is used by the FCC: https://www.fcc.gov/
>>> wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service
>>>
>>> The key point here is the term “pecuniary interest” — in otther words,
>>> “without financial compensation”. The definition is related to the
>>> *operation* of an amateur radio station, as you have stated in your
>>> message. Persons, including amateur radio operators, could be financially
>>> compensated to design and build amateur satellites, but according to the
>>> regulations, as they are presently written, the person cannot be
>>> compensated to operate the station.
>>>  If the station will operate under a US FCC amateur license, the control
>>> operator may not be an employee of the sponsoring organization, whether or
>>> not he is being directly compensated for operating the station.  The
>>> license grantee is also deemed to be the operator of the space station
>>> operating under his license.
>>> For those reasons, FCC licenses most Cubesats as experimental, not
>>> amateur.  Experimental licenses do permit operators to be compensated.
>>> However, experimental stations may not communicate with amateur stations.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ground-Station mailing list
>>> Ground-Station at lists.openresearch.institute
>>> http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ground-Station mailing listGround-Station at lists.openresearch.institutehttp://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ground-Station mailing list
> Ground-Station at lists.openresearch.institute
> http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20180411/6fb5078c/attachment.html>