[Ground-station] Paid personnel as operators or license grantees of Amateur Satellites
Zach Leffke
zleffke at vt.edu
Wed Apr 11 10:19:44 PDT 2018
Totally agree that not ALL cubesats should be Amateur licensed,
particularly military research, and commercial research, and some of the
'pure fundamental research.' We have a handful of missions underway at
VT/Hume that are distinctly NOT appropriate for the Amateur bands (US
Gov and Defense Contractor related). ITAR is a factor as well, while
most cubesats and cubesat related technology are no longer on the
munitions list (EAR instead), there are a number of factors that could
cause a cubesat to be restricted under the ITAR (for example, if the
cubesat is at all classified, if it is conducting a SIGINT mission, if
it has laser weapons on board, etc......it is controlled under ITAR).
While not specifically related to the 'pecuniary interest' parts of
Amateur Regulations, to me it seems pretty obvious, if you are doing
hardcore funded research for the gov't and your cubesat is ITAR (or
higher), Amateur Radio (either under Part 97 or Part 5) is probably not
the way to go.
That being said, the students we put to work on those kinds of missions
may have 'cut their teeth' so to speak and learned the fundamentals of
the technology working on missions that I think could fit with the
Amateur Service (Like the VCC scenario I presented).
In summary, I guess what I'm saying is just because its built and
operated by a University does /not/ automatically mean that Amateur
Radio is appropriate.
Contributing to this matter are the recent WRC-15 decisions:
http://www.arrl.org/news/iaru-revises-satellite-coordination-guidelines-to-align-with-wrc-15-decisions#.Wk42ARX5h9w.email
“The strong preference is for all satellites using spectrum allocated to
the Amateur and Amateur-Satellite services to operate under amateur
licenses and within the definition of the Amateur-Satellite service and
the service-specific Article 25 of the Radio Regulations,” IARU said in
announcing the change. *“The IARU believes the definition is
sufficiently broad to encompass nearly all educational satellite
projects that include giving students hands-on experience with
radiocommunication and are conducted under an amateur license*.”
[emphasis added]
Also this...."It will only coordinate a non-amateur satellite if an
administration directs in writing that it be operated in an
Amateur-Satellite band under an experimental or other non-amateur license."
Basically, my simplified understanding of whats going on, is that IARU
will continue to coordinate Amateur and Experimental Licenses in Amateur
Spectrum, but they prefer everything in the Ham bands to operate under
Amateur Radio licensing (Part 97 for US), and they've made it slightly
harder to get an experimental coordination by not doing it unless
'directed to in writing by the administration.' Basically, I see this
as a diplomatic, but bureaucratic move.........FCC requires a letter of
coordination from IARU before they will provide an Experimental
license.....but now IARU requires something in writing 'from the
administration' (who I'm guessing is FCC) before they will coordinate
and provide the letter.........how do you get the FCC to write a letter
to the IARU if you don't already have a license because they require a
letter before they grant a license...........Chicken vs Egg Tactics!
Despite this, IARU seems to have widened the scope of an 'acceptable
Amateur satellite.' Before I though the satellite had to provide a
service (more than a beacon, like say a digipeater, or voice
transmponder). According to their wording as long as it gives students
'hands-on experience with radiocommunication' that is sufficient
criteria for Amateur Licensing, and they will provide a letter of
coordination.
So to me, it looks like IARU has made it /easier/ to get coordinated
under Amateur rules where education is a top goal of the mission, while
making it /harder/ to get an Experimental license. In that case the
burden I believe is on the University (PI) to determine whether their
mission really is for educational reasons or is for
science/military/commercial/etc......and then pursue the appropriate
type of license. The problem is, most PIs aren't Hams, and they aren't
down in the weeds on these issues, thus resulting in more reactionary
actions that muddy the waters ('oh ok, I'll just get an experimental
license, and not change out of the ham bands.....should be easy right?').
Finally, definitely agree that the 'pecuniary interest' parts could use
some clarification as well as the 'educational' parts. The terminology
is specific to 'teachers', but what about our graduate students. They
are operating under Graduate Research Assistant (GRAs) and are getting
paid for their work. No grad student has ever claimed to make 'big
bucks' as a student, and I think the money would be considered
'incidental' to their educational/research goals. Same goes for a
number of other educational, not necessarily satellite related, projects
like high altitude balloons and such.
Thanks for the feedback, more is welcome and appreciated!
-Zach
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 12:04 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <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
>> <mailto:Ground-Station at lists.openresearch.institute>
>> http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station
>> <http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ground-Station mailing list
>> Ground-Station at lists.openresearch.institute
>> <mailto:Ground-Station at lists.openresearch.institute>
>> http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station
>> <http://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
> <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/20180411/71108e01/attachment.html>
More information about the Ground-Station
mailing list