<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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). </p>
<p>In summary, I guess what I'm saying is just because its built and
operated by a University does <i>not</i> automatically mean that
Amateur Radio is appropriate.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Contributing to this matter are the recent WRC-15 decisions:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.arrl.org/news/iaru-revises-satellite-coordination-guidelines-to-align-with-wrc-15-decisions#.Wk42ARX5h9w.email">http://www.arrl.org/news/iaru-revises-satellite-coordination-guidelines-to-align-with-wrc-15-decisions#.Wk42ARX5h9w.email</a><br>
</p>
<p>“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. <b>“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</b>.” [emphasis added]</p>
<p>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."<br>
</p>
<p>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!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>So to me, it looks like IARU has made it <i>easier</i> to get
coordinated under Amateur rules where education is a top goal of
the mission, while making it <i>harder</i> 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?').</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the feedback, more is welcome and appreciated!<br>
</p>
<p>-Zach<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">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</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/11/2018 12:04 PM, Bruce Perens
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOvd_6DYVv6BoqG1GqeHU2s3RLvt0pXoZY=QsSP1YtZ2sg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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. <br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks<br>
<br>
</div>
<div> Bruce<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Zach
Leffke via Ground-Station <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:ground-station@lists.openresearch.institute"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ground-station@lists.openresearch.institute</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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, <i>and</i> 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).<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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):</p>
<p>§97.113 Prohibited transmissions. <br>
(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: <br>
(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. <br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>Almost done.....a few remaining items for the proposed
scenario.</p>
<p>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.).<br>
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).<br>
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).</p>
<p>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). <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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). <br>
</p>
<p>If someone can point out to me any fallacies in my
logic, I would be very appreciative.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Very Sincerely and Respectfully,<br>
</p>
<p>Zach, KJ4QLP<br>
</p>
<pre class="m_-8976559131298973203moz-signature" cols="72">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</pre>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div class="m_-8976559131298973203moz-cite-prefix">On
4/11/2018 1:45 AM, Bruce Perens via Ground-Station
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 10:41 PM Paul
Williamson <<a
href="mailto:paul@mustbeart.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">paul@mustbeart.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> -Paul</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 10, 2018
at 5:22 PM, Bruce Perens via Ground-Station
<span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:ground-station@lists.openresearch.institute"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ground-station@lists.<wbr>openresearch.institute</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<h1
class="m_-8976559131298973203m_288953632736640678m_3190698006169485423entry-title"
style="box-sizing:inherit;font-size:1.625rem;margin:0px 0px
0.25em;clear:both;line-height:1.4;padding:0px;font-weight:300">Paid
Ground-Station Control Operators and
Amateur Sattelites</h1>
<div
class="m_-8976559131298973203m_288953632736640678m_3190698006169485423entry-content">
<p
style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px
0px 1.5em;padding:0px">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.</p>
<p
style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px
0px 1.5em;padding:0px">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:</p>
<p
style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px
0px 1.5em;padding:0px">The issue
regarding paid operators is due to
the definition of the amateur radio
service as defined by the ITU.</p>
<p
style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px
0px 1.5em;padding:0px">ARTICLE 1
Terms and definitions</p>
<ul
style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px
0px
1.5em;padding:0px;list-style:disc">
<li style="box-sizing:inherit">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.</li>
<li style="box-sizing:inherit">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.</li>
<li style="box-sizing:inherit">No.
1.96 amateur station: A station in
the amateur service.</li>
</ul>
<p
style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px
0px 1.5em;padding:0px">The same
definition is used by the FCC: <a
href="https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radio-service"
rel="noopener noreferrer"
style="box-sizing:inherit;background-color:transparent;color:rgb(34,34,34);text-decoration:none"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.fcc.gov/<wbr>wireless/bureau-divisions/<wbr>mobility-division/amateur-<wbr>radio-service</a></p>
<p
style="box-sizing:inherit;margin:0px
0px 1.5em;padding:0px">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.</p>
<div style="box-sizing:inherit"> 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.</div>
<div style="box-sizing:inherit">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.</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ground-Station mailing list<br>
<a
class="m_-8976559131298973203moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Ground-Station@lists.openresearch.institute"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Ground-Station@lists.<wbr>openresearch.institute</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.openresearch.<wbr>institute/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>ground-station</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_-8976559131298973203mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Ground-Station mailing list
<a class="m_-8976559131298973203moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ground-Station@lists.openresearch.institute" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Ground-Station@lists.<wbr>openresearch.institute</a>
<a class="m_-8976559131298973203moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.openresearch.<wbr>institute/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>ground-station</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ground-Station mailing list<br>
Ground-Station@lists.<wbr>openresearch.institute<br>
<a
href="http://lists.openresearch.institute/mailman/listinfo/ground-station"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.openresearch.<wbr>institute/mailman/listinfo/<wbr>ground-station</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>