Operation by 'Basic Plus' amateurs in the USA

[g4tut]

Operation by 'Basic Plus' radio amateurs in the USA

Since Industry Canada removed the mandatory requirement for the Morse Qualification for access to the HF bands below 30 MHz, there has been confusion as to whether Canadian radio amateurs with a 'Basic Plus' qualification (without Morse Code) are permitted to use the HF bands in other countries.

A spokesperson for the FCC’s Amateur Radio Division has clarified the situation regarding the Reciprocal Operating Agreement between Canada and the United States:

- A Canadian Basic Plus licensed operator located within the US, US-controlled territories or US territorial waters has the same HF privileges as in Canada, insofar as those privileges do not exceed those granted to US Extra Class amateurs.

A Canadian licensed operator operating within the US or US waters must comply with US regulations for the Amateur Radio Service. Their operating privileges can be no more than those of a US Extra Class Amateur.

This means that Canadian radio amateurs in the US cannot, for example, use SSB below 7150 KHz on the 40 meter band, as they are able to do in Canada or in international waters.
Industry Canada has confirmed that this statement is consistent with IC’s understanding of the reciprocal operating treaty between Canada and the US.

The situation in other countries varies from country to country. Many countries have still retained the Morse requirement for HF, and some countries continue to require a Morse qualification for HF operation by radio amateurs visiting from other countries.

Basic Plus operators planning to visit countries other than the US and wishing to operate on HF while travelling should contact the regulatory authorities in those countries before leaving Canada


Daily Amateur Radio RSS News Service:
http://www.southgatearc.org/

Add News Service to your Website: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm
Add News Service to your PC: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/newsreader.htm
Upload Your News Items: http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm

[KC8VWM]

A Canadian licensed operator operating within the US or US waters must comply with US regulations for the Amateur Radio Service.

------------

In addition if you hold a license in both countries. Meaning a license from both the FCC in the US and a license issued by IC Canada, then you MUST operate under the license granted to you by that country - when you are physically present in that country.

For example, if you are a US Extra class amateur licensee and you also happen to hold a Canadian Basic qualification at the same time and you travel to Canada, You *must* operate as a "Basic" qualified operator. You cannot operate as a US Extra class licensee under the US/CAN reciprocal agreement because you already hold an amateur radio license in that country.

[KC0UWF]

All I can say is, "Come on USA !! join the no code bandwagon" woohoo

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (KC0UWF @ Dec. 01 2006,12:53)]All I can say is, "Come on USA !! join the no code bandwagon" woohoo
Yes, I hear you: waaa-waaaa

You spelled it wrong, but I'll overlook that.

Ed

[K1VSK]

Here we go again with the no-code crowd. Why not just eliminate all requirements? (rhetorical question)

[kb7uxe]

Yea, yer call sgin should be what ever your initals are followed by the correct number then the last three of your zip code. no papers to file, no fees to pay.. simple. think about the paperwork reduction with the fcc...
wow no more pesky amateur licenses to file...
wait, didn't they do that with CB ? ? ?

[K7JEM]

The USA will soon be in that no-code camp. I can hear that train a-comin.

Seems funny a no code Canadian can come over here and have mostly the same privileges as an extra, yet the FCC can't seem to get off the dime on dropping our code test.

Joe

[kb2vxa]

Oh goody, another code/no code debate!

WOOOO WOOOO WOO WOOOO

That's railroad whistle talk for "Stand aside, the train is coming." or "That's my lump of coal on the fire." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[k5co]

I know a young lady that just graduated from college at Northern Illinois and she studied no math, no English, no Science, no much of everything else. She distinguished herself with a degree in "woman's studies". I believe that is a code word for NO-code. She has no idea of what she'll do for a living. (She could work for the ARRL?)

There you have it; I give up. Let's find all the CBers and give the an extra license. People that are here cheering no-code are empty in everyway. When they end up on HF, they can have it, I am gone.

[K7JEM]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[AC0GT]

Also of note is the CEPT and IARP reciprocal license agreements. Both agreements have two license classes, Class 1 (with Morse code) and Class 2 (without Morse code). Under those agreements a Technician falls under Class 2, and Technician with Morse code credit (along with General, Advanced, and Extra) falls under Class 1. I am not aware of any IARP countries that have dropped the Morse code testing requirement except Canada so I'll focus on CEPT even though it should apply to many similar IARP situations.

In CEPT countries that have dropped the Morse code testing requirement a Technician may operate with all the privileges afforded to Amateurs, which is similar to our Extra class license, since they no longer differentiate between CEPT Class 1 and CEPT Class 2 licenses. In many of these countries there is an entry license class which is not afforded CEPT reciprocal license privileges, much like how our Novice class is not recognized by IARP or CEPT.

While a Canadian Basic Plus operator may operate on HF in the USA it seems that an American Technician operator may operate on HF in Canada. Both the USA and Canada accept the CEPT and IARP reciprocal agreements. I'm no lawyer but it looks like even if a Technician is not granted HF privileges automatically under the USA/Canada reciprocal agreements all it would take is a Technician to bring a few printouts from the ARRL website to allow HF operation under CEPT while in Canada.

This situation exists in all CEPT countries that have dropped Morse code testing. It will continue until the FCC either changes its reciprocal license agreements (unlikely), or drops the Morse code testing for Amateurs (inevitable).

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Dec. 01 2006,16:10)]A Canadian licensed operator operating within the US or US waters must comply with US regulations for the Amateur Radio Service.

------------

In addition if you hold a license in both countries. Meaning a license from both the FCC in the US and a license issued by IC Canada, then you MUST operate under the license granted to you by that country - when you are physically present in that country.

For example, if you are a US Extra class amateur licensee and you also happen to hold a Canadian Basic qualification at the same time and you travel to Canada, You *must* operate as a "Basic" qualified operator. You cannot operate as a US Extra class licensee under the US/CAN reciprocal agreement because you already hold an amateur radio license in that country.
Also, if you are a citizen of the USA you must have a FCC license to operate here. A Canadian license would only allow you to operate in Canada in that case. I believe the opposite is also true, if you are a Canadian citizen then you cannot operate in Canada with a USA license.

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 02 2006,09:53)]Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Wny not- more fresh air out there

[N2MMM]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Dec. 02 2006,08:59)]Oh goody, another code/no code debate!

WOOOO WOOOO WOO WOOOO

That's railroad whistle talk for "Stand aside, the train is coming." or "That's my lump of coal on the fire." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Actually, -- -- - -- (WOOOO WOOOO WOO WOOOO) is covered under Rule 14L of the General Code of (Railroad) Operating Rules (GCOR). It means "Approaching a Highway Crossing at Grade". As for the implications of the 14L signal in this case, Read my signature. Read it and weep.

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (N2MMM @ Dec. 02 2006,11:40)]Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Dec. 02 2006,08:59)]Oh goody, another code/no code debate!

WOOOO WOOOO WOO WOOOO

That's railroad whistle talk for "Stand aside, the train is coming." or "That's my lump of coal on the fire." :p
Actually, -- -- - -- (WOOOO WOOOO WOO WOOOO) is covered under Rule 14L of the General Code of (Railroad) Operating Rules (GCOR). It means "Approaching a Highway Crossing at Grade". As for the implications of the 14L signal in this case, Read my signature. Read it and weep.
And waaaaaa waaaaaa waaa waaaaaa is the sound of the "Gimme Train" approaching. Hot diggity!

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 02 2006,10:13)]While a Canadian Basic Plus operator may operate on HF in the USA it seems that an American Technician operator may operate on HF in Canada. Both the USA and Canada accept the CEPT and IARP reciprocal agreements. I'm no lawyer but it looks like even if a Technician is not granted HF privileges automatically under the USA/Canada reciprocal agreements all it would take is a Technician to bring a few printouts from the ARRL website to allow HF operation under CEPT while in Canada.

Not true. A US ham (or any non-Canadian ham) must have passed a Morse test before having HF privileges in Canada. See sections 3.1.2 and Schedule 1 in:

Canadian ham regulations (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf01226e.html)

The Canadian Basic qualification does not provide any HF privileges, just the VHF/UHF bands and beyond. For US hams, this means any ham except a codeless Technician licensee gets full Canadian privileges, and the codeless Technicians get 6m and above with other restrictions (lower power output limit, can't use homebrew transmitters or amplifiers up there, etc.).

73!


Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (wd9ewk @ Dec. 03 2006,10:13)]The Canadian Basic qualification does not provide any HF privileges, just the VHF/UHF bands and beyond.
Not completly true.

The difference lies in the Basic test.

70-80% you have vhf/uhf only

80% or more you have all bands (hf too)

Less then 70% you fail and have to retake the test.

I someone has between 70-80% they have three options.

1. The Basic test can be retaken to try and achive more then 80%.

2. The morse code 5wpm can be taken

3. The Advance test can be taken.

All of those would result in hf privlages.

Edit:
Here's the rules-

1.3-1.4 (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf01636e.html#gen13)

[w8znx]

Quote[/b] (KC0UWF @ Dec. 01 2006,12:53)]All I can say is, "Come on USA !! join the no code bandwagon" woohoo
ok il go for it

but
only if we get a national health care program
like Canada

Mac

[AC0GT]

From http://www.rac.ca/regulatory/rcip.htm

Quote[/b] ]US amateurs operating in Canada, must abide by Industry Canada RIC-2

- A US amateur who is qualified to send and receive in Morse code at a speed of at least 5 wpm may operate an amateur station in Canada in accordance with the provisions applicable to the holder of an Amateur Operator's Certificate with Basic, Morse Code (5 wpm) and Advanced Qualifications.
- A US amateur who is not qualified to send and receive in Morse code may operate an amateur station in Canada in accordance with provisions applicable to the holder of the Amateur Operator's Certificate with Basic and Advanced Qualifications.

From http://www.rac.ca/regulatory/country.htm

Quote[/b] ]Operating privileges in Canada for foreign amateurs holding a CEPT licence or IARP

Amateurs who are licensed by other administrations participating in the CEPT or IARP programs must apply for the appropriate permit in accordance with the provisions stipulated by their home administrations.

Holders of a Class 1 CEPT licence will be granted the same operating privileges in Canada as Canadians holding Basic, 5 words per minute Morse, and Advanced Certificates.

Holders of a Class 2 CEPT licence will be granted the same operating privileges in Canada as Canadians holding a Basic and Advanced certificate

Holders of a Class 1 IARP will be granted the same operating privileges in Canada as Canadians holding Basic, 5 words per minute Morse, and Advanced Certificates.

Holders of a Class 2 IARP will be granted the same operating privileges in Canada as Canadians holding a Basic and Advanced certificate

A person holding a Basic and Advanced certificate is allowed to operate on HF, correct? A person holding a FCC Technician or CEPT Class 2 is granted the same operating privileges as Canadians holding a Basic and Advanced certificate, correct? Then a Technician may operate on HF in Canada without first passing a Morse code proficiency test.

[K7JEM]

So a technician operating in Canada has more frequency privileges than an extra operating in the USA.

Weird.

[kp4cat]

Code requirement is falling down, it's #a matter of time.....ooohhhh yeahhh!!!!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K3VR]

The only question I have is this: If VE7KFM visits the United States, can he still use the radio to threaten the US Ambassador; wish Americans roadside bombs; talk to improperly licensed stations; and use obscenities? Industry Canada allows him to do it; does that mean he could do it here too?

"RADIO CANADA"--VE7KFM (http://www.ve7kfm.com)

[W9WHE]

The only thing seperating us from CB is the standards. Take away the standards and we will become CB.

I'm not ready for "roger beeps" and rachet-jawing, overmodulated, echo-boxing profanity. Are you?
Because if we continue to drop the Amateur Radio standards, that is EXACTLY where we are headed. Roger THAT....good buddy?

[K1OU]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 04 2006,08:24)]I'm not ready for "roger beeps" and rachet-jawing, overmodulated, echo-boxing profanity. Are you?
Because if we continue to drop the Amateur Radio standards, that is EXACTLY where we are headed. Roger THAT....good buddy?
Sounds as if you have lots of experience in that realm, Jonathan.


Remember.....with WHE, it's just CB!!!!!

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 04 2006,07:24)]The only thing seperating us from CB is the standards. Take away the standards and we will become CB.

I'm not ready for "roger beeps" and rachet-jawing, overmodulated, echo-boxing profanity. Are you?
Because if we continue to drop the Amateur Radio standards, that is EXACTLY where we are headed. Roger THAT....good buddy?
Funny I have never heard that on the ham bands since the code was dropped.

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ Dec. 03 2006,11:40)]The difference lies in the Basic test.

70-80% you have vhf/uhf only

80% or more you have all bands (hf too)

Less then 70% you fail and have to retake the test.

I someone has between 70-80% they have three options.

1. The Basic test can be retaken to try and achive more then 80%.

2. The morse code 5wpm can be taken

3. The Advance test can be taken.

All of those would result in hf privlages.

That is all correct, provided the US hams take the Canadian exams. Then they would have Canadian licenses (certificates) and calls, and what you posted is relevant.

Until Industry Canada updates the section of the rules related to foreign amateur operators in Canada, the Basic qualification as listed in RIC-2 (the link I originally posted) still limits those without a 5wpm Morse exam to VHF/UHF and beyond along with the other limitations on those without the Advanced qualification. Maybe this is something that will be addressed in Canada soon, or possibly after the FCC releases their decision on the Morse matter.

73!


Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 03 2006,12:46)]A person holding a Basic and Advanced certificate is allowed to operate on HF, correct? A person holding a FCC Technician or CEPT Class 2 is granted the same operating privileges as Canadians holding a Basic and Advanced certificate, correct? Then a Technician may operate on HF in Canada without first passing a Morse code proficiency test.

A Canadian ham with the Basic and Advanced qualifications has HF privileges, as do Canadian hams who passed the Basic exam with an 80% score or better - or those who have had their licenses from 2002 or earlier. A US ham with a Technician (no code) license, or any foreign ham with the old CEPT class 2 licenses, do not get HF privileges, since CEPT class 2 had no Morse requirement.

Only US Technician licensees who passed a Morse exam, or any other US amateur licensee - yes, even Novices - get full privileges in Canada. Just like passing all the exams in Canada, except you won't have a Canadian call. Read this:

Canadian rules specifically for US hams operating in Canada, from RIC-3 (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/en/sf01701e.html#recipprocal5)

for the specifics.

Until the Canadian rules are changed, no matter if the ham has an IARP, CEPT equivalency with their license, or any US ham who can operate in Canada without and IARP or CEPT, it all boils down to this: If you have passed a Morse exam of at least 5wpm, you get full amateur privileges including HF while in Canada. If you have not passed a Morse exam, you are limited to VHF/UHF along with other limitations on your power output and the type of transmitting equipment you may use.

Or make a trip to Canada, write the Basic exam (100 questions, not too hard if you have passed ham exams in the USA) and pass with 80% or better. Then you get HF privileges in Canada along with a Canadian call instead of having to operate as KC0LXK/(Canadian call area indicator) while up there.

73!



Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Dec. 03 2006,17:33)]So a technician operating in Canada has more frequency privileges than an extra operating in the USA.

Weird.
You're correct, if you have passed a 5wpm Morse exam in the US. Canada has tried to simplify the process related to foreign hams who operate up there - VHF/UHF privileges for those who haven't passed a Morse exam (at least 5wpm), full privileges for those who have passed a Morse exam.

With full Canadian privileges, you get access to all bands and you are not subject to the band/mode limitations that are spelled out in FCC Part 97. Remember, in Canada, Part 97 doesn't apply to you since you will be operating under Canadian rules and not US/FCC rules. The Canadian authorities are accepting your ham license, and have decided what it will be equivalent to under their rules.

It's possible that, once FCC makes its decision on the Morse matter, the Canadians might change their rules and eliminate the 5wpm requirement for foreigners wanting access to the HF bands. Or it will cause them to make more changes. I'm not a mind reader, but it makes sense that if FCC-licensed hams get HF privileges without a Morse test in the future, the Canadians will ensure that is also the case up there.

73!



Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[K7JEM]

That clarifies things a lot.

Thanks, Joe

[va3mjw]

sigh

[AC0GT]

Patrick,
You have left me with little doubt that you are correct. It appears that the RAC website is not up to date with the published RIC on reciprocal licensing.

One question though. If a Technician is barred from operating on HF in Canada under the reciprocal agreement with the USA what does that mean for Novices? Novices have passed a 5 WPM Morse code exam and are licensed by the FCC (the two requirements under the reciprocal agreement) so then they are allowed the same privileges as a Canadian with Basic, Morse, and Advanced certificates, correct?

Still, under CEPT reciprocal agreement there is still this oddity over operating privileges. To understand how this came about we need to look into the history of the CEPT agreements.

Sometime around 1990 (I think) the various European countries got together to come up with a simplified means to determine reciprocal Amateur licenses. What came from that is that a Class 2 license which offered operation above 30 MHz, and a Class 1 license with all privileges. The agreement allowed for a single written test requirement and a single Morse code test requirement, at 12 WPM. Each individual country determined what licenses they had met those requirements, or simply adopted the two class system as set under this CEPT agreement.

(I forget what CEPT stands for but the "P" means "postal" and the "T" means "telecommunications". It's the group that sets standards for communications infrastructure between countries.)

The USA and Canada were not bound by CEPT but agreed to accept CEPT licenses and many (all?) European countries agreed to accept FCC and IC licenses under CEPT as well. At that time the 13 WPM Morse code test was required for General and higher license classed so the CEPT agreement meant that Technicians were contained above 30 MHz regardless of what speed Morse code they had successfully tested. The FCC determined that Technician met the requirements for CEPT Class 2, Novice carried no reciprocity, and the others met CEPT Class 1 requirements.

In 1994 the reciprocity agreement was changed so the minimum Morse code speed went from 12 WPM to 5 WPM. By the time the year 2000 came about most, if not all, CEPT countries dropped their Morse code tests to 5WPM as well. That was also the year the FCC and the IC dropped their Morse code testing requirements to 5 WPM. That suddenly put Technicians with Morse code credit at CEPT Class 1 standards.

As we all know the ITU dropped the Morse code requirement from the Amateur radio rules in 2003. Now, in 2006, half of the CEPT countries have dropped Morse code from their CEPT Class 1 equivalents. That puts Technicians, with or without Morse code credit, at CEPT Class 1 standards in many countries.

These oddities in reciprocal license agreements is just one of thousands of reasons we need Amateur radio licensing reform here in the USA. I am certain that once the dust settles on the Morse code testing NPRM that the FCC will find itself inundated with proposals for other changes to the license structure. I also think that the Technician and General license classes will join Novice and Advanced in the "grandfathered" category in less than five years.

[KC8VWM]

Quote[/b] (wd9ewk @ Dec. 04 2006,11:47)]Or make a trip to Canada, write the Basic exam (100 questions, not too hard if you have passed ham exams in the USA) and pass with 80% or better. #Then you get HF privileges in Canada along with a Canadian call instead of having to operate as KC0LXK/(Canadian call area indicator) while up there. #

73!



Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
.I agree with most everything you said but you should probably clarify that in order for a US citizen to obtain a Canadian issued amateur radio license you must have a physical station address in Canada.

Visiting US amateurs cannot just simply visit Canada and write the test while they are there.

Otherwise you have presented some very good information.

73 DE Charles - KC8VWM

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (kc8vwm @ Dec. 05 2006,07:19)]I agree with most everything you said but you should probably clarify that in order for a US citizen to obtain a Canadian issued amateur radio license you must have a physical station address in Canada.

Visiting US amateurs cannot just simply visit Canada and write the test while they are there.

Otherwise you have presented some very good information.
Thanks for the comments. Industry Canada, unlike the FCC, allows hams to have mailing addresses that are not the same as the station addresses stored in their database:

Canadian callsign database (http://www.rac.ca/callbook/)

Until last summer, the mailing addresses were stored in the database. Now the station addresses are, and the mailing addresses are stored somewhere else at Industry Canada. Try VA7EWK on that link above or here on QRZ.com, and you will see an asterisk before the street address for that call. That appears to be the indicator that the call has a separate mailing address on file.

As long as you have a station address in Canada - it can even be a hotel or motel - then you can simply visit Canada and write the exams. I did that in 2002 (Basic and Morse) and 2003 (Advanced), on trips to Vancouver. Just find an "Accredited Examiner" (like the Volunteer Examiners in the US, except you only need to have one examiner in Canada give the exams) and go from there. And, with the application that gets sent to Ottawa, attach a short letter with it requesting a mailing address separate from the station address. It is that simple.

73!


Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 04 2006,22:14)]You have left me with little doubt that you are correct. It appears that the RAC website is not up to date with the published RIC on reciprocal licensing.

One question though. If a Technician is barred from operating on HF in Canada under the reciprocal agreement with the USA what does that mean for Novices? Novices have passed a 5 WPM Morse code exam and are licensed by the FCC (the two requirements under the reciprocal agreement) so then they are allowed the same privileges as a Canadian with Basic, Morse, and Advanced certificates, correct?

Still, under CEPT reciprocal agreement there is still this oddity over operating privileges. To understand how this came about we need to look into the history of the CEPT agreements.

<snip>
RAC does a decent job of working for amateur radio in Canada, but sometimes web sites aren't updated when the rules get changed. RAC doesn't have as many people working there as the ARRL does in Connecticut. That was why I was looking at the web pages of Industry Canada for the current rules and regulations up there.

We don't need to look at CEPT or even IARP when it comes to hams in the USA and Canada crossing the common border and operating away from their home countries. There is a treaty that governs this, one that was ratified by the legislatures in both countries:

USA-Canada treaty regarding radio operating across the border (http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cts.1952.07.en.html)

This predates CEPT by at least 30 years, and IARP by 40+ years. This is the basis for what we have now when it comes to hams in these two countries operate when they cross the border. See Article 3 in that link for the specifics related to ham radio.

Once the treaty was ratified in both countries, then the appropriate regulatory agencies made regulations that implement the terms of the treaty. Those regulations have changed over the years on both sides of the border, and will most likely change again in Canada when the FCC does its thing with Morse in Part 97. Permits were once required, but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

US Novice licenses do not qualify for IARP permits nor are they classified by the FCC as class 1 or 2 for CEPT, but the Canadians really don't care about CEPT or IARP when it comes to US hams operating in Canada. Novices are deemed equivalent to a Canadian ham with all 3 licensing qualifications (Basic, Advanced, Morse) since they have passed a 5wpm Morse exam.

CEPT relates to Europe. Although some could argue that US hams are not currently covered by the CEPT arrangements since FCC still has the class 1/class 2 distinction in Part 97 and there is now just one CEPT "class", this is how US hams can go to many European countries and operate there without applying for permits or writing exams. Canada is also a participant in CEPT, but it has no bearing on what happens between the US and Canada.

IARP could be an issue for the US and Canada when it comes to hams, since both countries are part of that arrangement, but remember that treaty came first and would override the IARP. Canada could have written its regulations to essentially mirror what the FCC has in the US - that US hams operate within the bounds of their US licenses when in Canada. That isn't the case, so the rules are what they are for now.

73!



Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[W9WHE]

The lengths and costs people will go through, just to avoid learning the code is amazing. Some people elevate lazyness and "entitlement" to new heights!

[W4KVW]

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Dec. 04 2006,06:45)]The only question I have is this: If VE7KFM visits the United States, can he still use the radio to threaten the US Ambassador; wish Americans roadside bombs; talk to improperly licensed stations; and use obscenities? Industry Canada allows him to do it; does that mean he could do it here too?
It would only be FAIR since it "IS" allowed in Canada EVERY DAY on 14.275.00 as you know Brian!He after all is a HERO to some & a ZERO to "MOST"!


God bless,
W4KVW

[K1OU]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 05 2006,11:34)]The lengths and costs people will go through, just to avoid learning the code is amazing. Some people elevate lazyness and "entitlement" to new heights!
Much like you, Jonathan?

Jonathan the hypocrite... (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=908461)

No wonder people don't take you seriously.

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] (wd9ewk @ Dec. 05 2006,16:58)]Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 04 2006,22:14)]You have left me with little doubt that you are correct. It appears that the RAC website is not up to date with the published RIC on reciprocal licensing.

One question though. If a Technician is barred from operating on HF in Canada under the reciprocal agreement with the USA what does that mean for Novices? Novices have passed a 5 WPM Morse code exam and are licensed by the FCC (the two requirements under the reciprocal agreement) so then they are allowed the same privileges as a Canadian with Basic, Morse, and Advanced certificates, correct?

Still, under CEPT reciprocal agreement there is still this oddity over operating privileges. To understand how this came about we need to look into the history of the CEPT agreements.

<snip>
RAC does a decent job of working for amateur radio in Canada, but sometimes web sites aren't updated when the rules get changed. RAC doesn't have as many people working there as the ARRL does in Connecticut. That was why I was looking at the web pages of Industry Canada for the current rules and regulations up there.

We don't need to look at CEPT or even IARP when it comes to hams in the USA and Canada crossing the common border and operating away from their home countries. There is a treaty that governs this, one that was ratified by the legislatures in both countries:

USA-Canada treaty regarding radio operating across the border (http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cts.1952.07.en.html)

This predates CEPT by at least 30 years, and IARP by 40+ years. This is the basis for what we have now when it comes to hams in these two countries operate when they cross the border. See Article 3 in that link for the specifics related to ham radio.

Once the treaty was ratified in both countries, then the appropriate regulatory agencies made regulations that implement the terms of the treaty. Those regulations have changed over the years on both sides of the border, and will most likely change again in Canada when the FCC does its thing with Morse in Part 97. Permits were once required, but that hasn't been the case for a long time.

US Novice licenses do not qualify for IARP permits nor are they classified by the FCC as class 1 or 2 for CEPT, but the Canadians really don't care about CEPT or IARP when it comes to US hams operating in Canada. Novices are deemed equivalent to a Canadian ham with all 3 licensing qualifications (Basic, Advanced, Morse) since they have passed a 5wpm Morse exam.

CEPT relates to Europe. Although some could argue that US hams are not currently covered by the CEPT arrangements since FCC still has the class 1/class 2 distinction in Part 97 and there is now just one CEPT "class", this is how US hams can go to many European countries and operate there without applying for permits or writing exams. Canada is also a participant in CEPT, but it has no bearing on what happens between the US and Canada.

IARP could be an issue for the US and Canada when it comes to hams, since both countries are part of that arrangement, but remember that treaty came first and would override the IARP. Canada could have written its regulations to essentially mirror what the FCC has in the US - that US hams operate within the bounds of their US licenses when in Canada. That isn't the case, so the rules are what they are for now.

73!



Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
I brought up CEPT and IARP because both the USA and Canada recognize these reciprocal agreements and should be of interest regardless of which side of the USA/Canada border one should find themselves. It also illustrates that this oddity of reciprocity is not so unique. By a curious sequence of events it has come to the point where a Technician can only operate above 30 MHz while in the USA but can operate on all Amateur frequencies by taking a trip to another country. These oddities of reciprocity also allows a Novice in Canada to operate on frequencies where a General in the USA cannot.

I also wanted to point out that a Canadian or American might be able to take advantage of the IARP or CEPT reciprocal agreements if it should prove advantageous to do so. I don't know which reciprocal agreement would win out in a fair fight, CEPT, IARP, or USA/Canada. Since it is not advantageous to operate under CEPT or IARP discussing which takes precedence is of as much interest as discussing the proper pronunciation of "tomato". That situation may change with how CEPT, IARP, and the respective license classes in both countries are defined in the future and I just wanted to point that out.

This comparison to CEPT, IARP, and Canadian license structures should also illustrate how backward the FCC Amateur license structure has become. I am not aware of any other country that determines access to sub-bands by license class. I just think that the FCC will feel compelled to change its license structure to something similar to Canada once the Morse code test requirement is out of the way.

So, you are right, this mention of other reciprocal license structures does not have a direct application to the topic at hand. I think I've made my point and there is not likely to be a reason to revisit this again in this thread.

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 05 2006,21:11)]By a curious sequence of events it has come to the point where a Technician can only operate above 30 MHz while in the USA but can operate on all Amateur frequencies by taking a trip to another country. These oddities of reciprocity also allows a Novice in Canada to operate on frequencies where a General in the USA cannot.
What you speak of - being able to operate with more privileges from another country - has always been a possibility. It will continue to be the case into the future, as long as countries choose not to harmonize their regulations like the Europeans have generally done through CEPT and their ham-related recommendations.

Until I upgraded my US license from Advanced to Extra in 2003, I routinely operated from Mexico with more privileges than I had with my US license. Even with the Extra license, I still have some more privileges down there (no band/mode limitations on HF for XE hams), and some that I lose (maximum power output at 1250W instead of 1500W, 70cm is only 430-440 MHz instead of 420/430-450 MHz like it is in the USA and Canada):

Information on ham radio in Mexico (http://xe-permit.wd9ewk.net/)

If the US and Canada ever harmonize their amateur regulations like the Europeans have done through their CEPT recommendations, then these discrepancies might go away. Until then, there will probably continue to be some interesting quirks for those who cross the border to operate without getting a license in the other country.

73!


Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[VE3ID]

Quote[/b] (w8znx @ Dec. 03 2006,12:33)]Quote[/b] (KC0UWF @ Dec. 01 2006,12:53)]All I can say is, "Come on USA !! join the no code bandwagon" woohoo
ok il go for it

but
only if we get a national health care program
like Canada

Mac
Actually, the only people who have a national health care program in Canada are the native peoples, everybody else has to use the one available in their province. Some are better than others.

Here in Canada the test of a real ham is not the Morse test, but putting up an antenna when the wind chill factor is -40 degrees! Let's see some of you guys in the Southern States try that!


73
Nigel (still psychologically damaged from getting stuck to a tower in winter)

ve3id

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 02 2006,12:13)]I am not aware of any IARP countries that have dropped the Morse code testing requirement except Canada
Trinidad and Tobago has, since 1991 in fact.

Well not really. #They just issued another class of license, the Class 2 which uses the "9Z" prefix instead of "9Y" but gives the same privileges except that you can't use morse. #But it is a de-facto dropping of the code since only a few people afterwards have done the code test (including myself).

There was some confusion and uncertainty as to who could operate where internationally under IARP before the ITU dropped the code requirement in WRC-03.

But lots of guys with the 9Z call operated internationally with their IARP, even before WRC-03, even if the legality of it was uncertain.

[ke6irp]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Dec. 04 2006,08:24)]The only thing seperating us from CB is the standards. Take away the standards and we will become CB.

I'm not ready for "roger beeps" and rachet-jawing, overmodulated, echo-boxing profanity. Are you?
Because if we continue to drop the Amateur Radio standards, that is EXACTLY where we are headed. Roger THAT....good buddy?
Exactly right--- don't worry though--- code aint being dropped in the USA any time soon if ever.......thank goodness

[KD5NCO]

ke6irp said

"Exactly right--- don't worry though--- code aint being dropped in the USA any time soon if ever.......thank goodness "

I ask

Would you care to back that wish up with a friendly wager sir?

Let us clarify for the slow witted in here....

You are certainly correct "code ain't being dropped" EVER in the USA. This is a fact I will agree to. There will be Amateur Radio ops using CW and Morse Code long after you and I are dead and gone...

Tis a fact, it is a fun mode, has great utility, is exceedingly nostalgic, and very easy to do cheaply.

However, I have a lot of confidence that the Element 1 International Morse Code test, as a requirement to gain General Amateur license privilege, will be gone, and fairly soon....

The FCC told us so in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM 05-235).

They asked all US citizens to comment on their intended rule making. I did not see any argument, for retaining a Element 1 test, that had not already been dismissed by the FCC two times before. #What I did see, was a lot of incoherent emotional babbling... from both sides.

[KD5NCO]

And before my good friend "Charlie" tells you all;

KD5NCO (natural..not a vanity call)

FCC License class = Technician

[K1OU]

I'll say it once, and I will say it a million times: code is not a filter for keeping out riff-raff. If it were, K1MAN would have never had a license.

[n6rad]

:0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :rock:

[AD7BK]

Look it is simple it is the CBers who don't want code to be around. They refuse to study. After code drops and if the bands becomes a over glorified CB, I am leaving. I did not study and worked hard to get code, and General to Extra just to listen to the agitators come down and hassle everyone. But when any mention of code it fires into a code/no-code flame debate. It don't matter thanks to our wonderful Commander-In Charge BPL will take it all away. It was tested and dropped in Australia and everywhere else. But It will take over here and then there will be NO CB NO HAM NO NOTHING.

Thanks to the fact that AMERICA is cheap. They refuse to spend the money to install FTTH which is cheaper than BPL but more expensive to invest in at the initial start. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

BPL is the true enemy not the CODE DROPPING. But it seems that no one cares about BPL taking over our bands....

[AC0GT]

Looks like we have the start of another code vs. no-code fight. We should really get these people together in a room and have it televised on SpikeTV or something. Could make for some entertaining TV.

Before things break down too far into another code vs. no-code battle of wits I'll say a few more things on the topic of reciprocal licensing.

I find it odd that reciprocal licenses tend to "default up" rather than down. What I mean is that a General is treated like the Extra equivalent in other countries. I my opinion it would make sense to have it default down so that it is equivalent to a Basic, CEPT Class 2 or whatever. If a person is not granted full privileges in their home country then they should not be treated with full privileges in whatever foreign country they should visit.

As agreed upon earlier these oddities will continue for some time. Some of these oddities are because of differences in band privileges in some countries. One example is our 220 MHz band, many countries have allocated those frequencies to other users. Other oddities are because of how the license classes are defined. These oddities are unavoidable until all countries come to an agreement on Amateur radio licensing world wide. That will take some time.

Not only do I think that reciprocal licenses should "default down" but should also be limited. A visiting Amateur should not be granted all the privileges of an Extra, or equivalent. I'm not talking about frequency privileges, but things like power output, or building a transmitter. Would such a restriction be legal under current agreements? Could the FCC reserve certain operating privileges for only those holding a FCC license?

What if the FCC said that visiting Amateurs would be restricted to 200 watts output? What if IC said that those visiting Canada could only operate commercially produced transmitters? I guess that would require a re-write of the agreements between the respective countries.

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 06 2006,21:45)]What if the FCC said that visiting Amateurs would be restricted to 200 watts output? What if IC said that those visiting Canada could only operate commercially produced transmitters? I guess that would require a re-write of the agreements between the respective countries.
Each country could specify additional limitations on foreign hams operating on its territory. The USA/Canada treaty I referenced earlier in this thread specifically mentioned that the countries will enact regulations to carry out the treaty terms, and didn't specify what had to be put into those regulations.

Until 2005, Canada had a limitation on the type of transmitting gear those with the Basic qualification (including US hams who had not passed a Morse exam) could use - only commercially-made transmitters or amplifiers. No kits, not even a kit made by another ham. Since last year, Canada now allows those hams to also assemble and use commercially-designed kit transmitters and amplifiers. In Mexico, visiting hams are not allowed to operate in contests or from its islands without special authorization - otherwise I might show up as XE2/WD9EWK in some contests.

Most countries that permit foreign hams to operate on their territory probably don't want to make a separate series of rules and limitations that apply just to the foreigners. They try to make the foreign hams' licenses fit into the existing structure. Very easy to do with the CEPT and IARP arrangements, a little more complicated without either of those arrangements if the licensing structures are different between any two countries. Whether a foreign ham's privileges in a country he/she visits should be more or less than the privileges back in the home country is a topic for a separate discussion.

As for this thread, it is simple.... if a foreign ham visits the USA and has authority to operate from US territory, they operate within the bounds of their license without exceeding the privileges of the Extra class (i.e., no SSB in the CW/data HF subbands, no more than 1500W PEP output, etc.). Whether or not the visiting ham has passed a Morse exam isn't an issue with Part 97. When visiting Canada, it's full privileges if you have passed a Morse exam with 2250W PEP power output or VHF/UHF at 560W PEP if you haven't. The trend in these two countries has been to simplify the process for the foreign hams, and not add complexity to the process. IMO, a good thing. To get a callsign in most countries as a visiting ham (including the USA and Canada), you'll have to write the local exam(s). There are some exceptions - Australia and Japan are a couple that still issue calls to the visiting hams.

73!



Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[KD5NCO]

Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK

Excellent discussion, thanks!

You seem to follow these issues very closely. Do you suspect that the FCC is dragging their feet on the 05-235 R&O waiting for further action in the next WARC -08?

Or is it possible that they are studiously working to align all of Part 97, without an Element 1 requirement, to reflect all these international issues?
---------------------------------------

AD7BK..AKA David

Where you live, CB and BPL should not be an issue to your enjoyment of Amateur Radio

Your being 30+ years old and relatively new to Ham radio I am curious about how you got so cynical.

You seem smart enough to apply some logic to your thought processes....

Might I humbly suggest you can alleviate some of your fear and loathing by:

Doing some basic research and learn why the ARS will not devolve into glorified Citizens Band#when the Element 1 test requirement is dropped. #Open up your copy of CFR, Part 97 of the FCC rules your are required to have in your shack and read them... look up all the rules relating to Citizens Band in CFR, 95.401. You will see that dropping the Element 1 test will not instantly do away with any sections of the "rules" that we are required by law to adhere to. I believe it is fact that many of those rules and regulations are exactly why most CB aficionados are not interested in living in "our" world.

You can also learn why BPL will not be wide spread or have any negative impact on the majority of USA Amateurs.

The internet has plenty of evidence that there are more failed BPL installations and test sites then there are "in service" working systems.

Current WiBand WiFi Technology, new rules, and new standards changes have left BPL in the dust as a too hard to do and prohibitively expensive option in many areas.

I predict that BPL will never take over true rural connectivity as a viable option and eventually will die a slow and painful death. The few systems that are clean enough, to not be a bother to ARS, also have a very short life expectancy because of the other options that are being devised.

Are you aware that many of the cell carriers in the US can now deliver data at 500Kbps and you can "tether" a cell phone as your MODEM for the computer? #Many of the cell carriers are offering this capability at $$rates much lower then BPL based ISPs can offer. #

BPL did exactly what the FCC intended ...it energized a whole new segment of the industry to actively compete for Broad Band provider market share

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KD5NCO @ Dec. 09 2006,09:24)]You seem to follow these issues very closely. Do you suspect that the FCC is dragging their feet on the 05-235 R&O waiting for further action in the next WARC -08?

Or is it possible that they are studiously working to align all of Part 97, without an Element 1 requirement, to reflect all these international issues?

I figure that amateur radio is not a high priority at the FCC, especially when its chairman is making speeches citing faulty information related to BPL. With that in mind, I figure the decision on the Morse matter will probably be released during 2007, regardless of when any international conferences are schedules, since the Morse matter was resolved internationally in 2003.

For the FCC, when they eliminated the 13 and 20 wpm Morse exams starting in April 2000, that order mentioned that the only reason the 5wpm exam was kept was to comply with the international radio regulations. Now that the international requirement is gone, it appears to me that the ultimate result will be the end of the 5wpm exam in the US. Also, in the past, one had to pass the 5wpm exam somehow but could get medical waivers if there was a reason why they could not pass the faster (13/20wpm) Morse exams. Without an international requirement, some might argue that the Americans with Disabilities Act might require the FCC to either issue waivers for the 5wpm test or get rid of it completely. Remembering how important ham radio is within the FCC (not that high on the list), I would be very surprised if the announcement is that the 5wpm exam is still mandatory for HF access in the USA. Then the FCC could revise the CEPT related parts of Part 97, to make our rules conform to the single CEPT "class" that has been in existence for the past 3 years.

73!


Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/

[AC0GT]

Quote[/b] ]Then the FCC could revise the CEPT related parts of Part 97, to make our rules conform to the single CEPT "class" that has been in existence for the past 3 years.

There are still two license classes under the CEPT reciprocal licensing agreeements. That will likely remain until all concerned countries drop the Morse code testing requirement. There does seem to be talk of adding a third license class to correspond to the entry level licenses that many countries have. That also is unlikely to happen until the Morse code situation works its way out.

[KD5NCO]

Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK

Thank you sir,
# # I appreciate your perspective

I have twice asked the head of the FCC wireless bureau when the R&O may be expected. The response was the same both times; A semi "canned" we are working on it. #

On my second inquiry he expanded to include thoughts about the volume of responses require more detailed analysis. #The tone did not suggest that there was any problem ...rather he gave me the impression that they were striving to do their jobs thoroughly.

When I first became an ARS member, I researched the volumes of FCC Amateur NPRM and R&O activity from the 1970 to present. #It seemed to me that the FCC is one of the more rational of the Federal bureaucracies. #In my occupation I occasionally have to provide Subject Matter Expert opinions to similar Federal Bureaucratic entities. It is astounding the amount of precedent and references that must be researched and Lawyers consulted before any Federal entity can proffer a "rules change".

Several of the "projects" I work on have some regulatory cycles that require more then 680 days to meet all the draft and approval standards before a final document can be submitted for final signature. #

I suspect that the NPRM 05-235 may be taking this long simply so the FCC can make sure they properly research all the implications, such as the reciprocal license issues, and properly adjust ALL the CFR 47 part 97 rules

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 09 2006,18:36)]There are still two license classes under the CEPT reciprocal licensing agreeements. That will likely remain until all concerned countries drop the Morse code testing requirement. There does seem to be talk of adding a third license class to correspond to the entry level licenses that many countries have. That also is unlikely to happen until the Morse code situation works its way out.

That used to be accurate, but CEPT has moved on after the WRC-03 conference eliminated the Morse requirement while FCC has not kept up. Please read:

CEPT T/R 61-01 radio amateur license information (http://www.ero.dk/documentation/docs/doc98/official/pdf/TR6101.PDF)

Once WRC-03 removed the requirement for Morse code from the recommendation, CEPT T/R 61-01 was changed to end up with a single class. Read the first two pages at the link above, and note the date on the bottom of those pages when the changes were made to the recommendation text (16 October 2003). Other pages in that document have later dates, mainly in the sections listing the countries that are part of this recommendation. The Morse issue has already been resolved under this CEPT recommendation, and now it is up to the different countries to reconcile their national licenses and regulations to keep up (including the US and Canada).

As for the "third license class" you mention for an entry-level ham license valid in the CEPT countries, there is a CEPT recommendation that some European countries are already joining for that. It is officially called ECC/REC 05-06, "CEPT Novice Radio Amateur License", and you can read about that at:

CEPT Novice Radio Amateur License recommendation (http://www.ero.dk/documentation/docs/doc98/official/pdf/REC0506.PDF)

As of now, only 7 European countries have become part of this scheme:

Countries with CEPT Novice Radio Amateur License (http://www.ero.dk/documentation/docs/implement.asp?docid=2136&wd=N)

To restate the facts... CEPT T/R 61-01 has only one "class", which has been the case for 3+ years. Several European countries, along with the USA and Canada, still need to update their national regulations to compensate for these changes. Many will overlook the fact that the USA hasn't updated its regulations to deal with the changes in T/R 61-01, but it could be an issue in some places that are part of the current T/R 61-01 until the FCC updates Part 97 (probably some time after the Morse matter is resolved in the USA). Other CEPT countries have taken care of this either by eliminating the Morse testing requirements or by other changes to regulations that acknowledge the changes already made in that recommendation.
And there is now a Europe-wide CEPT "Novice license" that only a few countries are part of.

I've seen licenses from a couple of European countries issued since 2003, and they only make reference to the "CEPT radio amateur license" under the T/R 61-01 recommendation, and no mention of "class 1" or "class 2" as was the case in the past. You can see an example of this in the new UK amateur licenses at:

Sample of UK amateur license document (December 2006) (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/amateur/Licences/samplelicence06.pdf)

Pages 2 and 3 have the T/R 61-01 related text, declaring the UK "Full" licenses equivalent to the CEPT license. No Class 1 or 2 here.

73!


Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
http://www.qrz.com/hampix/k/w/wd9ewk.1166394671.jpg (http://www.wd9ewk.net/)

[AC0GT]

Looks like this thread just became irrelevant. #The FCC announced the dropping of the Morse code testing requirement for all Amateur license classes.

[wd9ewk]

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Dec. 15 2006,21:49)]Looks like this thread just became irrelevant. The FCC announced the dropping of the Morse code testing requirement for all Amateur license classes.

In terms of US hams operating in Canada, the recent FCC announcement hasn't changed the situation in Canada yet. The Canadian rules still stipulate the 5wpm Morse requirement for HF privileges. The Canadians simply don't tell US hams to operate within the privileges of their US licenses, as FCC does for Canadian hams in the US (subject to the limitations of the US Extra class license).

With all of that said, I would think that this change will come to the attention of Industry Canada, and IC will act to change their rules related to foreigners operating from Canadian territory. Either the 5wpm Morse requirement for HF will go away, or there will be a special clause that covers US hams operating in Canada. It might take a little while, as it did when FCC eliminated the 13 and 20wpm Morse exams in 2000 (about a year passed before IC adjusted that Morse requirement for foreign hams down to 5wpm).

Until Canada modifies its rules, there may be occasions where new US hams with any license class will be limited to VHF/UHF, simply due to the fact the 5wpm Morse exam in the USA will be no more. Hopefully this isn't the case, or - if so - not for too long.

73!


Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
http://www.qrz.com/hampix/k/w/wd9ewk.1166394671.jpg (http://www.wd9ewk.net/)

[AC0GT]

Patrick,

Quite true that Canada requires Morse code for foreigners that wish to operate on HF. The originating post to this thread pointed out the disparity between the operating privileges of a Canadian Basic Plus and an American licensed Amateur while operaing in the US. That disparity over Morse code knowledge, when operating in the US, will be gone soon. If you, or any one else, wants to continue this thread as far as the operating privileges of an American licensed Amateur operating in Canada then go right ahead. I think every one will agree that the Morse code requirement for American Amateur operating in Canada will be gone soon. What people may disagree on is when that will happen.