| |
G4EBT > RADIO 26.11.06 04:54l 185 Lines 7208 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 9E3519G4EBT
Read: DK5RAS GUEST
Subj: Re: ZL licensing scheme, ZL3AI
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<GB7FCR
Sent: 061125/2344Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:6562 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:9E3519G4E
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : RADIO@WW
Andy, G0FTD wrote:-
> I asked - So, how is licensing done in ZL ?
> Dave ZL3AI and Packet Patriot responded, thanks Dave, much appreciated.
> > We have only one grade of ham licence now. Except for five Novice
> > class hams who are a remnant of a now discontinued grade. Some hams
> > who have seen the success of Foundation licences in other countries
> > would like to see such a licence introduced here.
There's no reason why the FL couldn't be quickly introduced in NZ.
A very strong case can be made and I fail to see how the RSM could
resist it, given the experience of the FL in the UK. (Separate bull).
> > Our ham licences are currently a matter of some concern and there is
> > ongoing negotiation between NZART and officialdom (RSM - Radio
> Spectrum Management which is a branch of MED the Ministry of Economic
> Development)
The RSM isn't a law unto itself.
It must comply not just with its own mission statement, but also the
requirements of a modern regulatory framework based on the principle of
proportionality. That's just as relevant in New Zealand as in the UK, the
rest of Europe and elsewhere.
I'm often told that as I don't live in a certain place (EG Oz) I'm not
competent to express a view on its laws and regs, so I can best quote from
a paper by Amanda Brown, in the New Zealand Postgraduate Journal of Law,
entitled:
"A sense of proportion: The principle of proportionality in the European
Community, United Kingdom and New Zealand" an abstract of which states:
Quote:
"The principle of proportionality is a criterion of legality used to guide
and constrain administrative action in European law. The principle
requires that measures taken to achieve a specified objective must be
proportional, that is, suitable and necessary for the attainment of that
objective".
End quote.
She explores the principle of proportionality in Europe, its current
status in the UK and in New Zealand law. Her paper considers the prospects
for its future development and application in the context of the
constitutional and legal systems of New Zealand.
Anyone interested in legal matters generally can find the paper at:
http://nzpostgraduatelawejournal.auckland.ac.nz/Back%20Issues/Issue%203%20
(2006)/Article6%20Issue%203.htm
Sorry about the word wrap but it will cut and paste into your browser.
The relevance of this important principle (which affects all laws & regs),
is that the amateur radio regs must be both necessary and proportionate to
minimise or obviate any perceived risks, and may go no further.
The main risk that the terms and conditions of the amateur licence seeks
to minimise is that of interference by amateurs to other spectrum users,
notably the emergency services and air traffic control.
Thus, the regs should ensure that licence holders have demonstrated
that they meet the minimum level of competence needed to ensure correct
operation within the frequency allocation and power restrictions, and
use correct operating procedures, with the equipment they intend to use.
For those who may simply want to operate a commercial transceiver at
low power (say up to 10 Watts), the ZL regs go way beyond what could
be defended by the RSM.
For obvious reasons, for those few amateurs who may wish to design,
construct and operate their own transmitters up the ZL max of 500W PEP,
the regs need to go a good deal further, as indeed they do.
To mitigate the risks from using a commercial transceiver at low power,
the FL and UK three-stage licence structure comfortably caters for all
needs - the requirements at each stage being proportionate to the risks
posed by the increased transmit power levels permitted, and the added
scope for experimentation at the higher levels.
Some amateurs speak of the need to "keep up the standards", to not "dumb
down" and that people should "demonstrate their commitment", "earn their
privileges - not have them handed on a plate", or "not get a licence out
of a cornflake packet", to not open the floodgates" and so on.
Whether those sentiments are supported by individual amateurs or national
societies, they have no regulatory relevance, and national societies are
not part of the regulatory framework.
A ham radio licence - like a driving licence, isn't a reward for effort,
it isn't a "privilege", it's a legitimate expectation for all who meet
the minimum criteria. A licence is a starting point - not a destination.
As to "Officialdom" of Radio Spectrum Management, if the NZRT really is
having problems with RSM, they can use the RSM's own mission statement to
induce the RSM to listen more attentively.
Here's what RSM says about itself:
Quote:
>We are now and will continue to be well-networked in the community, the
>state sector, and industry, and act as the key link between those sectors
>and other government agencies.
"Well networked in the community" means with the NZRT, and citizen radio
amateurs too. Is the RSM "well networked"?
If amateurs don't think they or their national society is being listened
to, the involvement of an MP can often induce a rapid change of heart. It
isn't a very smart career move for bureaucrats to come to the attention of
MPs for all the wrong reasons.
("I am appealing to you as a last resort due to the intransigence of"....
etc). It's my experience, and that of other UK amateurs such as Andy,
G0FTD, and Ian, G3ZHI that it works every time.
Quote:
>LEADERSHIP:
>Ministers and spectrum stakeholders rely on us to deliver innovative and
>practical spectrum management solutions. We are foresightful in planning
>and manage a flexible regime to ensure New Zealand can meet and enjoy
>international advances in wireless technology.
So if ministers rely on the RSM to be:
Innovative
To have a flexible regime
And for NZ citizens to enjoy international advantages
Best not let the Ministers down, eh?
>We quickly develop and implement innovative ideas. RSM will be the
>international benchmark for radio spectrum management.
"Quickly develop and implement innovative ideas?"
Are the RSM quick and innovative, or slow and lacking in imagination?
>PAINLESS WIRELESS:
>We will work to make this internal initiative visible externally, so
>client experiences with RSM services are professional, affordable,
>accessible, fast, uncomplicated and non-bureaucratic.
Fast?
Uncomplicated?
Non-bureaucratic?
Is that the experience of their amateur radio "clients"?
>Our staff work effectively together and our combination of technical and
>non-technical skills makes our business smart. Our policy and service
>teams together achieve one outcome - innovative use (within the rules) of
>the radio spectrum resource.
Is their "combination of technical and non-technical skills" meeting their
stated aim for the "innovative use of the radio spectrum"?
It doesn't sound like it to me.
I'll explain that standpoint and the ZL licence in another bulletin.
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
British Vintage Wireless Society Member
G-QRP Club Member, No: 1339
QTH: Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 23:42 on 2006-Nov-25
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
