Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:27:01.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Radio Amateur in International Legislation and Administration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

Peter B. Schroeder
Peter B. Schroeder*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 150,000 radio amateurs of the world today operate on groups of frequencies and under broad regulatory measures determined by the international radio conference and implemented in considerable detail by the various national administrations comprising the international community.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 1954 , pp. 421 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A. L. Budlong, “Atlantic City—1947—How We Got Our Present Bands,” Part I, QST, Vol. XXXI (April, 1947), p. 37. QST is the monthly journal of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) and the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU). The Berlin Protocol was not ratified by the United States until 1912.

2 “Final Protocol of 1912,” U. S. Foreign Relations, 1913 (Washington, 1920), p. 1390.

3 37 Stat. (I) 302–308.

4 These frequencies under 200 meters have subsequently become the most hotly contested of all by the numerous radio services in all countries.

5 See QST, Vol. V (February, 1922), pp. 14–18, 36; Clinton B. DeSoto, Calling CQ (New York, 1941), p. 243; QST, Vol. XXIII (May, 1939), p. 11, for details of these early contacts.

6 QST, Vol. VIII (December, 1924), pp. 16–17. These bands were commonly designated as falling at 160, 80, 40, 20, and 5 meters, with subsequent allocations being made to amateurs at 10, 2½, and 1¼ meters.

7 An account of the IARU may be found in the writer’s unpublished ms., “The International Control of Amateur Radio Communications” (Clark University, 1949), Ch. IV.

8 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1927, Vol. I (Washington, 1942), pp. 289–295.

9 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 767, pp. 13–56.

10 Ibid., pp. 13–14.

11 Ibid., pp. 69–74. These regulations were not signed by the United States because the American communications system, unlike that of most other countries, was operated by private enterprise.

12 Ibid., p. 14.

13 Ibid., p. 20.

14 In the United States this function is performed by the Federal Communications Commission as defined in the Communications Act of 1934. See 48 Stat. (I) 1064–1105.

15 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 767, p. 19.

16 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1927, Vol. I, pp. 291–292.

17 New techniques have broadened the radio spectrum since 1927 as higher and higher frequencies have been brought into use, and as refinements of both transmitter and receiver design have had the effect of enabling more stations to use available frequencies. The increase in the total number of stations and services demanding operating space, however, has far outstripped advanced techniques of design and operation, so that the pressure for additional frequencies is greater today than ever before.

18 The reasons for this hostility are too involved to be elaborated in this brief treatment, but it should be noted that in most countries the entire communications system is under government control and that there has been a decided repugnance toward licensing private individuals to engage in communications activity, even on a personal and non-commercial basis.

19 The complete list of proposals may be found in Documents de la Conference Radio-télégraphique Internationale de Washington, 1927, Tome I, Propositions Soumises à la Conférence, Bureau Internationale de l’Union Télégraphique (Berne, 1928).

20 K. B. Warner, “The Amateur and the International Radio Telegraph Conference,” QST, Vol. XV (January, 1928), p. 15. A subcommittee of the Shaughnessy subcommittee was formed on which, at the insistence of the American Delegation, there served the officers of the IARU (the President, Vice President, and Secretary). See Warner, loc. cit., pp. 15–16.

21 Warner, loc. cit., pp. 20–21. These informal discussions, which proved to be so effective, do not of course appear in the printed minutes of committee proceedings. They are summarized, however, by Warner, who was a participant and who remained in close touch with all the amateur matters under consideration during the course of the conference. Warner was secretary both of the ARRL and the IARU.

22 The amateur frequencies at Washington fell into a harmonically related series on the general pattern of the “Hoover Bands” at 160, 80, 40, 20, 10, and 5 meters. Frequencies were designated, in the Washington allocations, in both meters and kilocycles.

23 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 767, pp. 19–20.

24 The many regional conferences (administrative and technical) held during the years after 1927 are an essential part of the total telecommunications story but do not fall within the scope of this treatment. As far as amateur radio is concerned, the regional conferences were significant in determining sub-allocation frequency assignments in terms of the general regulations adopted by the world-wide administrative conferences (Washington, Madrid, Cairo, Atlantic City).

25 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 867, pp. 164–172.

26 Russia was not invited to the Washington Conference—a deliberate omission that raised serious technical problems at later conferences, since Eussia proceeded to set up her own system of allocations, the adjustment of which to the world-wide allocations proved to be most difficult. There are currently several thousand Russian amateurs on the air who establish contacts daily with amateurs in other parts of the world but who rarely go beyond a mention of technical radio problems in their conversations. Russian amateurs apparently operate largely from club stations where close supervision can be maintained.

27 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 867, pp. 192–194; K. B. Warner, “The Madrid Conference,” QST, Vol. XVII (February, 1933), pp. 10–16.

28 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1932, Vol. I (Washington, 1948), p. 869.

29 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 867, p. 182.

30 At 80 and 40 meters.

31 Presentation for the Amateur Service Before the Federal Communications Commission (Docket No. 3929), ARRL (West Hartford, 1936). Affiliates of the IARU in Canada, France, and Great Britain made similar requests to their governments. See QST, Vol. XX (December, 1936), p. 70; Vol. XXI (January, May, 1937), pp. 21, 32.

32 QST, Vol. XXI (December, 1937), p. 22.

33 See Warner, K. B. and Segal, Paul M., “The Battle of Cairo,” QST, Vol. XXII (July, 1938), p. 104Google Scholar. The consistent support by the American Government at international conferences and its encouragement of amateur radio by generous domestic regulations are explainable on various grounds: amateur contributions to the advancement of the art, the furthering of international friendships through short-wave long-distance contacts, efficient performance in disaster communications, and significant contributions to national defense in providing a reservoir of self-trained technicians and operators who can be called upon in time of war to fill military or civilian defense posts. See U. S. Foreign Relations, 1932, Vol. I (Washington, 1948), p. 869; QST, Vol. XXXI (April, 1947), p. 48; Vol. XXXV (March, 1951), p. 38.

34 Documents de la Conference Internationale des Radiocommunications du Caire (1938), Tome II, Travaux de la Conférence (Déliberations, Actes Définitifs), Bureau de l’Union Internationale des Télécommunications (Berne, 1938), pp. 972–979; U. S. Treaty Series, No. 948, p. 239, Appendix 4.

35 The 20-meter band. See United States Department of State (Conference Series, No. 39), International Telecommunications Conference, Cairo, 1938—Beport to the Secretary of State by the Chairman of the American Delegation With Appended Documents—General Radio Regulations (Cairo Revision, 1938) (Washington, 1939), Art. 7, Sec. 7.

36 The Czech national society was broken up, its funds and library confiscated, twenty-four members were executed, and forty were confined in concentration camps. See QST, Vol. XXX (March, 1946), p. 46.

37 QST, Vol. XXVII (November, 1943), p. 21; Vol. XXVIII (January, 1944), p. 35.

38 United States Department of State (Division of International Conferences), Participation of the United States Government in International Conferences July 1, 1946–June 30, 1947, Preliminary Five-Power Telecommunications Conference (Washington, 1948), p. 170; Documents of the Moscow Telecommunications Conference, 1946, Vol. I, Minutes of the Plenary Meetings (Berne, 1946), pp. 10–11 (hereinafter referred to as Moscow Documents I); Budlong, A. L., “Moscow, A Report on the Five-Power Conference by ARRL’s Representative,” QST, Vol. XXXI (January, 1947), p. 25Google Scholar.

39 Moscow Documents I, pp. 67–96.

40 Ibid., pp. 5, 33–35. Atlantic City was eventually selected as the meeting place. A high-frequency broadcasting conference was to convene at the close of the radio conference, but the discussions of the latter were so prolonged that all three conferences (the Telecommunication Conference was the third) were in progress simultaneously, placing a heavy strain on the personnel of the various delegations.

41 Budlong, loc. cit., pp. 25–27.

42 Above 1200 megacycles. See Budlong, loc. cit., p. 26. These super-high frequencies interest amateurs in an experimental way, but have little current value as communications channels because of their very short range.

43 There were 42 national societies affiliated with the IARU at the close of 1950, with Japan, Germany, and the U.S.S.R. not included. Amateurs of the U.S.S.R. have never joined the IARU. The constitution of the latter requires that member societies be organized on a democratic basis.

44 Calendar of the IARU, No. 31 (West Hartford), December, 1946.

45 Great Britain, China, Uruguay, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

46 United States Department of State, Telecommunications Division (World Telecommunication Conference, Doc. No. 16, Serial No. 341), Report of the United States Delegation on the International Radio Conference, the International Telecommunication Conference and the International Conference on High Frequency Broadcasting, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 1947 (Washington, 1947), p. 2 (hereinafter referred to as Report of the U. S. Delegation).

47 Ibid,., pp. 20–23.

48 Those at 40 and 20 meters especially. The complexity of the Atlantic City allocation table may be noted by glancing at the regional and world-wide provisions set forth in the Final Acts of the International Telecommunication and Radio Conferences Atlantic City 1947, Atlantic City, International Telecommunication Union, 1947 (cited hereinafter as Final Acts).

49 Ibid., Radio Regulations, pp. 4, 6.

50 Final Acts, Convention, pp. 13–15. The headquarters of the Union were subsequently moved from Berne to Geneva.

51 Ibid., pp. 10–13. The Secretariat was to replace the old Berne Bureau.

52 The common practice of “paper registrations” and crowding the list with nonexistent stations meant that important frequencies and channels were often used most uneconomically. See Warner, K. B., “Atlantic City Report—Concluding Weeks,” QST, Vol. XXXI (November, 1947), p. 37Google Scholar.

53 Final Acts, Radio Regulations, pp. 68–70.

54 Final Acts, Recommendations and Resolutions, pp. 14–16.

55 Report of the U. S. Delegation, pp. 169–171. French and English both are used in Final Acts. All Berne documents hitherto had been in French only.

56 Ibid., p. 171.

57 Dorothea Kahn, “Hams Are Back,” Christian Science Monitor Magazine, Aug. 17, 1947, p. 4; “Hams,” Time, Vol. XLIX (April 28, 1947), p. 66; “Co-operative Hams,” New Yorker, Vol. XXHI (Aug. 9, 1947), pp. 15–16.

58 QST, Vol. XXXI (June, 1947), p. 46.

59 Loc. cit., p. 47.

60 QST, Vol. XXXII (July, 1948), p. 69.

61 The time and place of the next general administrative conference had not been determined at the time this paper was written. It is significant to note that even purely technical conferences like that at Buenos Aires in late 1952 are finding their procedures affected to an increasing degree by “cold war” tactics. “The USSR … introduced proposals designed to destroy the significant work of the Union in the radio field—such as the elimination of the International Frequency Registration Board, the maintenance of the old system of frequency registration and the invalidation of the Extraordinary Administrative Radio Conference Agreement.” The U.S.S.R. also pressed for the unseating of Nationalist China, Viet Nam, and Korea, and the seating of the three Baltic states, Eastern Germany, and Communist China. All of these proposals were heavily voted down at the Conference. See United States Department of State, Telecommunications Policy Staff (International Telecommunication Union Plenipotentiary Conference, Document No. 110, Serial No. 831), Report of the Chairman of the United States Delegation to the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union, Buenos Aires, Argentina, October-December, 1952 (Washington, 1953, mimeo.), pp. 4–5.