What’s In A Word?

When a piece of legalization is created for one specific purpose or situation, it can sometimes have a “flow on” effect or an indirect effect on another specific situation or set of circumstances. It may not be intentional but as a result of the way legalization is worded, invariably this anomaly is prone to occur.

A good example of this is the situation that exists in South Australia. For many years, the mobile carriers have enjoyed the luxury of not requiring local council planning approval to erect their towers upon which to mount their mobile relay stations. This has been as a result of Commonwealth legalisation exempting them from having to do so. The Commonwealth has now sought to pass legalisation that now requires any individual or company to seek local council approval to erect any type of tower/mast including any attachment or device on top of that tower/mast, above a height of 7.5 meters. They have handed over the issue of tower heights to the State and in turn the Local Council who will enforce the legalisation. This now forces the mobile carriers to seek approval if they intend to erect a tower, above 7.5 Meters.

Unfortunately, this also applies to Amateurs, Scanner, Short-wave Listeners and CB Radio enthusiasts who have or want to erect towers above 7.5 Meters. For many years Radio enthusiasts have been able to erect a tower or mast including the antenna, up to 10 Meters without requiring council approval. The legalisation was not aimed at Radio Enthusiasts but at the mobile carriers in a bid to force tighter controls on what they can and can't do due to the amount of objections received from suburban residents objecting to the erecting of mobile towers in their neighborhood. As a result and perhaps with no intention intended the legalisation encompasses and affects Radio Enthusiasts, you the CBer, as a result of the way the legalisation has been worded.

ACBRO considers this to be a discriminatory situation towards CBers and Scanner Enthusiasts who are affected by this piece of legalisation whereas Amateur Radio Operators are not – interesting isn’t it? This piece of legalisation is enforceable by law and South Australia has now set a precedent. Many of you in other States of Australia need to consider that because the precedent in South Australia has been set, how long will it be before this piece of legislation becomes a proposal and consequently be introduced within your State and local council as law?

Another piece of regulation that was introduced by the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) concerned Amateurs needed to comply with restrictions regarding Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) from their radio stations and antennas. Basically this regulation forced Amateurs to modify their stations’ equipment to comply with various restrictions so that the EMR produced was maintained at a level that was considered to be safe from public exposure. Mobile telephones and towers have suffered from this type of criticism over the years where EMR from mobile phones and towers was and still is alleged to affect the human body. In a similar way, the ACA has had concerns that Amateur Radio Antennas may effect the human body if the level of exposure to its EMR was at a “deemed” unsafe level.

Needless to say, because of the way the regulation was worded it meant that technically, CB radio operators would have to consider the EMR exposure to humans from their antennas. In practice, it would have become a gray area because while there would be concerns about the EMR from CB antennas, the issue would be one of whether that EMR was negligible and thus CBers could ignore the EMR regulations. Many will recall that ACBRO lobbied the ACA about this situation and to cut a long story short, the ACA then deemed that CB radio stations would be exempt from the regulations but did not rule out that they would not apply at some point in the future.

The EMR regulations were primarily proposed for and only concerned Amateur Radio Operators and their radio equipment. But, provision exists that at some point in the future and as a result of the way the EMR regulations have been worded that there may be a “flow on” effect to the CBer and his or her CB equipment.

This brings the matter to yet another possible scenario looming in the background of the scheme of things. The (ACA) is currently reviewing regulatory and licensing arrangements for the amateur service.  The ACA had released a discussion paper and sought written submissions from interested parties in response to the paper.  Article 25 of the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) sets out the international arrangements for the amateur service. The World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) held from 9 June to 4 July 2003 in Geneva fundamentally changed Article 25. The changes to Article 25 have provided the ACA with an opportunity to review and simplify the current regulatory and licensing arrangements for the amateur service. The ACA discussion paper looked at the changes made to Article 25, as well as exploring future options for the amateur service in Australia.

Among other things the following was a part of the discussion paper and proposal by the ACA.

Item 6.5  Interference protection for other radiocommunications services

 

A feature of domestic environments is the widespread use of radiocommunications equipment such as television, radio and regulated non-broadcasting transmitters, including those used for the amateur service.  Examples of domestic equipment include televisions, video cassette recorders, digital television set top boxes, stereo systems, cordless and wired telephones, security alarm systems, and computers.

 

Interference to domestic television and radio receivers can often arise from the operation of nearby amateur transmitters. Such interference generally occurs in domestic equipment because of their inability to reject unwanted amateur transmissions, even though those transmissions are on different frequency bands from those used for radio and television stations.  Less frequently, interference occurs as a result of faults in amateur transmitters.

 

Licensing conditions ensure that amateur transmitters meet certain emission requirements; however, radio and television receivers vary in quality and many do not have a high level of immunity from interference.  The Act defines interference in relation to radiocommunications as:

 

Interference to, or with, radiocommunications that is attributable, whether wholly or partly and whether directly or indirectly, to an emission of electromagnetic energy.

 

Section 197 of the Act also provides:

 

A person is guilty of an offence if:

 

(a) the person engages in conduct; and

(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will result in:

(i) substantial interference with radiocommunications; or

(ii) substantial disruption or disturbance of radiocommunications.

 

The ACA interprets ‘substantial interference’ as that level of interference that degrades domestic television and radio reception, under normal conditions, by a considerable degree.  The operation of an amateur station, which is essentially a hobby, should not disturb another person’s activities, such as television viewing or radio listening, or affect commercial activities.

 

The ACA is considering the introduction of a ‘no interference’ policy for amateur operators.  This policy would mean that an amateur must not cause interference to other radiocommunications services.  If causing interference to another service, the obligation will be on the amateur to resolve the problem, possibly by:

· moving the location of their transmitter;

· coming to a mutually agreed arrangement with the complainant regarding the costs associated with fitting a filter to the domestic television or radio;

· reducing the output power of their transmitter; or

· restricting their hours of operation to outside peak viewing times for television reception.

 

The above known as the “no interference” policy is another example of how such a proposal may end up being worded in law in such a way that it will invariably have a “flow on” effect to the CB. The ACA proposes to introduce a ‘no interference’ policy for amateur operators in relation to interference caused to domestic equipment. Will the ACA be giving consideration to introducing a similar policy for CB radio operators at some point in the future? Skeptical are you? ACBRO would not be so quick to dismiss the ramifications of a “no interference” policy and would certainly lobby against any such proposal. 

 

ACBRO reminds you about the mentioned issues surrounding antenna heights, EMR regulations and the "no interference" policy and how a piece of legislation might have a "flow on" effect where it was never intended

 

We as a CB fraternity need to always be vigilant and not complacent about new legalisation relating to Radio Communications. AA

 

---