CE labels, band limits - no thanks!

[TF3KX]

I have been reading some of the concerns that European amateurs seem
to have about the need for CE marking, band limits., etc.

Regarding the CE issue I believe that radio amateurs, who need to pass
tests for their license to operate, construct and modify their own
equipment, should not be required to have a CE label on their
equipment.  Now, I don't know if this is the final word on the issue,
but I checked out the following web page of the European bureaucracy:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/directiv/text2004_108.htm.

There I found the following statement for Directive 2004/108/EC on
EMC, which also addresses CE labelling:

"This Directive shall not apply to... radio equipment used by radio
amateurs within the meaning of the Radio Regulations adopted in the
framework of the Constitution and Convention of the ITU [8], unless
the equipment is available commercially. Kits of components to be
assembled by radio amateurs and commercial equipment modified by and
for the use of radio amateurs are not regarded as commercially
available equipment."

I think it is very important that we amateurs don't give in on this
issue.  Our privileges are hard earned through our testing and
licensing process, they are actually recognized in international
regulations, and if the officials who execute the laws don't know
better, they need to be informed and put back on track.

Regarding band limits, I think we should not be required to limit our
equipment there, either.  Nor should we by any means ask for such
limitations ourselves!  By the nature of our hobby we are trusted to
build our radio oscillators, amplifiers and other equipment, which
technically may be able to radiate all over the spectrum, but it is
our responsibility - and we should live up to that responsibility - to
make sure that our emissions are within the regulations in effect in
our countries.

When I get around to order my K3 I will definitely not want with any
CE shackles or band limitations, beyond what the designers built into
the rig.

73 - Kristinn, TF3KX
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Kristinn Andersen wrote:
>
> Regarding the CE issue I believe that radio amateurs, who need to pass
> tests for their license to operate, construct and modify their own

A number of questions asked on this list about the K2 indicate that
there are people building the K2 who are unable to read and interpret a
circuit diagram.  Even I wouldn't be able to deduce all the design
decisions that went into making the equipment compliant, and they are
not documented in the public domain, so I can't look them up.

> framework of the Constitution and Convention of the ITU [8], unless
> the equipment is available commercially. Kits of components to be

Elecraft products are available commercially.

My interpretation of components is "electronic components", i.e.
resistors, capacitors, transistors, etc.  Elecraft interpret it as being
a noise word, with only kit being effective (although they would acccept
that a combination of base unit, PA and ATU isn't a kit for that
legislation.  (I once read something to the effect that, when reading
legal documents, every word counts.)

I think that the legislators are thinking more in terms of making it
possible for me to order all the components for a published design by
ordering the RadCom XYZ component set, rather than having the supplier
send me the exact same set of components because I had enumerated them
individually (however note that the UK licence does give an advantage to
those cases where the kit is supplied as a whole, with the design).

> assembled by radio amateurs and commercial equipment modified by and

Commercial equipment would have been compliant in its original use.

> for the use of radio amateurs are not regarded as commercially
> available equipment."
>
> I think it is very important that we amateurs don't give in on this
> issue.  Our privileges are hard earned through our testing and

The danger is that if commercial sellers try to find loopholes, in
closing the loopholes the legislators may restrict things that were not
previously restricted.  In many cases the commercial vendor has made
their profit before the legislation gets fixed, so their cash flow is good.

> licensing process, they are actually recognized in international
> regulations, and if the officials who execute the laws don't know
> better, they need to be informed and put back on track.

They are only there because the people who make the laws believe that
there is a benefit to the public in amateur radio.  I don't think that
is based on a simple freedom argument, I think it is based on
encouraging people into engineering and technical careers, general self
education, the ability to provide emergency communication, and providing
a potential source of military operators.  I'm not sure that the last
one is so valid these days.  Historically, a lot of the basic radio
propagation research was done by amateurs, but I think that is becoming
less relevant to the economy.

As such, from the legislators point of view, there is no fundamental
need to protect amateur radio operators from legislation, so they will
always be making cost benefit tradeoffs.

>
> Regarding band limits, I think we should not be required to limit our
> equipment there, either.  Nor should we by any means ask for such

In the UK, only those with full licences are permitted to use
unrestricted equipment, and I am not aware that the ban on the import
and sale of certain equipment that could be used illegally on CB
frequencies has been removed.  Other classes of licensee are allowed to
use commercial kits, like the K2, provided they are frequency
restricted.  (The current UK licence drafting is confusing in this
respect, but I don't believe any change in effect was intended from the
previous, more direct, wording.)

The US has a particular limitation on receive capabilities, although it
doesn't affect Elecraft products, in that reception on the cellular
radio frequencies is prohibited in commercial products which are not
standard cellular phone products.

However, the real issue with the current question was that it is a
serious criminal offence to possess equipment operating outside of the
amateur frequencies in some countries to which people often want to take
equipment on holiday.  That's typically because there is some separatist
organisation that uses radio to coordinate military operations.

> limitations ourselves!  By the nature of our hobby we are trusted to
> build our radio oscillators, amplifiers and other equipment, which

In the UK, only full licensees are so trusted, and I think it might be
better to say that we are trusted to know our own limits.  The
examinations show that we understand the issues, but don't make us fully
fledged RF designers.

> technically may be able to radiate all over the spectrum, but it is
> our responsibility - and we should live up to that responsibility - to
> make sure that our emissions are within the regulations in effect in
> our countries.

Not everyone has access to spectrum analyzers. When we build something
like the K2, we rely on the type, in the type approval sense, being
intrinsically compliant when set up with simple tools.  In principle,
that is the same for a black box product that  has type approval.  Only
one instance need be actually tested.  It is then just necessary to
demonstrate that manufacturing variations will not result in other
instances being outside the specifications.



--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

I think the main argument against these regulations and particularly
the band restrictions is that they insult our intelligence. Presumably
the bureaucrats believe that the fact that, out of the box, a
transceiver is restricted to certain bands, means it cannot be used on
other frequencies. But *we* know that it is easy to disable these
restrictions - with the FT-817, for example, transmit locking can be
removed simply by writing to an internal register, and you can freely
download a small program from the  internet to do it. I think Simon's
FT-817 Commander can even do it. It beggars belief that the
potentially malicious users of this equipment don't know this too. And
other radios can presumably have their band limits changed or removed
with equal ease. So exactly what, in practise, do these restrictions
achieve?

--
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Zerobeat Ham Forums: www.zerobeat.net/smf
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[gm3sek]

David Woolley wrote:
[...]
>The danger is that if commercial sellers try to find loopholes, in
>closing the loopholes the legislators may restrict things that were not
>previously restricted.

The more serious danger comes from within - from people inventing
restrictions where none actually exist.

Kristinn has it exactly right. The only thing that matters is what the
regulations actually SAY, so she quotes them word-for-word with no
interjections, no interpretation and no invention:

"(2) This Directive shall not apply to:
...
(c) radio equipment used by radio amateurs within the meaning of the
Radio Regulations adopted in the framework of the Constitution and
Convention of the ITU [8], unless the equipment is available
commercially. Kits of components to be assembled by radio amateurs and
commercial equipment modified by and for the use of radio amateurs are
not regarded as commercially available equipment."

The only detail that seems to be open to interpretation is the meaning
of "components to be assembled". But even here the regulations are on
our side:

"(11) Where this Directive regulates apparatus, it should refer to
finished apparatus commercially available for the first time on the
Community market. Certain components or sub-assemblies should, under
certain conditions, be considered to be apparatus if they are made
available to the end-user."

Once again, this statement can be clarified with the help of another
layer of regulations and definitions. I don't have those to hand, but
"finished apparatus" in the first sentence refers to complete products
capable of functioning as an independent entity. This means that a
factory-assembled K3 does require compliance testing followed by CE
marking; we already know that, and we also know that Elecraft are
addressing this.

The first sentence of (11) does NOT apply to sub-assemblies, which are
normally outside the scope of the EMC regulations. It is recognised that
the EMC performance of subassemblies will depend on how they are used,
so the regulations do not apply until the finished assembly is either
"placed on the market" or "taken into service".

The second sentence of (11) deals only with the exceptions, to catch any
cases where the requirements for EMC testing and certification "should,
under certain conditions" be applied to components or  sub-assemblies.
But it only applies to certain items, definitely not all of them.

My interpretation is that each case would be treated on its own merits,
based on the EMC risks that it presents.

As a benchmark of that risk, we already know that the regulations accept
the EMC risks arising from completely home-constructed equipment, or
from kits assembled from components, so long as the work is done by and
for the use of individual licensed amateurs. How do the K3
sub-assemblies measure up to that benchmark? Since they can only be used
to build a K3, and since each individual sub-assembly has been
factory-tested, the EMC risks are far below the benchmark. Case
dismissed - there is no reason to imagine that  where the second
sentence of (11) might apply to the K3's subassemblies, so they are free
to walk in.

Forgive the detailed grind through the regulations, but it's either that
way or nothing. We can't just make things up according to what we
imagine the regulations say, or what we think they should say. The only
thing that counts is what the regulations DO say.

Therefore Elecraft are categorically NOT exploiting a loophole in
selling the K3 into the EU as subassemblies. Quite the opposite - they
are acting in complete accordance with the EMC regulations, and in their
usual correct and responsible manner.

To repeat what I said yesterday, this fevered speculation is only a
temporary symptom of K3 deprivation. This too shall pass...


By the way, the European EMC regulations DON'T say anything about
restricted transmitting bands for amateur equipment. The original
question was about enabling K3 owners to restrict those bands
voluntarily, if they ever need to get through the eccentric border
restrictions of certain individual countries.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

On Nov 17, 2007 12:06 PM, Ian White GM3SEK <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Kristinn has it exactly right. The only thing that matters is what the
> regulations actually SAY, so she quotes them word-for-word with no

Kristinn looks like a bloke to me... ( http://www.simnet.is/net/tf3kx/ )
--
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Zerobeat Ham Forums: www.zerobeat.net/smf
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[gm3sek]

Julian G4ILO wrote:
>On Nov 17, 2007 12:06 PM, Ian White GM3SEK <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Kristinn has it exactly right. The only thing that matters is what the
>> regulations actually SAY, so she quotes them word-for-word with no
>
>Kristinn looks like a bloke to me... ( http://www.simnet.is/net/tf3kx/ )

I beg his pardon!


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

Short version.
>
> The more serious danger comes from within - from people inventing
> restrictions where none actually exist.

Self regulation is a standard way of avoiding restrictive legislation.
Legislation that doesn't need some interpretation is generally too
inflexible to be good legislation.

> Community market. Certain components or sub-assemblies should, under

OK.  It looks like the kit exemption definitely doesn't apply, but note
that Elecraft are selling kits, not sub-assemblies, it is just that the
kits aren't made from "components".

The general effect of your reply has been to make me more certain that
Elecraft are on dodgy ground unless they have actually consulted with
the relevant European authorities.

Incidentally, I'm sure the CE approval on the pre-assembled K3 will be
on the basis of the amateur radio interface definition, so will only be
valid for operation on the frequencies that form that definition.  That
doesn't require the frequency coverage to be restricted (although BR68
certainly did, for certain licence classes, and I believe that is still
the intent, even if the way it is now worded is rather opaque.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[dj7mgq]

> Incidentally, I'm sure the CE approval on the pre-assembled K3 will be
> on the basis of the amateur radio interface definition, so will only be
> valid for operation on the frequencies that form that definition.  That
> doesn't require the frequency coverage to be restricted (although BR68
> certainly did, for certain licence classes, and I believe that is still
> the intent, even if the way it is now worded is rather opaque.

3 points:

1) The CE Marking is involves self-certification and not approval by a
regulator or other third party.

2) Imho, the CE Marking for the K3 would have to apply to frequencies
out side of the HAM bands (e.g. KBPF3 is installed) or be invalid in
some configurations.

3) The CE Marking does not require band limits on the TX but some
countries on the planet Earth do. Afaik some of them check for the band
limits on equipment entering the country and confiscate rigs without the
correct limiting. I remember reading mails on the reflector from hams
who had high hopes for the K3 because Elecraft was implementing band
limits for their country.

So back to my original question: What happens if my K3, with US band
limits, wants to accompany me to such a country? Do you need to get a
special version of the FW from Wayne & Eric?

vy 73 de toby
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com