Second open letter to the amateur radio community
April 7, 1999 10:45 EDT rcarls2@umbc.edu http://rob.carlson.org/swatch-protest
Since I released my first open letter concerning the Swatch "Beatnik" satellite on ham frequencies, the response has been incredible. While I can't hope to duplicate the distribution of the first message, I'm sending this to everyone who took the time to send me an e-mail as well as all the recipients of the first letter. This will also be posted on the web site for review by the hundreds of visitors who are showing up every hour.
My Swatch Protest and Boycott web site is the most up to date source of information on this issue, and I'm updating it constantly. You can access the site at:
This morning at 5:00 a.m. EDT when I checked the Swatch web page for any updates, there was a message from Swatch addressed to the amateur community at:
However, this message is not an apology or a promise. According to them, the satellite will not be changed or disabled. Swatch has given us a single page response, and one rife with Swatch company "market-speak" and self-gratification for this project. Frankly, their reply simply restates and formalizes Swatch's indifference for the entire issue of amateur frequency allocation and ITU regulations.
I encourage everyone to view the full text of the message for themselves, but I will highlight some parts in this letter. In particular they write,
"Thousands of people from all over the world have sent us their messages of hope, peace and brotherhood, which have been transmitted to a satellite whose task will be to scatter them in space. Naturally, since they are radio signals, they can also be heard on Earth on some frequencies in areas with satellite coverage. This means using channels normally used by radio amateurs, which we consider as some of the major exponents of the freedom of communication."
In case you didn't get that the first time, let me boil away the double-talk with my interpretation of Swatch's words:
"We think we are doing a good thing, and we needed some frequencies, so we took yours. But since we're doing it for "hope, peace and brotherhood" and "freedom of communication", we didn't think you'd mind and frankly, we're astonished you're making a big deal out of this."
All I can say to swatch is: Surprise! Amateur radio operators don't take very kindly to attempts to hijack portions of our amateur spectrum for non-amateur transmissions, regardless of whether you're pointing a satellite at Pluto or the headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission building in Washington, D.C.
In their letter, Swatch writes that the only goal of the satellite is to "scatter [the messages] in space," and that any of the signals which would fall to earth would be an unintended consequence. Just one mouse click away, however, on the page:
they write that their use of the amateur frequencies will "[allow] radio-rads worldwide to listen to your voice." Radio-rads. Worldwide. So which is the intended audience for the satellite? Space, or the "radio-rads" of Earth? Perhaps Swatch can clarify this contradiction.
Since I saw the reply this morning, the thought on my mind has been, "Wow, we did it. Now what?" The question now is where do we go from here?
Both myself and Ron Hashiro, AH6RH, had anticipated that once Swatch understood the nature of the applicable international laws and the underlying spirit of the amateur space service, that they would rush to cancel the project. However, this has turned out not to be the case.
Ed Mitchell, KF7VY, wrote to me yesterday that, "It is hard to imagine that during what must have taken six months or more of negotiations and contract executions between SWATCH and the Russian Space Agency, the legal issues of this never came up. They had a lot of time to understand the issues." Now it's obvious that the issues were understood, and ignored.
A single sentence paragraph in Swatch's letter to amateur operators reads, "It is a great opportunity for Amateur Radio to gain an even wider audience." That's all well and good, except this morning's letter is the first mention that the Swatch company has made of the amateur community since I first visited their web site on February 20, 1999. If amateur radio operators had not responded with such dedicated ferocity over the last four days, I don't believe that Swatch had any intention of including the amateur community in their Beatnik marketing campaign.
If Swatch continues to be so cavalier and unapologetic over their use of the amateur spectrum, it's clear that official action will have to be taken in order to prevent future abuses by their company, and others who might follow their lead.
Andrew Reynolds, WD9IYT, believes that the most effective step is to directly file a formal complaint about this illegal operation with the ITU via the FCC. They might not be able to fine Swatch, or the Russian space concern that is helping them, but they inquire with the respective governments, and make them pay attention to this issue. He says that "A boycott of Swatch products would be a non-event if it is only hams (remember, there just ain't that many of us), and writing them nastigrams is something that they're probably going to just ignore. Smack' em across the face with a government enquiry and they're gonna wonder what hit them."
Tony, K4KYO, also suggested writing letters to the Swiss Embassy in Washington, DC, quoting applicable regulations and ITU treaty provisions protesting the misuse of the ham bands for commercial purposes. I have no specific information or addresses for the Embassy, but if anyone does please send them to me at rcarls2@umbc.edu.
Ed Mitchell, KF7VY, has detailed the ITU violations on his web site:
and writes, "The ITU has a prohibition on third party traffic (except where agreements exist between countries) of the type planned by SWATCH, regardless of whether it is commercial or not, in nature. Even if this were to be turned into non-commercial messages, the use of Amateur satellite and Amateur frequencies in this manner is clearly beyond the realm of reasonable."
"If SWATCH can set up an ad campaign around this theme, and, SWATCH can use Amateur frequencies to transmit non-commercial messages as a matter of "Good will" - where does it stop? Imagine if other companies adopt this scheme - collecting non-commercial messages in association with the marketing of a new product and transmitting them from satellite . . . In effect, Amateur satellite frequencies can be legally commandeered for use by corporations engaged in bona fide marketing activities. And that would be the end of the use of Amateur satellite frequencies by Amateurs."
Ron Hashiro, AH6RH, writes, "The actual on-the-air activity is a third party traffic that has one requisite word within the message content."
"However, the word (a registered trademark) and what it supports (as revealed by the current web and marketing campaign) supports a financial interest that is advanced by a message given on-the-air within the amateur radio service, which violates the SPIRIT of the ITU rules. One would never expect this type of activity to occur on any amateur radio band anywhere within the world."
"More importantly than just the on-the-air activity, it diverts the voluntary efforts and unpaid contributions of many amateurs into an effort that they were not aware would have an immediate commercial outcome which violates the above spirit of ITU rules. I believe these licensed amateur technicians/operators have strong feelings about the project as originally conceived as they would not willingly advance a commercial venture with a trademark message that is being sent on-the-air."
One suggestion I have received is to begin other amateur operations on the Beatnik frequency of 145.815 such as digipeaters, beacons, and simplex communication. Remember that as far as FCC and (I believe) ITU regulations are concerned, unlicensed operations on the amateur frequencies have no rights as far as use and interference complaints and are essentially non-existent.
However, I can't endorse this course of action since the impact on other frequencies in the amateur satellite portion of the two meter band isn't really certain, and I doubt that Swatch is too concerned about if anyone actually hears the message, as long as they're thinking about Swatch all the while they're trying.
Other suggestions have been similar and include overloading the satellite uplink. I've been told that the actual makeup of the satellite digital audio circuit is almost identical RS-17 and RS-18. In my first alert message, I misunderstood the following quote from an AMSAT bulletin:
"Up to ten messages will be transmitted by the tiny, battery powered satellite. Each message will be 7 seconds long and include a 7 second pause."
Now I realize that it referred to ten total pre-recorded messages on the satellite, and that the satellite could be programmed to cycle through these ten messages by changing to another one every 24 hour period. There is no uplink frequency because their is no uplink, and the satellite cannot change or remove the messages at any time during the operational life of the unit. I apologize for the confusion.
At this point my opinion is that we should try one last time to encourage Swatch to do the ally themselves with the amateur community. The following suggestions come again from Ron Hashiro, AH6RH, on the steps that we should tell Swatch to take:
- Immediately communicate to AMSAT-FR and the amateur community that it now understands the full magnitude of the spirit underlying the applicable international law and is willing to remedy the situation by modifying the project, with AMSAT-FR's approval.
- Would like to reposition the project in part as a corporate sponsor of amateur radio and the amateur radio space service. (It may also find other adjoining ways to reposition the project appropriately.)
- Acknowledge and thank AMSAT-FR, other AMSAT type organizations including AMSAT-Russia and the amateurs that makes amateur radio satellites possible.
- Obtain assurances from the Russian agency that it would not solicit future corporate clients in the previous fashion that would expose future clients to adverse public reaction.
- Publicly thank the Russian agency for their part in making the "revised" project possible.
- Update their web-site and marketing campaign accordingly.
- Acknowledgement by all sides that the lesson learned is that the message content of an on-the-air operation within the amateur radio service should not advance the financial interests of commercial companies.
If you have any questions or comments, or would like to contact me, please use my e-mail at rcarls2@umbc.edu or kc2aei@amsat.org or call me any time at +1-410-455-3192.
73 and good luck,
Rob Carlson, KC2AEI
rcarls2@umbc.edu