Ofcom, a personal view

[TheBoatman]

Last week I attended what Ofcom called a “Users Spectrum Forum” there were many people there from both sides of the divide, them that govern, oops sorry, supply us customers and us customers that pay and use the marine airwaves. We had enforcement officers, pen pushers, technical engineers, RNLI, MCA, port operators and last but not least yacht club users. Ofcom, the RNLI and MCA gave us over-views of what they are doing in this field and the problems that they were experiencing.
The banter was good and I was somewhat surprised at the overall feeling that Ofcom want to supply us end users with a useable system be it a CRS or standard yacht VHF installation. For the first time ever I was allowed to see the problems of what the UK would like to do and how our (Ofcom’s) hands are tied when introduced into the broader international markets. Despite that the Ofcom reps genuinely listened to what we had to say and there is some movement already on suggestions that were made. It would be unfair of me to list them here and now because they are “on going” but I do promise to update you when I can. Hopefully the results will benefit all users.
To finish, all I can say is well done Mike Martin, Chris Winton, Jack Diaper and co. What came over to me was that if I need to speak to Ofcom, the RNLI or MCA concerning any problem, and then I should do it without fearing for my safety and being made to feel a Pratt?

Well done one and all, one of the best and informative meetings I’ve attended in years (and I’ve attended a lot in my time).

Peter.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[graham]

Well at least one of us got something for the license fee then??

I know they do a vital job but the license fee is a tax on safety equipment which I cannot agree with.

How many fees are needed to pay and equip a team of license checkers with a rib and 4x4?


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by graham on 03/05/2004 09:16 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[bigmart]

You may disagree with a tax on safety equipment but how else would you suggest that vital information were kept up to date. I for one don't mind paying the annual licence fee because, with the current system, its there & fit for use when I really need it. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if it were an unregulated free for all. Its bad enough in the Solent now!

Martin



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Just passed your sentiments on to CW who was chuffed, all the credit goes to him and his team as they organised and ran the Forum.

I think the only downside was that not everyone turned up to it.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

As I think peter may confirm, we don't have "Licence Checkers" (unlike the TV licence people) but we do have qualified Radio Engineers who are responsible for all aspects of Customer Service (which includes enforcement).

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom

 

[milltech]

The question that always arises is to ask whether we are being asked to pay twice for the same thing, once via our taxes and once via licences.

The MET office, for example, can produce a 5 day forecast but we must pay for it even though we've paid once already by funding it. For Commercial Services I don't have a problem, but for private tax payers we should have access to all they can provide.

Sorry, rant a bit off topic.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[bigmart]

I understand your points but I think that here we have a different problem. If there were no annual licence how would you make sure the Mars database was correct & if there were no regulation what kind of free for all would there be on the airwaves. How would your Mayday be heard over all the potential clutter from an unregulated mish mash.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

I don't think I'd equate the need for a licence with the need to keep anything working if the system is of governmental ownership. Taxes, like insurance, are supposed to share the load. I pay for so many services I can never use, I see no reason why the general tax payer shouldn't pay for a few things I use just because they don't.

I'm sure I'm being unreasonable, it comes with old age, like baldness and piles.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[bigmart]

Now if you were advocating the Trinity House Claim for light dues should be funded from general taxation I would wholeheartedly agree. I can see no reason why private boatowners should be charged for an infrastructure that has no relevance to their needs or requirements. I just cannot see how disclipine can be applied to the airwaves with out an annual registration of its users & regulation of the frequencies to be used.

I think £20 a year is cheap to ensure that the system works when I need it.

As to the Old Age Piles & Baldness I'm ahead of you there already.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

John
I'd have to both agree and disagree with your comments. NO we shouldn't have to pay twice but when you transfer that sentiment into cars or driving in general it doesn't stand up! we,you, pay huge amounts of taxes for the roads but some of that money goes to buy speed cameras to nick you and charge you yet again. I would add that if you get nicked just once by a camera, that has paid for your VHF licence for the next 3 years. It's not a huge amount when you match what you pay and what you may get from the service should you have the need to shout Mayday one day.
IMHO successive governmets have spent a large amount of our tax squids trying to find ways of charging us twice for everthing?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Mike
The post was not intended to increase the size of CW's head but to inform the forum members in general. However if he decides to run another one then count me in as I can always find some subject to raise and cause him grief<s>
In fact maybe he should concider a forum meeting with this forum? An open session the same as happened here with the RYA.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

"IMHO successive governmets have spent a large amount of our tax squids trying to find ways of charging us twice for everthing?"

...and succeeded quite nicely.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Please don't get me wrong CW's head size is unaffected, he was just pleased that the forum had had the hoped for effect as borne out by your post.

As to a National Forum that would be pretty difficult, however, the Heads of other Regions/Nations could decide to do the same thing for their areas.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom

 

[TheBoatman]

Mike
I was joking about CW's cap size. As for a national forum, why not speak to Kim?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[graham]

My post was very negative and does not reflect my real opinion of your work which is ultimately all about our safety.

I seriously wonder though what proportion is gobbled up by the bureaucracy of collection?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Honest answer, hold on to your hat, NONE.

Once again my finance people are telling me that I am running at a loss, sshhhhhh!

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>Team Executive,
Maritime & Aeronautical Team, Ofcom

 

[Bergman]

I reallly can't agree with this.

Ofcomm do not have any responsibility for marine safety. Neither did the RA, DTI or GPO before them. Try sueing them if not convinced.

They have a responsibility for licensing radio equipment and for action against unlicensed use of same.

Why would there be chaos if license fee were reduced?

Arguably if license were cheaper more people would buy one and hence be regulated.

Taken to the ultimate if the license were free then everyone would have one. and Ofcomm could reduce its staff numbers to only those who solve problems (a service for which they charge) and for nicking unlicensed (?) users of which there would be very few.

Consider classic cars - no license fee if pre 1973 but you do not see many hooligans and joy riders in Ford Anglias and the like.

If it were simply a stealth tax I would'nt mind so much, but it is purely and simply a job creation scheme to protect ex civil servants from the real world in which the rest of us have to live.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Taken to the ultimate if the license were free then everyone would have one. and Ofcomm could reduce its staff numbers to only those who solve problems (a service for which they charge) and for nicking unlicensed (?) users of which there would be very few.<<

I have a fear about this last statement. With the advent of DSC there is going to be a glut of non dsc radios turning up at car boot sales, attic sales and the like. Joe's taxi company just starting might find these radios very handy indeed.

I also don't think £20 is a massive amount to pay to ensure a clutter free service, although I would like to see a more active role to seek out constant ch16 callers who view the marine VHF as a telephone or CB radio. I think a duty of OFCOM should be to educate the great unwashed about radio usage, and bring back the 3 minutes silence on the hour and half hour, there are some around here that would be in tears if they couldn't call their mates and discuss the latest sales etc.


<hr width=100% size=1>J

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[bigmart]

Who said that OFFCOM have any responsibility for safety. If you sailed in an area where there are more than six other boats then maybe you would have a grasp of where us southern boaters are coming from. At the weekends there is nearly chaos now. Couple this with the quite common kids who get hold of a VHF, the prats who think it a good idea to hold down their PTT buttons for hours at a time & the hoaxers. Safety would be severely compromised if an unregulated rabble took over the airwaves.

If licenses were free how would you police the issuing of licenses & the suitablity of licensees to hold a license. How would the MARS Database be kept up to date. If there were no MARS Database how would the rescue authorities know the correct reaction to a garbled distress call.

There is no comparison between Classic Cars & a Radio Licence.

If you have no regard for your own safety don't carry a VHF. Please don't try to compromise the safety of those of us who understand the need for this service. If object to paying for the license carry a mobile phone!

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

I don't hear much regulation in the South. Solent CG puts out the occasional feeble plea to move the 'Radio Check's are Us' community off ch 16, but soon responds to its inevitable resumption. Come to think of it, the lack off success in finding ch 16 carrier jammers doesn't give me much confidence in their triangulation, should I be in distress.

Fact of the matter is that the rabble already have control (as you've heard), and 20 quid's a lot for the annual membership of a MARS database with skeletal detail. Better off coming down to earth and completing a CG66.

Not overly impressed by the back-slapping in this thread and think RCA/OfCom still needs to demonstrate a valued role apart from sending out snazzy newsletters.



<hr width=100% size=1>