OfCom at it again (sorry for multiple post, but neccessary)

[chuns]

They have initiated a consultation process called “Spectrum Framework Review – the Public Sector”, subtitled “Proposals to extend market mechanisms to improve how spectrum is managed and used.”

Big Yawn. But…

What they are talking about is better efficiency of use of certain bandwidth. Nothing wrong with that. What it really means though, is that the Government want to sell off some frequencies to people like mobile phone companies for mega pounds, and shuffle all the frequencies around, even though many of them are agreed by international treaty. So far no problem.

But a major part of the proposal is that users of the spectrum will be charged, through a mechanism called “trading”. Some of the spectrum will be sold, and whoever buys it will want to make money in order to make that purchase worthwhile. Mobile phones are a good example – what about the rip-off of international calls? That cost will have to be passed on (natch) to the end user. With me so far?

Now the biggie. Some of the frequencies that form part of this review are those occupied by VHF, and Radar. So that means that the charges will be passed on to us, if we use VHF and radar.

Now I don’t know about everybody else, but I regard my VHF and Radar as essential, and I don’t want to be without them, so I guess I’ll have to stump up if this goes through. But I bet there are many who will decide not to bother.

So how will they call for help? How will they get weather forecasts? How will they enquire whether the large vessel, position blah blah, course 080 at 22 kts has seen the vessel crossing the shipping lane?

I am sure there could be a provision to exempt marine VHF on safety grounds, but not unless boat owners make a fuss, in sufficient numbers. I would hope the boating press will take it up too.

So I urge you to complete the on-line consultation at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/sfrps/howtorespond/form particularly Question 7.

And tell your friends. Put a notice on the Club notice board, we need to resist this or it will happen by default.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Chuns - very relevant. But I don't know how any commercial organisation could ever control the commercial aspects of Radar and marine VHF traffic, as its so diverse. The old addage you cannot hit a moving target - comes into mind.

Worst part of all this is that they want to scrap VHF broadcasting and push it to DAB radio. If you have ever listened to classical music on DAB (or mp3 for that matter) the resultant sound is thin and devoid of character. Also DAB is an old comperssion technology which has already been dropped by the Scandinavian block apparently. - So why are we persuing it!

 

[Bilgediver]

Document

I think you might be confused as this only seems to address Commercial broadcasting and not marine and aeronautical etc. Yes some radio ham frequencies will be stolen but I suspect there is a long way to go before we clock up charges for using channel 16.

Just remember that marine and nautical is NOT just for a few yotties in the Solent but is part of an internationally assigned set of frequencies used internationally by foriegn going vessels and aircraft so any changes here are likely to take a long time...

I can just imagine an incoming flight fro JFK being told it cannot call London Air traffic becaue the owners forgot to pay the previous months account, let alone being told to turn off the anticollision radio till all outstanding amounts are paid.


Same goes for a vessel calling the coastguard... I think you will be using your radar and vhf for many years to come before you get charged for frequency usage.

Just recheck the frequencies. Looks like this is a done deal /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

John

 

[Nick_Pam]

Thankfully Ofcom are only one contributor to an organisation called the International Telecommunications Union who are responsible to the United Nations for radiocommunication matters from Amateur to Professional, Broadcast to Emergency Services.

As I understand it (I was part of a Radio Amateurs consultation group who worked with the ITU) one thing that the ITU have always stated is that services provided within a Professional or Emergency Services function will be excluded from any Radio Spectrum debate until such time as technology (agile frequency transmission/digitisation etc) can commercially support all users.

I would have thought it would be impossible at this time to (a) sell off or (b) charge for the use of RADAR frequencies as it would be impossible to police effectively - therefore a charge for the licensing of a RADAR set is the only commercially viable solution and we happen, as leisure users, to have unfettered access to those frequencies.

I suspect Hapag-Lloyd, P&O etc pay a licence fee high enough to cover the shortfall as a result of our licence fee being abolished....remember the reason it was abolished was that it cost more to collect the money than the revenue it brought in...collecting for 500 ships in one cheque is definitely cheaper than collecting from 500 yachtsmen/women!

 

[Bilgediver]

I suspect Hapag-Lloyd, P&O etc pay a licence fee high enough to cover the shortfall as a result of our licence fee being abolished....remember the reason it was abolished was that it cost more to collect the money than the revenue it brought in...collecting for 500 ships in one cheque is definitely cheaper than collecting from 500 yachtsmen/women!

....................................................................................

Actually HApag LLoyd and Cunard pay no mor than us. so most of Ofcoms revenue for marine came from yotties!!!!!!

The form we complete is the same one I completed for ships and oil rigs before I recently retired.

The consutlation paper does not cover VHF frequencies and I doubt if it covers radar either for the very reasons you give. This is an international world so how the hell would you collect charges.

Document

 

[chuns]

Sorry, I disagree

Public spectrum holdings that are being considered are those below 15 GHz, with no stated lower limit. All of it, though MOD owns a big chunk of it. Although they talk about “starting with 406. to 430 MHz, then 2.7 to 3.4 GHz, and then 3.4 to 3.6 GHZ, they intend to liberalise the whole lot, as I read it. Certainly they are considering the aeronautical frequencies (2.9 to 3.1 GHz) which falls right in the range they intend to address first!

Certainly L and S band radar (1 to 4 GHZ) is part of the first tranche.

The document refers to the “Cave report” which I had a quick look at, and it seems OfCom is working to its recommendations. I quote two of them.

6.9 There may be an economic case for differential pricing of ground-based
and/or airborne VHF communications licences to accelerate adoption of more
spectrally efficient equipment in congested spectrum. Ofcom should investigate the
opportunities further, in conjunction with CAA.

Furthermore

7.1 Ofcom, in conjunction with the MCA, should begin work to introduce
Administered Incentive Pricing in the following licences classes: Navigational Aid
(radar); Coastal Station (UK) radio; and Differential Global Positioning System
(DGPS); including carrying out further work on future demand as indicated in this
chapter. This should be carried out to the same timing as the development of
aeronautical pricing where there are linkages.
7.2 The MCA should examine in detail the possibility of increasing sharing in the
3 GHz and 9 GHz maritime radar bands, and should report on this issue to the
Sharing Group for discussion with other users of these bands.
7.3 Ofcom and the MCA should carry out a review of international applications in
the bands 156.0 MHz to 158.5 MHz and 160.6 MHz to 163.1 MHz to ascertain the
feasibility of promoting simplex use of the duplex channels and/or the conversion to
12.5 kHz bandwidths.

By the way, Administered Incentive Pricing means charging!

I really don’t think I am going off half cocked, but am happy to be corrected. Maybe cleverer people than me, with more technical knowledge will understand the Consultation and the Cave recommendations, and tell me where and how I have misinterpreted it.