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.

 

[flaming]

So after years of paying to transmit, under the small ships radio liscence, they cancel the charge and now......??

This doesn't seem right to me.

 

[ChrisE]

Hmm, I was wondering the logic of this. I'd also like someone to give me an example from anywhere in the world where peeps pay for marine VHF and radar frequency usage....

 

[alec]

Interesting but you seemed to have made your mind up as to how we should all respond.

Also, you have knowingly broken the forum rules by double posting.


Could you please post the link or address so that we can make our own minds up rather than be dictated to.

Many Thanks

 

[chuns]

<<<Interesting but you seemed to have made your mind up as to how we should all respond.

As a matter of fact, I did not. I merely urged boating colleagues to complete the on-line consultation particularly Question 7. I was rather hoping that others would see it the way I did.

I also said “I am sure there could be a provision …………but not unless boat owners make a fuss, in sufficient numbers.” Note the use of the word “could”, and the provisional statement “not unless”.

I suppose the phrase “we need to resist this” could be interpreted as expecting others to agree with me. I must say I could anticipate the possibility of a headline in YM that went “OfCom to charge for use of VHF” and thought it would generate a negative reaction in most.

<<<Also, you have knowingly broken the forum rules by double posting.

Yes, I did. In fact by treble posting. I did also apologise in advance. It was a sincere apology, designed to elicit understanding.


<<<Could you please post the link or address so that we can make our own minds up rather than be dictated to.

I did. I will do so again. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/sfrps/howtorespond/form Above it is a line that goes “Home > Consultations > Consultation Documents > Spectrum Framework > Review > How to Respond. That takes you back a page to the Consultation.

Does anybody else think I was being dictatorial? If so apologies – not my intention at all.

 

[Bilgediver]

Read my reply in the PBO forum.....our friend has gone off half cocked.

Ofcom Document...

I dont see a problem.


John

 

[chuns]

Re Half cocked. If you don\'t read it on PBO...

The 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.

 

[bilbobaggins]

[ QUOTE ]
....our friend has gone off half cocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Known in some circles as 'involuntary discharge'....

Now where have I heard that before?


/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif