Ship Radio Licensing - The Future

[Mike_Martin]

On these Forums (as elsewhere) the Ship Radio Licence is a much maligned and even more misunderstood little function of HMG, although I am happy to say that general understanding of it has increased amongst Pleasure Boaters over the last few years. In the past many have suggested that it should be scrapped as it allegedly serves no purpose other than to fund the existence of the Radiocommunications Agency (RA).

I have spent more than a little of my time at RA explaining to people what it actually is, its purpose and how it helps to maintain the integrity of the Maritime Mobile Radio service within the UK’s Territorial Waters as well as assisting in identification of British vessels when overseas. Not to mention the fact that the fee is far below what it actually should be for the work done.

In December of 2003, the RA was assimilated into the new super communications regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) and the role of the UK Radio Administration is now on a different heading. One of the new tasks (as published in the Ofcom Annual Plan) we have been set is to consider the de-regulation of the licensing of UK vessels. At present Ofcom is holding talks with the MCA on how this could safely be achieved before going out to wider consultation with any plan formulated. We are tasked with formulating the de-regulation plan by the Autumn.

Just thought you might like to know.

Mike


<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[bigmart]

Re: Oh come on

you're just tying to spoil our fun now. If we get radio licensing fully de-regulated who are we going to complain about.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Tell me it's a wind-up.

Can you imagine the Solent de-regulated? Makes me shudder to contemplate the results.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[chas]

How do you 'deregulate' licensing? It seems to be a contradiction in terms.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[aitchw]

It's got to be better the way it is. Without regulation the abuse will make it impossible to use at all. As it is, potential enforcement of the rules holds back a lot of the abuse and encourages unlicensed users to get their license or at least to use it sparingly and observe the rest of the rules when they do.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

Radio Licensing - Implications

Well of course its never been regulated in the States and they appear to have none of the problems of twittish transmissions we have in the UK.
In Europe it's all rolled into the whole business of boat and boater licensing.

Dare I prophesy - we'll not have to pay a £20 radio license fee (note Mike's point that it doesn't cover the costs), but instead have a much bigger, better general license, like say Road Traffic, at £150.

In view of this Government's apparent reluctance to discuss or consult about anything (reform of House of Lords and the establishment of a Supreme Court apart from WMD and Iraq) expect an Order in Council in the next few months.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Mike, I think the level of knowledge about licensing has gone up because you keep sticking your head over the parapet and spoiling a good argument by bringing facts into it.

As for deregulation, would that mean that anyone could use a marine band radio, for any purpose, whether they had a boat or not? Surely that would leave HMG failing to uphold its obligations under international treaties. Also, it would be a bit difficult to prosecute someone for misuse if there were no regulations to obey in the first place. I imagine the RNLI and CG might have something to day about that.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Steve Clayton]

Mike writes <<One of the new tasks (as published in the Ofcom Annual Plan) we have been set is to consider the de-regulation of the licensing of UK vessels.>>

I'm sure the use of the word "consider" is very important in this context. I consider lots of things (especially at work!!) and then do absolutely nothing about them. That is a possibility is this case.

When I see the word "implement" taking the place of the word "consider" then I'll sit up and take notice of what Ofcom are doing.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[robp]

Breaker breaker I'm square hulled on Ryde Sands - gimme an eyeball!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Good point and consider is probably putting it too lightly.

Just to add some context, the part of Ofcom I work in is called Operations - Licensing - Deregulation and Contracting Out Unit. This Unit includes the Amateur, CB, Maritime and Aeronautical radio services.

Ofcom's position is that it will deregulate or introduce "light touch" regulation unless there are grave concerns and defendable reasons not to, from the service users.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

Hee hee.

One six for a rig check?............... Am I getting out?

M

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[robp]

Cor you know more of that than I do! But I guess you should? lol
Honest, the closest I ever came to that was a Number 19 Tank Transmitter in the 60's!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Re: Radio Licensing - Implications

Charles, now i am disappointed.

Ship Radio Licences (or as they call them Licenses) are alive and well in the US and cost $147 for first issue and i think $40 to renew.

UNLESS you are a "Domestic Craft" neither carrying any Long Range radio (eg MF/HF Inmarsat etc) and nor leaving US Territorial Waters.

Details are here

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/othrcoms/fcc.htm

and here:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/marine/fctsht14.html

Mike



<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

OK,

Licensing is part of the UK's way of managing the service within our own territory and ensuring that the international rules are followed by our own vessels.

Does that help.

mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[Mike_Martin]

Re: Oh come on

Sorry but I have to find a way to stop doing this job and b~gger off to Marbella to sell super yachts for a living.

mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[bigmart]

Re: Now you\'re

really trying to get up my nose. Its a well known fact that my £20 a year pays your personal salary. How dare you even contemplate deserting such a generous benfactor as myself.

BTW this is my post number 999. Do I get the big Ceegar on the next one?

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

Re: Radio Licensing - Implications

<<UNLESS you are a "Domestic Craft" neither carrying any Long Range radio (eg MF/HF Inmarsat etc) and nor leaving US Territorial Waters.>>

Substitute EC for USand you cover 99% of UK yotties.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike_Martin]

Re: Radio Licensing - Implications

Defo an interesting concept!

Unfortunately, EC is not (at present anyway) a United States of Europe and we only have common policies on some things.

More importantly we would first need to bring about uniformity of equipment standard, this would undoubtedly mean that the Netherlands standard would apply (as it is the highest) which means that it would become illegal (this includes pleasure craft) to use VHF unless you have the correct international standard ie DSC.

OOh, now there's a thought.

Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>No fixed JOB Title, something or other in Ofcom

 

[chriscallender]

Surprisingly for all the moaning there has been on here about paying £20 a year the forum seems to be quite anti-deregulation!

Personally my feeling is that some level of control needs to be maintained so that the safety aspects of VHF are not compromised and it also remains usable as a tool for those who make a living at sea (personally I don't care if I can speak to a marina on channel 80 for free or I have to use my mobile). Anyway enforcement activities to track down people that play music on ch 16, leave the TX button pressed or otherwise block legitimate use still need to continue.

However, I can't see that having ships' radio licences will make much difference one way or the other to this kind of misuse... if the money that I pay helps to keep it all usable then I am happy to pay but if it costs more to administer the current licence scheme than it brings in then maybe its pointless and I would then happily support deregulation.

About the operator certificate (not sure if the propsal is that would be deregulated as well), my feeling after doing the course was that it was pretty straightforward and I could have learnt the info by self study. I don't know anyone that has ever failed the VHF op certificate (certainly there were one or two colleagues when I did my course who clearly did not know the phonetic alphabet or the exact procedure to make a mayday call at the end of the course! - they still passed!!!). If noone fails, again I would go so far as to say that this doesn't serve much purpose...

Those are my thoughts.

Chris

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[circumnavigation]

In a few days time, I can put two fingers up to Offcom, as part of my official post within the UN, and particularly with theITU, has allowed me to know that the UK has bamboozled the small boat person, with regard to licences etc. The Chancellor announced today his intentions for civil servants and the "cutting up" of various functions for collecting licensing fees. Some three weeks ago, I had notification of what HMG was going to do, which, for me, necessitates leaving the rule of HMG, even though not in the UK. Martin, please do not lead others down the garden path, just to protect your job and your life. You have given much valuable info on this forum and you will be remembered for your usually straight forward discussion. However, your bosses (HMG) will not be rewarding you this.

Sorry,

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema'sworld.htm>http://www.mpcee.co.uk/katoema'sworld.htm</A>