VHF licence renewal

[Guest]

Like the VHF, you think the TV license should not be paid. I think people who use the service should pay. It is a fallacy to suggest that the admin of a £20 license fee outweighs the revenue from it. What government would levy a tax which brought no income? The protection offered by the coastguard is well worth the money.

 

[jonnyflybridge]

I totally agree with El gordo

 

[Joe_Cole]

So do I.

And we get all those invaluable weather reports.

And we get to hear all the odd ball messages on Channel 16!

There's more important things to grumble about surely?

Joe

 

[Guest]

Re: A MOBILE PHONE IS NOT AS GOOD AS VHF

I agree with most of the arguments and counter arguments: as I said I do not know the answers. Personally speaking, it is highly unlikely that I will actually ditch the radios I have, even though they also may not work below cliffs, or be audible above the sound of the engine at certain times, unlike my vibrating Nokia in the chest pocket. My post was intended for more generalised consideration, with room for expansion, where we have to consider, for example, new entrants to the sport who are confronted by a licence fee that often exceeds what they are paying for their mobile phone, and for whom they also have to sit an EXAM and obtain an operator's licence. I can foresee the day where if the present self-serving and perceived-expensive licensing regime is maintained then new entrants (most of "us" in due course) will simply not bother with marine VHF. If the licensing, and perhaps (more debatably) the operator qualification requirements were made simpler then newcomers may be more inclined to join and maintain the system, which will be good given the specific (but not overriding) advantages it has. There will always be specific cases where VHF may prove better than a mobile, or vice versa, and there will also be cases where semaphore may be the only effective means of communication, provided that others can use it as proficiently as I (hate to admit it!) can still do! I couldn't make that claim in respect of Morse code however, so if you are blipping or flashing using that medium then please forgive me for no comprehension!"
The present VHF system is likely to become a dynosaur if the present Licencing / Competency arrangements continue: we should obviously urge to make it continue to work in this fast advancing technogical society as an affordable second string to the now obvious main mode of communication.

 

[JamesS]

Lets forget the term 'licence' and call it what it really is - it's a tax in which case you don't expect to see anything tangible in return. I've questioned before what the RA actually does, it just seems to support itself, for the sake of supporting itself, from the £22 a year we pay.

Just to correct the thread below, I'm certain the Coastguard is not financed from RA revenues.

On the lighter side, it would be nice to think that the hundreds who call Solent Coastguard every weekend for a wretched radio check had all paid their £22 - but I doubt it!

Cheers

 

[SimonD]

Sadly true I'm afraid. I think we'll find that the licence fee, in common with most Government receipts, goes into the "consolidated fund", i.e. Gordon Brown's wallet. It then pays for all the wonderful benefits bestowed on us by our benevolent Government, including the coastguard. Same with road tax, national insurance etc.

So, whilst the licence fee is not 'hypothecated' (i.e. related directly to the licenced service) it does mean that the beneficiaries of the coastguard service make a contribution to its costs.

Anyone feel better now?

 

[david_bagshaw]

Re: A MOBILE PHONE IS NOT AS GOOD AS VHF

This reply is in no way intended to offend or criticise


I think Bargee has missed the point in relation to mobile phones and VHF. The point is that at bottom of a cliff a mobile phone might not work however the V. H. F. even if it cannot directly contact the station at the top of the cliff, can contact another user out to sea who might hear the distress message and be able to relay it on to the coast guard.

I feel it is very important that new yachtsman that read this forum should not be confused into thinking that a mobile phone is a good replacement for the V. H. F. radio. This does not mean I am suggesting leaving the mobile phone at home , I am merely suggesting it is not a good idea to only rely on the mobile phone as a means of rescue.


Taxation

The money raised by the license the goes towards the radio agency.
Their job is to ensure all sets sold in this country meet a certain standards and are able to do such basic things as even communicate with each other, Also the R A decide with the international telecommunications authority the allocation of frequencies and channels. Whether this represents good value for money is up to the individual however in any business where there are smaller numbers inevitably costs are higher. Inevitably if everybody paid it might be cheaper .( maybe pigs might fly )

Examinations

The whole idea of examinations is to teach new entrants the correct methods of use so that they are safe themselves and do not create a hazard to other users.
I personally have been boating since the early seventies when I also felt examination and licensing was a waste of time. However, after a number of years out on the water, and listening to the constant chatter, on channel sixteen I realized there was a need for teaching and examinations, this was brought very fully home when one day Thames radio had to stop some yachtsmen chattering during a distress incident.

I would suggest that probably the money spent on a radio course and the examination is probably the best value item of safety that one can buy, for not only does it bring peace of mind, doesnt break or perish & also saves the embarrassment of standing there with the telephone handset in hand wondering what an earth one should say, while the boat sinks.


I do not agree they present system of the V H. F. Licensing is becoming a dinosaur particularly since the introduction of Digital Selective Calling.

The need for training is greater than ever before in view of how easy it is to initiate a major air sea rescue.


David
www.euroboating.net

 

[phanakapan]

Re: A MOBILE PHONE IS NOT AS GOOD AS VHF

I cannot agree more. Last summer, over the radio, I heard a fishing boat offering to tow in a stricken boat so the coastguard didnt have to go, saving it for more urgent cases; a doctor giving advice to a yacht with a heart attack victim on board pending the arrival of the lifeboat; and enough reports of problems in bad weather which persuaded us not to go out- which was a good thing. Also, our mobile phone got too wet and we deep-sixed it when it packed up.Having just done our radio course, we knew better than to bother the coastguard with radio checks and had pleasant contact with a variety of other sources.

 

[Guest]

I am not sure what the relevance of hypothocated or otherwise is. The Coastguard is a service used extensively, not exclusively, by VHF users. It costs money to run and this comes from central govt. which raises revenue from the users. If no tax or license fees were levied by govt. then there would be NO public services - its as simple as that. Yer get nowt for nowt. Would everyone prefer a US health service model where you pay extortionate amounts at point of delivery or fund costly insurance policies? I wouldn't.

 

[Guest]

Re: A MOBILE PHONE IS NOT AS GOOD AS VHF

No offence taken, and your points are well made and valid, but please read my posts more carefully. The real point I was attempting to make is that the present system is excessively expensive and daunting to the newcomer, and may therefore put newcomers off using the system. I would not dream of putting to sea in strange areas or on passage without a VHF, normally two, but it is a fact that in the local areas I currently potter around in with my sailing boat my mobile phone does work well enough, even below cliffs. And the fact that everybody else can hear a VHF call is useful, but I have to admit that there is nothing more tiresome than all the inane chatter that goes on, and there is very often a temptation not to turn the darn thing on (and I know the legalities!) I described the £22.00 per annum (per set) licence fee as a "galling tax." I have absolutely no problems at all in affording it so don't think I am whinging on that score, but I still maintain that the cost is excessive and a deterrent for many, certainly local coastal potterers, amateur fishermen etc. , who could easily be the first to need emergency help, and overall sea safety could suffer for all the reasons that you, I and others have expounded. I don't know if the VHF course syllabus has changed that much but when I took my exam, longer ago than I care to remember, all one had to do was read the RYA booklet and sit a simple test answering questions whose answers had already been supplied in the booklet. It was exceedingly easy to achieve 100% and on querying the simplicity of the exam the examiner's answer was "well we just want to make sure you have read the book." Why then are people being coerced into buying one day courses to do what can be achieved by the fireside and in a 20 minute exam? The whole matter is being blown out of proportion and as long as people support the present system and costs we run the risk of licence charges being introduced for motorway emergency phones if you apply some of the logic used in this thread. It may be the case that the fee goes into the collective pot and helps finance the coastguard; the same pot probably also finances mountain rescue and cave rescue services but I don't think you have to pay a licence to climb mountains or go down a pothole so where is the logic there?

 

[Guest]

Re: A MOBILE PHONE IS NOT AS GOOD AS VHF

We do pay for emergency phones on motorways - road tax.
Mountain and Cave rescue, like the RNLI, are voluntary organisations and mobilise themselves. The RNLI does not have a mobilising and communication network and relies on the government funded Coastguard

 

[Mike_Martin]

Hello Roger,

The renewal notice for your Ship Radio Licence will be sent out (automatically) 6 weeks before it is due to expire.

Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

Hi there,

As mentioned above the renewal notices are produced and sent automatically, however sometimes they do get lost in the post. If you first notice disappears the first thing that you (and we) will know about it is when the second notice goes out. If this also goes missing you will then be sent an "intention to revoke" letter if you still don't respond you will receive a "revocation" letter.

These are produced automatically by the system in an attempt to keep the costs as low as possible to the end-user and before you all say "stop sending them", we have to under the European Licensing Directive.

I hope that this helps.
Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

The international Radio Regulations are why you must be licensed and the information collected on the Ship Radio Licensing database is the UK's data supplied to the MARS database as well as direct to HMCG.

Rather than re-invent the wheel you might like to visit the Agency's Website at www.radio.gov.uk and go to the Maritime Radio Section to get a better picture of what Maritime radio sector is about and why licensing is required. The section has the first 4 editions of the Air Waves newsletter which explain the background.

You have to pay the £20 for a ship station or £15 for a hand-held in order to cover the costs because we are an Executive Agency and are not funded by Tax.

Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

Hi James,

You are quite right HMCG is not funded from radio licensing fees, anything that is left after doing the job mentioned above (from ships this is nothing) goes into the radio interference resolution pot.

Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

Partially true,

Anything that the Agency returen over and above the costs of managing the Radio Spectrum is returned to HM Treasury. Such as the 22 billion raised in the 3G mobile telephone spectrum auctions. This of course does go someway to relieving the burden of tax.

Mike.


Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

Re: A MOBILE PHONE IS NOT AS GOOD AS VHF

The previous arguments levelled against the use of a mobile telephone as a marine safety radio are all quite correct. I would like to add to it the fact that unless you know the number of the RCC that will help you, you will have to go through the 999 switch which can and does cause further delay to your hoped for response.

However, the balance to this post remains in the fact that the Maritime Mobile radio service exists primarily to protect the safety of vessels and lives at Sea. This is why users are required to complete and pass a simple, entry level, course and exam to prove competence. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the Short Range Certificate is a 1 day course followed by an exam and that it only costs in the area of £50 and is valid for life.

The argument about the cost of the licence is specious, especially when you compare it to other forms of government licensing, for example my course fishing rod licence costs me £20 per year and that really doesn't do anything other than supply statistics to the Dept of the Environment.

Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

Sorry but I must give another correction.

The UK is one of the few administrations to require that a display disc is shown. This is because it stops us having to waste your time in checking that you are complying with the law!

Not showing the disc is NOT the offence. The first offence would be having Maritime radio equipment available for use which is not covered by a valid Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 Ship Radio Licence.

Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

Please refer to posts above. However, I would just like to point out that Wray Castle was just our last contractor and some of their answers would, of course be simplistic as they were not us.

Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency

 

[Mike_Martin]

Now that is a shame as a customer of the Agency you get information, relating to maritime radio deliverd to your door from the horse's mouth. The irony is that it isn't even paid for by your ship licence fee but from the Agency's central, external relations budget funded by licensing of land-based services such as mobile telephones etc.

Mike

Manager,
Aeronautical & Maritime Section,
Radiocommunications Agency