Why Bother Paying for a VHF Licence

[cliffdale]

Two years ago, I filled a direct debit form to pay for my vhf licence. Last year I received my licence and a note saying the funds will be taken from my account in the next few days.

This year, no licence.. I telephoned Radio Communications Agency to ask where my licence is.

Their reply was somewhat surprising.

Apparently the RCA received wrong bank information when they took over from Swansea. They told me they cancelled my licence early last year. I had to reapply for a new llicence.

This meant last year I displayed an upto date licence which infact was invalid. All those vhf calls and no licence, the shame of it!!!

Is vhf licence worth paying for? Has anyone been prosecuted?

CD

 

[Twister_Ken]

Stealth taxes

When the govt runs short of funds they send Roger Mee-Rigid from the RCA around marinas. He looks up at every mast and if he sees a VHF aerial he looks on the PH side of that boat for a small circle of paper with the right dates on it.

If he doesn't find one he sends a memo to Gordon Brown (Chancellor of Exchequer at time of writing) and you (boatowner) get fined (up to £5K, I believe).

The govt then uses your money to send (first class, BA) a civil servant to Brussels for a 15 minute meeting, a slap up lunch in rue des Bouchers, a quick rub down in Madame Desiree's massage parlour and night in a five star - don't spare the minibar, Carruthers.

Doncha just love government!

 

[Guest]

fair enough?

Don't you think it is fair that you should pay to use an extremely scarce national resource (spectrum)? You expect to pay for oil, why not spectrum? [Honest question, I am not trying to antagonise you].

Sleepy

 

[Guest]

The trouble with VHF is that a few misuse/abuse it, spoiling a limited resource (spectrum) we all (or most of us, anyway) pay for. This problem is worse on the channels not normally monitored by CG. However the UK is better in this respect than many other countries (eg French fishermen for hours on end), but we're still far from perfect. Anyone know how much of the annual fee notionally goes to "policing"? Are there prosecutions occasionally? I for one would feel better if at least some of my fee was keeping the channels free of abuse. Incidentally, I figure on average I broadcast VHF for less than a minute for every 10 to 20 hours of sailing. I guess it costs me a couple of squid a minute based on the fee. Maybe I should talk more to get the unit cost down!

 

[Bergman]

Re: fair enough?

If I were not so easy going and tolerant you would have antagonised me.

The radio spectrum is NOT a "national resource" any more than the air we breath or the stars that we steer by.

The right to charge for it's use was assumed by Government without any basis or precedent in law.

Goverments have always been afraid of they people the rule being able to communicate and have historically sought to take control of all means of communications, radio is no exception.

The whole concept of licensing what is freely available to anyone is completely abhorent to me.

I do not mind paying for a service but I simply cannot see what service this disgraceful agency provides other than taking money from me.

Sorry about the rant but some things get right up my nose and radio licensing is one of them.

 

[Guest]

No apology necessary

You are absolutely correct. None of the money goes to preserving or monitoring the frequency that was not thier property in the first place. Some goes to feeding the monster and the collection agency. The rest goes to government funds.

This antiquated thinking was challenged in the USA and even their claim that the recording and book keeping absorbed the fee didn't hold up - eliminating the fee eliminates the book keeping! Which is what happened - no fee now.

tech@yandina.com

 

[Guest]

go on, have a good rant

That’s ok, rant away, I am still interested in your point of view.

Surely, the difference between the stars/air and spectrum is that there is no need to limit the use of stars and air. Stars are not a national resource because they do not have an economic value. There is a very real need to limit the use of radio spectrum. I am not arguing the pros and cons of an agency being funded by the money raised by licence fees but surely some controls are justified? What a mess we would be in if spectrum were a free-for-all and anyone could use any frequency (how would the Solent Coast Guard cope with CB users asking for a radio check)? If the marine VHF bands became extremely congested what do you think would be the best thing to do? Increase the licence fee to limit use or just ban groups of users randomly from using the frequencies?

Sleepy

 

[Bergman]

Re: go on, have a good rant

OK

I'll try to wind down the rant and wind up the reason.

The air we breath is not subject to licensing/taxation (yet)

That does not prevent there being laws, and quite stringent ones, to prevent people polluting it. I don't see that the radio spectrum need be any different.

Similarly the internet is an open system that is not regulated or licensed (more or less) and despite recent events on this board it works well enough.

The radio spectrum is allocated not by government but by the ITU, an international body, that does not charge or license users. What more is needed?

National regulation is pointless since radio waves know no boundaries.

As for misuse who and why are the prime questions. If people wish to talk to each other they have easy and (effectively) unlicensed access to CB.

If they are more ambitious they can go on 6.6MHz (illegally but no-one seems to mind) and communicate round the world.

If they want to go on marine or aeronautical bands and make nuisance or malicious transmissions they will do so irrespective of the law, just as happens now. Ask the RNLI how many hoax calls they receive.

It is common misunderstanding that making a thing illegal will prevent it happening. It is a process used by politicians as an alternative to actually addressing the problem.

Take for example the banning of handguns following the Dunblane trajedy.

It completely ignored the fact that killing people was already illegal and was presented as something that would prevent a repitition because owning a gun became illegal. It has made no contribution to the number of shootings carried out by "ordinary" criminals who use illegally held guns.

The point is not that a law exists it is that government do not put the necessary resource into enforcing the law.

Similar arguements apply to the dangerous dogs legislation. If government had enforced existing legislation against dog fighting most of the trajedies that led to this ludicrous act would have been prevented.

I have been a licensed radio amateur for more than 30 years and I have no wish to see anarchy on the airwaves but paying money to the government is NOT in any way going to prevent it.

There

relatively rant free

Cheers

 

[Guest]

I don't pay for a useless bit of paper- I do have an operators certificate which I do not object to paying for. The VHF is a primary piece of safety kit so I don't see why it should be taxed especially as the revenue goes only towards funding the collection of this revenue. I know of no one who has been fined for not having a licence or of any 'professional' sea users who use VHF to discuss their weekend sexual excesses in words of no more than four letters.
I'd rather spend the money down the pub.

Wully.

 

[Guest]

Still think it is fair enough to pay...

I am a Ham too, but not for 30 years, only for 15 (and for most of that time, not active).

I think you are right that legislation/general authorisations rather than individual licences can be used to set rules controlling the use of spectrum.

Nevertheless, that still leaves us with the question of should users pay to use spectrum? I think the answer is “yes”. The radio spectrum is a finite resource and use of it must be limited. Spectrum fees are a sensible (but not perfect) way of controlling congestion. Is there any merit in the argument that runs: since the radio spectrum has a value, a country has an obligation to exploit that to the benefit of all its citizens, otherwise it is subsidising radio users? If I avoided my Ham/VHF licence fees would I just be a free rider?

Picking up your point on national boundaries, a lot of effort is needed to co-ordinate national use of spectrum with neighbouring countries but of course there are boundaries (not physical ones of course), mobile licences are issued for use in national areas, to give one high profile example.

Sleepy

PS Do you have a Ham set on your boat? I am considering installing one but my partner reckons it is a waste of time. We have been listening in on the marine nets but can’t hear much (random wire behind a London town house) and so I have failed, so far, to justify the expense of putting a Ham set on the boat.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Thx 4 a well reaned msg. nm

§

 

[Twister_Ken]

Finger faster than brain. Reaned shld be reasoned

§

 

[Bergman]

Re: Still think it is fair enough to pay...

I have ranted and reasoned and still failed to convince you but I will have one further attempt.

I would be happy to pay for use of a facility or an asset if the person or organisation owned the asset or invested in the asset. I cannot accept that the government owns the radio spectrum.

Another point: At what frequency does one draw the line. My VHF emits electromagnetic radiation on or around 156MHz I have a device which emits electromagnetic radiation on several thousand MHZ. I need a license for the former but not the latter.

Can you explain why?

The second example is a laser pointer.

I really do not understand what benefit you perceive from paying. In what way is one better off? What precisely does one get in return for the fee other than the governments permission to use what is freely available?

I don't have an amateur rig on the boat at the moment but I intend installing one on my next boat which all being well will be latter this year with a bit of luck. No reason not to use your bit of wire, it should work ok on 40 upwards. Why not drop me an E-Mail and make a sked. I am sure I could pursuade of the validity of my arguements verbally where I have failed in writing.

73

 

[Bergman]

PS

I bet Cliff is enjoying the argument that he started.

 

[Guest]

Well, we can agree to differ...but

There is no direct benefit to me from paying my licence fees. The fees are simply a direct cost to me. There is benefit to the country as a whole because the economic value of the spectrum is realised and congestion managed.

I am sure I can convince you, so I will email you as you suggest. Maybe I can get a tip or two on my wire set up (to receiver only I'm afraid) that doesn't pick up a thing?

Thanks,

Sleepy

 

[jfm]

Re: but think of GPS

Agree some of the comments but the most pragmatic approach is pay up, it's next to nothing, and keep a very low profile lest Duyah figures out how much he could raise by charging for GPS. That truly is the most astonishing free ride that we all get, makes the vhf pale into insignificance

JFM

 

[jfm]

Re: sorry, typo

..........I meant Dubya

JFM

 

[Bernard]

Next to nothing??

If £22 is next to nothing, I can send you my account details and you can send me some sum less than £22 every month, every week, every day, every hour.

I wish I were so rich that £22 meant nothing. Please tell us all how to become so wealthy.

 

[pugwash]

Well I paid...

...and that was three weeks ago, and I still haven't got my licence. Obviously we're not paying enough to fund basic efficiency and service. Suggest immediate increase of fee.

 

[Bergman]

Re: Well I paid...

Please Please Please

Don't say or moreso write things like this

THEY don't understand satire or irony.

THEY may well take it seriously.

You have hit on precisely the thought process that started the whole thing.