[UK-CONTEST] The RSGB/Ofcom discussions

[Colin G3PSM]

Frank,

Frank Hunter wrote:

>1. There has to be an incentive to upgrade otherwise the scheme is a 
>mockery which currently it is.
>  
>
That is not the view of Ofcom or the RSGB and I categorically refute 
your earlier assertion that "thousands" of radio amateurs have written 
to both Ofcom and RSGB to complain.   Indeed, given the usual apathetic 
response which radio amateurs are renown for I would think that numbers 
in three figures would even be a gross exageration.

>2. Spectrum space as opposed to power should be used as an incentive to 
>upgrade. A power limit is unenforcable, breeches are just about 
>impossible to prove whereas it is easy to prove one has been operating 
>where they shouldn't be.
>  
>
This was the original proposal as proposed by the then RSGB HF Committee 
and endorsed by the RSGB Board at the time.   Unfortunately this was not 
the view of the then RA and it is not the current view of Ofcom.

>3. There should be a time limit, if the entry level has to be dumbed 
>down to such a level that 7 year old children, cb'ers of 25 years 
>standing and more, the educationally subnormal, the winos and pushers 
>can gain a licence there has to be a mechanism to ensure that those 
>unwilling or unable to upgrade are removed. This is not multiband CB or 
>a CB substitute, the RSGB would do well to remember that. Neither is it 
>their own personal cash cow. The FL is essentially a provisional 
>licence, a provisional driving licence is not granted for life and 
>neither would we expect it to be and it should be the same with the FL.
>  
>
Most of us are familiar with your anti RSGB views both on the Northern 
Ireland and the UK Radio Amateur reflectors so I am taking that into 
consideration.   As various contributors have already opinioned everyone 
is entitled to their opinion however it appears to be an obsession with 
you and everything that happens that is contrary to your personal view 
would appear to be the fault of the RSGB.

When the Foundation licence was first introduced it was agreed that the 
development would be looked at three or four years into the programme.   
Unfortunately when this was agreed the concept of Ofcom was not even 
thought of and the resulting transition between the RA and Ofcom put 
such a review on hold.   I can tell you however that such a review is 
now moving towards the top of the priorities list and the Society has 
recently carried out a survey amongst Foundation Licence holders which 
will be used as part of this review.   As this survey has only just been 
completed the results are still to be analysed however I'm sure we all 
look forward to the statistics it provides.

>4. There should be an age limit. 7 year old children do not belong on 
>the amateur bands. They belong on CB, PMR 446, cell phones or an Xbox. 
>I'd suggest 12 years of age as at about this age they'd be starting to 
>cover Ohms law and such in school.
>  
>
I believe this was as a result of representations from the 
educationalists within the hobby.   I'm sure this will be taken on board 
as part of the review.   That said the lack of age limit seems to work 
quite well in the US and there are certainly some good and keen 10 year 
old operators who should be encouraged and not put down.   If they can 
manage amateur radio without affecting their school work then good luck 
to them.

>5. Examinations should be taken out of the hands of clubs as cheating is 
>rife.
>  
>

With only one proven exception there is no evidence that such activity 
exists.   If you have proof then please let the General Manager know, 
member or not.

>BTW, I do appreciate your hard work.
>  
>
I thank you for that.

73

Colin, G3PSM