Mode S and new proposals for charges.

[G.Dawes]

I was wondering when looking at the ideas. OFCOM. have for charging for aeronautical radio frequencies etc. whether or not the Mode S, free flight ideas might be connected. The idea that radar stations would be charged would certainly cut down on the number out there or would result in User Pays charges that the government seem intent on making for everything.
I think that it would end up with placed like Headcorn just using a signal square and maybe a verey flare if all is going wrong. Safety ideas indeed rule OK but the channel is covered by radar from the coastguard, would that be charged??? maybe the MOD would like to contribute to OFCOM. or the secret tax collectors that lurk in the background, I would have thought it wasn't worth the trouble for the amount of revenue unless it is going to be horrendous amounts. HMMM!. probably is going to be then.
Say your bit when any consultation comes up.

[Mike Cross]

I gather that there's a Workshop at OFCOM on Monday 29 Sep to discuss the proposals for charging for spectrum usage by ground stations and navaids. Do we have anyone attending?

[Rod1]

Aopa are certainly going, and have been canvassing pilot opinion, but I have not seen any comments from the LAA regarding the meeting.

Rod1

[Brian Hope]

Roger Hopkinson and John Brady had talks with OFCOM today and will also be going to the meeting on Monday.

[Mike Cross]

Thanks Brian

We need all the input we can muster nowadays.

[Mike Cross]

AOPA UK's representative has reported back here for those who are interested. No doubt Roger & John will let us know how things went from their perspective.

[Rod1]

Mike,

BIG Thanks for the update. The AOPA rep appears to be quite upbeat and has made some very good points.

Do you know what the next step is? Was there any coordination between the AOPA and LAA representatives?

Rod1

[John Brady]

AOPA and the LAA are not on sides. Interestingly the whole industry including DfT and CAA were as one on this.

If you go back to the flyer forum you will see some notes which were the reference material I used at the meeting. I am not going to try to explain it here as the economics are too complex and I don't have the time right now. But recognise that legally OFCOM can apply whatever charges it wants and there is nothing we or government departments can do about it short of judicial review which would cost loadsamoney. Hopefully we can reach a sensible conclusion by other means.

John

[J.C.]

I can't get my head round this one.How do ofcom have the right to charge?
As I understand it,a Spectrum is basically a bunch of frequencies, which used to be called airwaves in old parlance.As these are a naturally occuring phenomonon not bound by international boundaries how can ofcom claim to own them?
I thought under British Law one could not sell anything unless one owned "clear title".
If I am transmitting on a particular frequency (for example) near the south coast and that frequency happens to be one that is allocated to a particular airfield in France but just happens to be the same as Headcorn and they can hear me and answer me can I not claim to be using the French frequency?
Surely before ofcom can nick me they have to prove to a court that they have "clear title"?
Furher more the intention to charge actually breaches international Human Rights Legislation under the section dealing with Government laws that could have a detrimental effect on an individuals safety ,especially if it exposes the individual to risk of injury or death.I think there is sufficient evidence to prove that this would be the case if this tax is imposed on us all.

[tnowak]

Since Marconi started playing with his spark transmitter the government has always required its citizens to hold a licence to use any radio frequencies. Even the Ministry of Defence needs to hold a licence (or equivalent) to use frequencies reserved for MoD use.

So, if you are required by law to hold a license, the government can charge for the issue of such license.

Ofcom are just looking at the aeronautical spectrum in the same way they did, for example, the 3G mobile spectrum. That is, see who is prepared to pay what for a license to use that particular spectrum. In the case of the 3G spectrum the mobile phone companies paid a fortune as they saw it as a way to (eventually) print money! Not quite the same with the aeronautical spectrum.
TN

[J.C.]

TN,
thanks for the explaination but can you clarify for me ,is the charge for the licence to use the frequency or the actual transmitter/receiver.
My point being what would happen if I have a radio fitted but only use "foreign " frequencies ?
Will foreign visitors have to pay whilst in the U.K.?

[Steve Brown]

Not quite right. The radio licence is to have the capability to transmit (not to use the frequency) - hence you need a licence to own a transmitter even if you never turn it on.

Many years ago you had to have a radio licence just to receive (just like a TV licence) but as radios became commonplace the gov decided radio receive licences were not worth the trouble.

So the aircraft radio licence is needed only if you have a transmitting radio.

As a break from this tradition, interestingly your transmitting mobile phone doesn't need a licence.

I guess the gov get enough revenues from the companies O2 Vodaphone etc who transmit from the main aerials and they have trouble getting car tax collected so think how difficult they'd find it to collect mobile phone licence fees!!!

All this knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing makes me mad. Ughk!

[Mike Cross]

It's worth reading the paperwork to get an idea of what's being proposed before sounding off about it.

This is not a charge for a license for a piece of hardware such as a transmitter or receiver, it is a charge for the use of bandwidth, i.e. a particular frequency. Transmissions use a signal on a nominal frequency which is modulated with the information being transmitted. That modulation creates "sidebands" on either side of the nominal frequency which limit how close together the channels can be without interfering with each other. Advances in electronics have led to smalelr sidebands and allowed reduced channel spacing such as the 8.33 kHz spacing now being introduced, which allow more channels to fit into the same freqeuncy band.

The theory behind the proposal is that by using price as a tool the available bandwidth will be used more efficiently. It's a fairly basic fact of life that people tend to value less those things they don't pay for. The theory is that by making people pay by the yard (i.e. if you want more bandwidth you pay more money) it will encourage more efficient use.

Of course it all falls apart with aviation and marine bands because even if you do reduce use or increase efficiency the freed off capacity can't be used for any other pusposes as the use of that part of the spectrum is allocated by international treaty.

Efficient use of the aviation spectrum is already driven by the need to squeeze more channels out of the available spectrum.

The current proposal is not to impose fees on aircraft radio stations but to impose them on ground stations and on radio navaids such as VOR, NDB, ILS etc. The danger is of course that the airfields give up their frequencies and everyone reverts to safetycomm.

[J.C.]

Mike thanks for the explaination,it clarifies the situation and confirms what I thought .
However it still doesn't answer my basic question which is how ofcom can claim "clear title" to those bands. After all said and done the actual radio wave is not bound by geographical limits hence my clumsy attempt to use the analogy of using the radio near the south coast.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried this in court?

[Rod1]

“The danger is of course that the airfields give up their frequencies and everyone reverts to safetycomm.”

Given the standard of some a/g radio this might be a good thing.

Rod1