Ofcom forced to back down

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
Rod1
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Midlands

Ofcom forced to back down

Post by Rod1 » Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:42 pm

Ofcom, the UK government's communications regulator has been forced to back down on its plans to 'sell off' various frequencies associated with aviation.

According to the UK AOPA website, the proposals could have cost airfields £126,000 annually to host a DME and £115,000 for a VOR or ILS, with even .25 mHz air/ground radio ground installations costing £4,950 a year.

However, AOPA says that Ofcom has been forced to reconsider its proposals in the face of an outcry from UK pilots and the aviation industry. Many of the respondents to a Ofcom consultation pointed out that aviation frequencies are 'ring fenced' by international law, and therefore cannot be sold off to commercial organisations. But it also seems that non-commercial organisations, such as NATS and the CAA, are unwilling to take on the responsibility and costs.

Ofcom says: "We have no plans to change the fees for VHF communications channels before April 2010 at the earliest, and we will give stakeholders as much notice as possible of any specific changes."

It should be noted that Ofcom has emphasised that the costs will not apply to any aircraft installations - so pilots will not be asked to pay directly. However, the charges would apply to airfields and other providers, who would then be certain to pass these increased costs onto pilots in the form of increased landing fees and other fees.

"This was a tax-raising plan and nothing else," says AOPA's Martin Robinson, "and they shot themselves in the foot by trying to dress it up as an efficiency measure." However, he warns that Ofcom is unlikely to let the matter rest, and we can expect a new round of proposals in the spring. As Ofcom says: "We will provide further information on the next steps we plan in this area in spring 2009. "

AOPA did a good job and told people about it :wink:

Rod1
021864

Ian Melville
Posts: 1001
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:21 pm

Post by Ian Melville » Wed Jan 07, 2009 5:21 pm

Has something changed?
Flyer has been running this as news as well, yet it has been known about for a while now.

OFCOM themselves anounced this before the 18th Dec and it was posted on the flyer forum then. AOPA is only one of many organisations that deserve credit for causing them to rethink.

User avatar
Mike Cross
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am

Post by Mike Cross » Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:29 pm

It's simply a news item on the AOPA website.

AOPA have not claimed any credit, it's just a news item with a comment by Martin Robinson. Certainly AOPA made representations but so did many others, as Ian rightly says.
030881

User avatar
Rod1
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Midlands

Post by Rod1 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:08 pm

The point I was making was;

As far as I know the LAA were just as involved as AOPA. That means the LAA spent the member’s money, used the associations recourses and got the right result. But it is not mentioned at all on the web sit! A potential member deciding which organisation they were going to join would get the impression that AOPA had done the work and the LAA had not. If we want to be seen as THE association, which represents GA, we must get a lot better at PR. AOPA are mush better at this despite being ½ the size.

Rod1
021864

User avatar
Bob F
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: Cheshire

Post by Bob F » Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:52 pm

Let's face facts - the membership war is business - they are after members, like ourselves & the more they can impress the "punter" the more chance he'll plump for them. Maybe we should look at abandoning "Marquis of Queensbury Rules" and start giving as good as we get. I know the "United Front", in theory, gives more punch, but it takes two to tango.

I don't want to start an argument, just a personal comment: I fly spam cans & I still feel the LAA comes across to the uninformed pilot as mainly being there for the homebuilt. The name change was supposed to reflect that we would be all encompassing for light aviation but it takes time. If we are to compete with the competition it has to be on a level playing field, they are taking every advantage they can, maybe we should be more "vociferous".
Bob Farrell
036981

IanTadd
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: Bristol & Philippines
Contact:

Post by IanTadd » Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:34 pm

Going back to the original subject, not that other posts were not informative.

I would like to echo comments by Martin Robinson (AOPA) and underline this is merely the opening shots and the chances of winning this one in the long run are slim despite the best efforts of all representative organisations.

A significant number of civil servants will now be tasked with finding a legal way to allow Ofcom to impose a fee. It could be anything from an inspection fee, a blanket Ofcom registration fee an Admin fee etc etc. If they can not, local authority planning departments will be given powers to charge a special planning permission fee for transmitters, they already do for mobile masts. I don't want to say any more in case I give them an idea. Ofcom are just another tax collection agency in the same way as the CAA.

Its not the fault of either agency, its the policy of the government, to find any excuse to not fund public services from central funds, as a means to reduce the headline tax rates.

bertdeleporte
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: France

Post by bertdeleporte » Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:31 pm

Hello,
back also to original subject, I find quite clever to ask somebody else to collect the tax: Ofcom is not on the first line, and will not have to argue with users. Don't be afraid, on this side of the Channel, we are facing the same silliness on similar matters. On the specific VOR subject, the French Governement is discussing now to maintain up to 2011 the VOR network, and then to leave them die one after the other. The repairs will not be made, the VORS will be removed as they fail. Nice program...

My comment on the "liberal" way of seeing what I deem fundamental nation structures and make difference between a "civilized" and "emerging" country (railway network, harbour facilities, airport equipement...): by pushing too far the liberalisation and the dismantling of structural services, we (the tax payer) will have to go back to the roots: fly with no services by flying with no radio and no VOR!!!

It will surely restrict the airspace and number of airfields we can access, but the belly purse we will save will surely worth the limitations... The safety, unfortunately, will be the issue of flying without radios. The question coming to mind when I read the Ofcom position is: what or who's next??? Fire brigade, tax collection centers, health system, road & signs maintenance....

Hoping at some stage our politicians will recover common sense...

Bertrand

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:08 pm

Personally, I find that paying for a TV license causes less pain, grief and angst. I can then go a whole year without giving it another thought, thereby enabling me to spend my time being passionate about something that I can engage in on equal terms - Aviation.

User avatar
JonKil
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:28 am
Location: NW Ireland
Contact:

Post by JonKil » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:38 pm

Welshman, don't you know that civil servants spend 50% of their time doing something useless and totally pointless to keep themselves in a job, the other 50% they just waste.
026434

Nick Allen
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Oxford
Contact:

Post by Nick Allen » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:49 pm

Welshman, This reminds me of a story I heard last year of a pensioner who had never, ever owned a television but was constantly harassed by the licensing authority (which is notorious in this respect). When he turned 75 he realised he could have a free licence -- so he got one, still not owning, or having the intention to own a television: but it shut the licensing authority up! Kafka would be so proud...
033719

Post Reply