| |
G4EBT > OFCOM 06.09.05 17:19l 184 Lines 6913 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : EB0665G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Response to Ofcom, (1/2)
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 050906/1225Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:292 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:EB0665G4EB
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : OFCOM@WW
Andy's involvement with Ofcom mirrors my experiences, and those
I've spoken to who've by-passed RSGB and gone direct to Ofcom.
>Steve Roper replied to these and other suggestions in an email which
>said "Thanks Andy, all of your suggestions look very sensible to me".
They do to me, too. Well done for taking the trouble Andy.
Steve's Head of Deregulation and Contracting Out Operations at Ofcom.
He's very approachable, as is Paul Fonseka in Steve's absence.
Consultation was simply about the options for the licence as
outlined in the Ofcom paper and the consultation period has now
ended.
However, there are other important considerations concerning the
modernisation of the terms and conditions of the licence, BR68,
Feedback from others suggests that many amateurs are on the same lines as
Andy, but it seems that RSGB is in "freeze-frame" mode and wants to stop
the clock of progress.
For what it's worth, here's a summary of my written submissions
to Steve Roper following discussions with him:
Rather than posing a threat, consultation on deregulation presents a
rare opportunity to move with the times, and to ensure that the terms
and conditions of the licence are in step with technical developments
within the hobby.
Far from being "arrogant" I consider that Ofcom has "gone the extra mile"
in doing its level best to consult widely and I welcome Ofcom's stance as
a "light touch" regulator.
The Principle of Proportionality requires that in any interaction
between a public body and members of the public there must be a
reasonable relationship between the objective which that public
body seeks to achieve, and the means used to attain that objective.
Given Ofcom's broad remit, this comes into play in many ways
right across the regulatory framework, including amateur radio.
I make the following suggestions for amendments to BR68:
Messages 1 (4) (a):
This states that we shall:
"Send only messages which relate to technical investigations and
remarks of a personal character".
The latter term is so ambiguous as to be meaningless, and difficult
to enforce. It's not well understood, even by enforcement staff.
Now is a good time to consider amendments to the wording of BR68,
and I offer my own thoughts below:
BR68, and Ofcom's application of it cannot sit above the Human Rights Act
1998, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1949), and must be
consistent with the following:
Article 9, Freedom of Thought Conscience and Religion:
Quote:
Everyone has the freedom of thought conscience and religion, subject only
to the limitations as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public
order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.
"Protection of public order, health or morals or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others" is a subjective term, which must be judged
against the norms of society.
Few amateurs would wish to see amateur radio descend into an anarchic
free-for-all, where rules aren't enforced and anything goes, which
has sent CB into terminal decline.
But neither do they want to be looking over their shoulders or waiting for
a knock at the door for straying into areas of legitimate discussion that
some might take issue with.
Article 10, Freedom of Expression:
Quote:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall
include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas
without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
In the same vein, Article 19 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration on
Human Rights (applicable not just in the EU, but in Australia, the USA,
New Zealand, and elsewhere outside Europe) states:
Quote:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinions and expression; this right
shall include freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers.
Unquote.
Note: It says "through any media" - it does not say "any media except
amateur radio".
It's much easier to say what's wrong with the wording of BR68 than how it
might best be modified in such a way that amateurs and enforcement staff
have a clearer understanding of where the line is drawn. Maybe something
along the following lines might suffice:
"Radio amateurs are free to discuss any topics of mutual interest, and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas, but should always bear in
mind that some subjects are more sensitive than others".
"The amateur radio fraternity is multi-cultural and has a long and proud
tradition of international friendship and understanding. There are no
circumstances in which intemperate, abusive, racist, sexist, nationalistic
or obscene remarks are considered acceptable".
"Apart from criminal sanctions for instances of causing harassment alarm
and distress, or threatening behaviour, those who engage in unacceptable
behaviour may also risk civil actions for libel or slander".
To drive the point home the note to the terms and provisions (i) on page
25 of BR68 referring to the WT (Content of Transmission) Regulations 1988
could immediately follow the above wording.
Private adverts on packet radio:
Only the BR68 for the Intermediate Licence under 3(4) states that it's
permissible to:
"Use the station for the purpose of advertising the sale of, or to solicit
the purchase of, amateur radio equipment or in order to allow the onward
transmission of advertisements.
There's no mention of it in either the Foundation or Full licence BR68,
so that needs to be tidied up.
If it's permissible for amateurs to advertise their private sales and
wants on packet radio, then why not on other modes?
Any trader who holds an amateur radio call-sign, who abused this facility
to sell items on a commercial scale under the guise of the amateur radio
licence would quickly become apparent. ("Selling under guise" is a
criminal offence under Trading Standards legislation).
Greetings messages:
Page 2 BR68, 1(8) (b):
Non-licensed persons can send a greetings message of not more than five
minutes under the direct supervision of a licensee.
Why five minutes?
What would Ofcom do if a message lasted six, ten or fifteen minutes?
Who cares?
Who's checking?
Are they supposed to use an egg timer or stopwatch?
1(8) (c) Greeting messages are limited to two minutes in Canada and
Pitcairn Islands.
Presumably this is an international requirement?
It seems unduly restrictive. Again, who's checking and would Ofcom
take enforcement action if two minutes were exceeded? I doubt it.
(Continued).
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
QTH: Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 12:36 on 2005-Sep-06
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
