| |
G4EBT > OFCOM 06.09.05 17:20l 158 Lines 6420 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 330666G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Response to Ofcom (2/2)
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 050906/1225Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:293 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:330666G4EB
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : OFCOM@WW
Cont'd:
Suggestions submitted to Ofcom for BR68 revisions:
Mandatory Logbook keeping:
Most amateurs like to keep a log of their contacts, but I think they're
the only spectrum users who must do so to comply with the licence - even
for CQ calls that aren't answered. There's no logical reason for this.
Some might argue that if a TVI/RFI complaint is made, Ofcom need to check
the logs of local amateurs to see if they could have been the source of
interference at the time the complainant noted it.
That argument is unsustainable. All that Ofcom needs to do if and when it
gets such a complaint is to check out the amateur's equipment on all bands
at a time mutually convenient to all parties, to see if it's the source of
interference.
Domestic TVI and RFI complaints (from all sources) had dropped to such a
low level by 2000/01 that from then on, the RA stopped reporting on them
in their annual report. The 2000/01 report showed that there were 3,281
cases, of which 321 complainants paid the œ45 charge.
With 24.4 million households and only 321 cases of TVI from all sources
progressed by the RA, (only some of which were amateur radio related),
62,000 amateurs have a mandatory requirement to keep logbooks recording
millions of contacts. Sure, keep a logbook for interest if we want to,
but should it be against the law not to keep a log? I don't think so.
The role and responsibilities of packet radio SysOps:
RSGB DCC Guidelines for sysops state that sysops risk contravening their
own licence if they don't hold and check for suitability messages placed
on their BBS before releasing them onto the network. This is nonsense.
They're guidelines, have no force in law, and could not be relied upon
by Ofcom for enforcement purposes. Furthermore, they run contrary to the
stance adopted by enforcement staff. (See below).
It is inherently wrong and unsound in law to make one person (sysop)
responsible for the misdemeanours of others (users). Sysops can best
be likened to internet ISPs - responsible only for co-operating with
enforcement bodies, by for example helping to trace miscreants and
removing offending messages when asked to do so.
Sysops use their time, expertise and equipment to provide a service
to others. They are amateurs - not a small army of untrained, unpaid
enforcement officers of Ofcom.
They should not be expected to put their own licences at risk, other than
for any messages that they themselves originate and place on the network.
The DCC Guidelines state:
Quote:
Review all messages at least once per day to ensure that nothing
contravenes the conditions of your licence. *Since the sysops own
licence may be at risk* both the DCC and RA advise you to err on
the side of caution.
Should a user persistently send messages in contravention of the
Guidelines for the Use of the Packet Network, licence conditions as laid
down by BR68 or the law of the land, all future messages from that user
should be held for review by the sysop.
End quote.
Vague catch-all statements such as " or the law of the land" are
ludicrous.
Sysops are radio amatuers - not lawyers.
I queried with the RA the assertions as to sysops responsibilities as
set out in the DCC Guidelines with RA enforcement staff. In a letter
to me from the RA enforcement teams dated 14 April 2003 I was advised:
Quote:
Your assertion that "third parties" pass on the message by RF therefore
the onus would be on them is flawed, since that would mean that the SysOp
would be the "originator" of every message placed on their BBS. This I am
certain would be the death of packet radio in all its forms".
End quote.
I wholly agree with that sentiment, but it wasn't "my assertion" - it's
set down in the DCC Guidelines agreed between the RSGB and RA, and it is
patently wrong and unenforceable.
While it makes eminent sense for sysops to act as moderators, and keep
a watchful eye on the content and tone of messages placed on their BBSs,
it is wrong in law and in principle to hold them responsible for the
misdeeds of others.
I was pleased to note that the RA enforcement team shared that
view, but it does mean that the Guidelines need to be rewritten.
Because the DCC Guidelines place such a (theoretical) onus on sysops,
it may cause needless worry to sysops, and give false asssurances to
some originators of messages who falsely believe that the sysops role
is as a clearing-house to give the "green light" to any messages that
are forwarded.
Originators need to be made aware that this isn't so, and sysops need to
be reassured that whist they should make their best endeavours to help
uphold standards, their own licence is not at risk for the mischievous
action of users of their BBSs.
The Notice of Variation system:
Does Ofcom consider that this still appropriate? What are the problems
it seeks to prevent, and is the NoV system proportionate to the perceived
problems?
Remote operation of transceivers:
Some modern transceivers enable remote operation. I can for example, via
Echolink, remotely operate a transceiver in the USA, and why not, provided
I've furnished proof that I am a bona fide radio amateur? I think this is
under consideration, to bring the UK licence into line with the USA.
A free licence for life?
I see no difficulties in a licence for life, with licensees being
obligated to notify Ofcom of changes of address as a condition of the
licence, as it is with the Driving licence, which - once issued lasts
until the age of 70, (after which renewal is subjec to tri-annual medical
cerrtification).
Any other arrangement, such as annual renewal, would involve needless
administration out of proportion to any real or perceived benefits,
albeit a "licence for life" database may degrade over time.
The only downside I can see is that when amateurs die Ofcom may not be
notified of their demise, but then neither will the deceased amateur be
around to cause Ofcom any difficulties.
End.
Nature abhors a vacuum. If the self-serving RSGB is not able to move with
the times and effectively represent the hobby with the Regulator, then
amateurs must take the initiatve themselves.
It's pleasing to note that many are doing so.
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
QTH: Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 12:56 on 2005-Sep-06
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
