| |
G0FTD > OFCOM 05.09.05 19:35l 121 Lines 4794 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 60827_GB7CIP
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re:Ofcom & AmRad 1,000 responses!
Path: DB0FHN<DB0CL<DB0PDF<DB0SM<DB0EA<DB0RES<DK0WUE<I0TVL<CX2SA<TU5EX<
F6BVP<KP4IG<LA2MV<GB7CIP
Sent: 050905/0926Z @:GB7CIP.#32.GBR.EU #:60827 [Caterham] $:60827_GB7CIP
From: G0FTD@GB7CIP.#32.GBR.EU
To : OFCOM@WW
>Any members of the public - radio amateurs, organisations representing
>amateurs, companies involved in amateur radio - anyone, was free to
>respond to the consultation proposals, either online or by post.
I noticed that this was the case and when lodging my response I made note
that OFCOM should take care to only use valid respnses from valid
sources - e.g radio amateurs themselves.
Why should profit making companies, cb'ers or any old Tom, Dick or
Harry decide in *our* future ?
>The Radio Society of Great Britain claims that Ofcom is "arrogant", and
>scaremongering RSGB adverts in Practical Wireless and Short Wave Magazine
>have recently cast Ofcom the role of the "Grim Reaper".
Like David I too found the pathetic ranting of the RSGB to be beneath
contempt and I bet "Phil the Greek" and his advisors are left wondering
if His continued Royal Patronage of the RSGB could become an
embarrasment ;-)
Interesting to see this months PW printing wholley anti RSGB letters,
with at least one from the well respected Walter Farrar G3ESP.
Other columnists with the PW ans SWM staff have made similar noises
decrying the appalling RSGB's cretinous behaviour.
Only RadCom (the RSGB's journal) is making joyful noises about itself.
Even PW's own editor mentioned that none of it's staff apart from himself
is an RSGB member - quite revealing about the feeling felt towards the RSGB.
>The RSGB statement demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge of Ofcom
The RSGB has always demonstrated it's lack of knowledge for amateur radio,
at last the proof has been made public, rather ironically (for them) by
themselves.
The majority of radio amateurs in this country could have told you that
since time immemorial and yet the RSGB continues to insult the intelligence
of the UK's radio amateurs by making ridiculous claims about it's own
importance and alledged successes.
>Like others, I've been in discussions and correspondence with Ofcom for
>some time about deregulation, and suggestions as to how the licence might
>best be updated.
Same here.
Number 1 and 2 on my list was scrapping the log book and doing away
with this arcane clause about non licenced operators being allowed
"greetings messages" for 5 minutes with the USA or 2 minutes with
the Pitcairn Islands.
The latter only of use if you have a penchant for making friends with
sex offenders ;-))
Steve Roper replied to these and other suggestions in an email which
said "Thanks Andy, all of your suggestions look very sensible to me".
>Far from finding Ofcom "arrogant" I've found their staff at every
>level to be courteous, approachable and professional. Maybe I've just
>been lucky?
Yep. Email a certain Mr Betts with *any* query or request from advice
and get a useful reply 2 hours later - wholley commendable.
>The document is so shot through with gobbledygook, "legalese" and
>ambiguous term that even senior Ofcom staff don't understand it without
>recourse to legal guidance, so what chance does an amateur have unless
>he's a lawyer?
>It makes reference to various Statutory Instruments which - even if
>amateurs had to hand, most wouldn't understand.
I've been sad enough to investigate some the Acts referred to, such as
the Interpretation Act 1978 and the Self Provision Act 1984.
The Interpretation Act is merely stating that if "he" is used within
the licence document it shall be interpreted as being "she" also
and vice verse - yawn.
The Self Provision Act 1984 is one hell of document if you've ever
tried to read it.
I never did get a clear and concise view of the Act but it appears
to say that we can't have adverts and can't take payment for operating
our stations. It does take a LOT of reading of the Act to see what
it's trying to say.
>Hence, all of the feedback responses to consultation can be read online
>and downloaded as desired in PDF format. More than 300 are anonymous - the
>rest have names, and where stated, call signs.
I'm not sure why anyone would wish to remain anonymous.
If anyone doesn't want to put their name to a democratic process then
their views are invalid in my book.
My response can be seen for all to see under Mr A Foad.
Unlike the other cowards I'm a big boy who has no wish to hide.
>http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/aradio/responses/?a=87101
I also wonder if anyone has noticed that the RSGB claims that everyone
is anti deregulation and licence for life and yet no one outside the
RSGB appears to have this view ?
A clear case of RSGB lies, and it's usual act of behaving like it writes
for Pravda or the Communist Daily Worker - the "we said it so it must
be true". The RSGB have had this style since time immemorial, all hope
of change has long been forgotten.
- Andy -
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
