Ofcom proposes squeezing £4m out of airlines

UK regulator Ofcom is again consulting on charging airports for the frequencies they use, even if the spectrum can't be used for anything else. Ofcom's proposal (pdf) sets fees ranging from £75 to £19,000 which will be charged to airports operating radios in the 118.975-147MHz band, with discounts for those operating in the …

[Anonymous Coward]

They do a £2m job on a £160m budget

If they want to make an efficiency saving, I can think of one regulator that's just grown and grown and grown, and could easily be cut to 1/20th it's size or even 1/50th its size.

Taking an axe to Ofcom would save the UK industry it's subjugates billions.

[Blane Bramble]

If it's about efficient usage

then surely the solution is to charge those using 25KHz bands and allow use of 8.3KHz bands for free - or am I missing something here?

[Marty]

ofcom are a joke...

and should be the first up against the wall when the revilution comes.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Toll plazas in the air?

Does this mean that OFCOM will be setting up toll plazas in the air to collect the fees from airlines that enter British airspace on route elsewhere, using our valuable radio spectrum?

[Pete 2]

When they say "airports"

They mean airport users - i.e. passengers.

Any additional costs are bound to get passed on, so basically this is just another tax.

[Anonymous Coward]

if

OFCOM wants smaller channels -

Then it could ask for legislation to that end...which a government could pass - job done

OFCOM wants to raise revenue

Then it can invent charges for the use of the airwaves.

Based on this information, what's OFCOMs purpose again?

[Gareth Jones 2]

They are scum...

It's an increasingly common theme - some bureaucrat, paid for by the taxes of thoes of us who actually work for our living, justifies its existance by inventing a scheme to charge us for something we already have, or take it away altogether. This time it's VHF radio, used to improve flight safety, last time it was the "sky grab" arround Stansted, or Norwich airport. They pay more of our tax money to consultants, who produce a 160 page report, and out it goes for consultation. The proposed victim of the scheme (us) then has to spend more time and money trying to fight it off. And even if they get told to FOAD the first time (as here, or with mode S transponders), they just use it as an excuse to spend more of our money, and back they come like the undead clutching a new version ...

The consultation has closed on this one, but more info on the Light Aircraft Association web site http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/Consultation/ofcom.html

Happy Christmas!

[John H Woods]

Squeezing it out of whom?

Us! of course. When are we going to be honest and admit that all these taxes on businesses are simply indirect taxes on consumers. What service do we get for this tax? Easy ... more efficient use of the spectrum. How does that benefit us? Errr....

How did we get to a stage where thousands of government departments can just make policy decisions that effectively increase the taxation burden on the public, with no public consultation, no significant benefits for the public, and no effective means for us to vote on whether we want it or not?

Modern government, in Britain at any rate, is a cancer. It just grows and grows with no benefit to the host. How are we going to get it back down to size? I don't mind paying huge amounts in tax, if we get Scandinavian public services. I don't mind getting crappy USA style public services if we pay USA size tax. But here in the UK we pay nearly-Scandinavian taxes and get nearly-American Services. Where does the rest go? it appears that it is sucked out of the economy by worthless parasites

[Sheppy]

Another Stealth Tax

Yet another devious tax which will eventually extract yet more money from our pockets...

Just off to complete my emigration medical now...

[Dale 3]

Free source material

I guess attaching a price to frequencies would be a good way to encourage the industry to optimise its usage. On the other hand, it must be very nice for OFCOM to be able to sell a product which has zero input cost. This is the sort of thing ordinary manufacturers can only dream about. 100% profit!

Of course, the extra charge would just become an additional fee which is added on to the advertised price of the flights we book, along with luggage, airport tax, departure tax, fuel surcharge, wheelchair supplement, optional check-in fee, optional pay-for-your-flight credit card fee, Michael O'Leary pension fund surcharge, oh-you-actually-want-the-plane-to-take-off-that's-going-to-cost-you-extra fee, etc.

[Stuart 22]

WiFi?

Using the same principles could they not tax WiFi? To encourage us to switch to more (cheaper but not free) variants?

OFCOM to the knackers yard might be an attractive slogan for the Tory manifesto. Except of course this is a prime example of applying market forces to places they don't belong. Something the Tories are usually very keen on ...

[JaitcH]

Tough - these are international assignments

Th reason that the channels are so widely spaced is to accommodate a wide range of equipment using Amplitude Modulation at VHF.

What are they proposing? FM entertainment radio?

Next they are going demand that each aircraft obtain a UK transmitting licence, eve those from overseas jurisdictions.

And what if the airports gave OFCOM the finger it deserves? Likely they would do nothing as seizing "illegal equipment" would render airports as inoperable as Heathrow with a miserly 2 inches of snow.

Then even the brain-dead Mandy would wake up and realise that this a step too far.

Little wonder the Conservatives are claiming they will disband OFCOM

[Anonymous Coward]

radio tacks

the aircraft industry SHOULD soon move to an security authenticated IP based comms stream at 1090MHz, VHF could then be used for 121.5 purposes, (but remember no-one listens on 2182 anymore?) I say SHOULD because I guess they'll just go uselessly non-sec plaintext and ignore all the ADS-B RadarBox'es. Can't OFCOM be made to endlessly debate & regulate the number of angels that would fit on the head of a pin?, or just publish their salary scales and staff tables, or both. Actually, I would set an aircraft radio tax, a pound and five shillings, on sale of the radio. modelled after the 1971 tax described here: http://www.radiolicence.org.uk/savingup.html

[donc]

Scary

I can"t believe that Ofcom can be told by the CAA that this has safety implications (which it does) and get the answer that it isn't Ofcom's problem! Talk about a faceless bureaucrat just chucking it over the fence rather than thinking of the big picture. The cost of this won't be noticed (too much) by the likes of Heathrow, Stansted & Manchester but all the small general aviation fields will not be able to afford this.

I'm glad Ofcom is able to quite happily drag us back to the 1930's and non-radio joins, etc. How many mid-air collisions will it take for Ofcom to be brought to task for this kind of stupidity?

This frequency range is set aside by ICAO (part of the UN) and is common throughout the world, so it can't be used for anything else.

I will be glad when the Tories start attacking this quango because of these stupid ideas it keeps coming up with rather than dealing with the hard decisions it should be sorting out (mobile frequencies for example).

[Jeff Deacon]

Ofcom Self-Justification

Am I being far too cynical? Or is this Ofcom (aware of the Tory intentions on its long term non-survival) trying to get its defence in first.

They know that by the time our Dear Leader finally agrees to an election, there will just be a few moths in the public purse. So if Ofcom can demonstrate that they are a net revenue raising Quango, then surely the Tories will leave them alone as they will need every penny that Ofcom can raise for them (amongst all else needed to undo the damage).

The grenade is for the Ofcom offices.

[SImon Hobson]

Just **** typical !

Several points here ...

Most people think "airport" and think pf places like Manchester and Heathrow etc. Well guess what, there's only a small number of "big airports", but hundred of small airfields. If these charges are imposed, then many of them will simply switch off the radio and a piece of safety related equipment is gone. The same goes for radio navaids, many old NDBs are on small airfields, and many of them are in the "it's there it's already paid for and only costs the electricity to run it" category and would be turned off if charges were imposed.

Neither of these on their own is a huge safety issue, in good weather with good visibility. But in poor vis, both are potential lifesavers.

Now, on the subject of 25 vs 8.33kHz channel spacing. Yes, it would be nice to just wave a magic wand and make 8.33kHz the standard - and I'm sure many would like to do that. The trouble is that it then requires almost all light aircraft to replace their radios. I'm sure many of you are thinking "so what's the problem ?", cost is. Whilst some can be replaced as a slot in replacement (like changing the stereo in the car if you have a DIN unit), this is not the case with a lot of the units. So not only is it a four figure price for a new radio, but engineering charges to modify the instrument panel and wiring, and just for good measure the CAA will require fees for approving the modification ! Massive costs for lots and lots of people, absolutely no benefit to anyone because there actually isn't a shortage of frequencies, there is a shortage of management !

BTW - 8.33kHz spacing IS mandated for certain types of airspace, mostly those that aren't used (frequently or at all) by the majority of light aircraft.

[heyrick]

25 vs 8.33kHz continued

So consultation has closed, eh? You, Simon, have given a good reason why a change to 8.33kHz could be more than it is worth. Here's another - what about international planes? Do _no_ light aircraft ever enter British airpace and land at British airports? What radio systems do they use?

Once upon a time OFCOM had a purpose, if you have a free-for-all on the airwaves, nothing useful would/could happen. However now it seems they are taxing spectrum capacity for the sake of it. This revenue generated... it would be used for _what_ exactly?

[Stewart Haywood]

This doesn't go far enough

OFCOM only allocate frequencies from 9KHz to 275GHz at present. If they started licensing frequencies below (KHz they could hit the power companies for radiating at 50Hz. License frequencies above 275GHz and they could start licensing street lighting, traffic lights shop signs and so on. Not stopping there, they could go on to license, car headlamps, flashlights, camera flash guns, X-ray machines. Licensing optical passive repeaters (mirrors) would be a real money spinner. The problem with government agencies like OFCOM is that they have no vision, they only manage to screw things up and annoy people by accident instead of planning ahead and doing a proper job.

[JP19]

Just more stealth taxing

Pales compared to the mobile phone spectrum sell off fiasco but same principle. We own the air above our heads, government decides it can rake in a lot of our money by charging us to use what what already belongs to us.

[Hud Dunlap]

@JP19

Do you really think you own the air above your heads. In the U.S. you don't even own the rain that falls on your property. Wait until your politicians get ahold of that one.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4314447.html

Mines the raincoat

[Herby]

And I thought the FCC (US) was bad!

Gee wiz, charging for mandated frequency use? Nice try.

I like the part about charging for WiFi, force everyone who buys a wireless router to pony up a few Quid/Bucks to get one.

I suppose the next thing would be Microwave Ovens, as they also radiate at 2.4GHz!

Trucks driving by to see if you have the proper license for the Microwave oven, pulling over to stop granny from heating up a scone or some such. What a joke!

[lukewarmdog]

Free Air

Dear Ofcom,

I found a bit of air above me.

Nobody flies in it, nobody uses it. If it would be any use to you I'd be prepared to sell it to you for a very reasonable fee.

What's that you say, you're a completely pointless quango who might not make it through the end of next year?

All the more reason to buy my air! People might say "git off my land" but not here. I live in the reasonable North. Screw those Southerners and their fox chasing ways, be of the people and for the poeple and buy my air. NAO.

yours.. a Northerener.

[Cortland Richmond]

Heathrow NORDO From 1 JAN?

That'd raise a row! Maybe comms could take place over WiFi.

If the carrier and modulation are kept within the 8.33 KHz channel allotted there's no need for another radio. Comms-quality AM uses about 6 KHz, so airports should just start paying for only the spectrum they use, thus cutting OFCOM's revenue by 2/3 preemptively.

Black helicopter -- because there's no icon for smashed up airplanes

[peter_dtm]

OFCOM - Con Artists ; not fit for purpose

Well lets see :

from the OFCOM website :

Aircraft and aeronautical ground station radio licences are distributed by the CAA on behalf of Ofcom. To apply for a licence, please see http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=8 to go to the radio licensing section of the CAA's website. Please see http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/aeronautical/TechnicalInformation/ for technical information and interface requirements for ground stations. To find out if aircraft radio equipment is approved for use, please see http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=8&pagetype=70&groupid=9&faqid=8

mm - Aeronautical users ALREADY pay a licence fee for their callsign - under an ITU agreement (ITU = International Telegraph Union).

The licence describes what frequencies & modulation type(s) are permitted; so if they wanted to move to a different channel spacing all they need do is :

1) get the ICAA to agree to the move & enforce it universally (will take 5 to 15 years)

2) Vary the aeronautical licence to mandate use of 8.33Khz (takes 30 seconds)

The Amateurs moved some time ago from 25kHz to 12.5kHz spacing - my old 25kHz VHF still works (I had to alter the deviation to suit); so provided the change over is done over a realistic period (5 to 10 years) the costs can be kept to a minimum.

Of course; given OFCOM don't seem to have any concept of what RADIO is and how it works; or that almost all use is governed by international treaty we can all look forward to lots more imbecilic behaviour from them (Still waiting for the digitial dividend from the shut down of the Analogue TV system ? - well don't hold your horses; the BBC is already upgrading to HD FreeView which uses ALL the released spectrum; OFCOM still don't seem to be aware of this)

[Jerry 8]

how can you sell something you don't own?

So, next someone will createan athmosphere regulator and we will be charged for the oxygen we consume - all to make us more efficient oxygen consumers of course

Ofcom don't OWN the frequencies - they were set up toensure we use them efficiently not to maximize profit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully useful suggestion

Why don't you just take these useless b*stards out and shoot them?

(No wonder they took your guns . . . )