Number 10 response to RNLI RF Licence charging
Discussion
Number 10 said:
Although this petition is not due to close until 8 October 2009, Ofcom have contacted the Prime Minister’s office, and asked that we publish the following clarification:
Ofcom has been consulting on introducing spectrum pricing to the aeronautical and maritime sectors. We are doing this because radio spectrum is a scarce and valuable resource and lots of different users want to use it. It’s important that it is managed as efficiently as possible, because then society as a whole can get the most out of the finite amount available.
One of the ways that we try to achieve this is by charging users for the spectrum - or airwaves - they use. This already includes a huge array of public and private sector users, including MOD, NHS, ambulance, police and taxi firms. But we recognise the special position of safety of life charities, which is why they receive a 50 per cent discount on their current fees.
What we are proposing in the maritime case is simply to change the ways fees are worked out so that they aren’t based on the admin costs of issuing a licence, but on how much spectrum is used. Under our proposals the RNLI might actually pay less than they do now. We estimate that they could pay around £20,000 compared to the £40,000 that they currently pay.
The consultation closed at the end of last month. Ofcom will now take stock of the responses, and any updates will be posted on the Ofcom website (www.ofcom.org.uk).
Are they idiots? The people who signed the petition don't want reduced fees, they want no fees!Ofcom has been consulting on introducing spectrum pricing to the aeronautical and maritime sectors. We are doing this because radio spectrum is a scarce and valuable resource and lots of different users want to use it. It’s important that it is managed as efficiently as possible, because then society as a whole can get the most out of the finite amount available.
One of the ways that we try to achieve this is by charging users for the spectrum - or airwaves - they use. This already includes a huge array of public and private sector users, including MOD, NHS, ambulance, police and taxi firms. But we recognise the special position of safety of life charities, which is why they receive a 50 per cent discount on their current fees.
What we are proposing in the maritime case is simply to change the ways fees are worked out so that they aren’t based on the admin costs of issuing a licence, but on how much spectrum is used. Under our proposals the RNLI might actually pay less than they do now. We estimate that they could pay around £20,000 compared to the £40,000 that they currently pay.
The consultation closed at the end of last month. Ofcom will now take stock of the responses, and any updates will be posted on the Ofcom website (www.ofcom.org.uk).
Aaaaargh! How can they possibly justify charging a life saving charity 20k to use radios?
We are now in the ludicrous situation where one part of our state bureaucracy charges other parts of the bureaucracy to use things it really needs to use (the NHS, the MOD). The money goes round in circles with lots of pen-pushers drawing their salaries from it... and the Government lectures the City about malpractise!!!
Then there's the treatment of other vital activities such as the RNLI (maybe the MOD can pay it as a Naval service and let the RNLI have the bandwidth for free).
Then there's the treatment of other vital activities such as the RNLI (maybe the MOD can pay it as a Naval service and let the RNLI have the bandwidth for free).
Bunch of f
kWITTS!!!
They say that there is limited spectrum of available airwaves. so how does charging solve that problem?
Does the Gov't use the money to but more space?
No it just like MMGW, It 's a fking TAX, pure and simple.
Do they think that people in boats use their radios for the hell of it, for a laugh?
kWITTS!!!They say that there is limited spectrum of available airwaves. so how does charging solve that problem?
Does the Gov't use the money to but more space?
No it just like MMGW, It 's a f
king TAX, pure and simple.Do they think that people in boats use their radios for the hell of it, for a laugh?
Chris71 said:
FFS! I think this one boils my piss more than any of the recent government decisions! It's bad enough that the RNLI receive no government money any way, but this is shameful.
You can tell Whitehall is well inland can't you?
Oh yes, thats the government for you, totally useless!You can tell Whitehall is well inland can't you?
odyssey2200 said:
Bunch of fkWITTS!!!
They say that there is limited spectrum of available airwaves. so how does charging solve that problem?
Does the Gov't use the money to but more space?
No it just like MMGW, It 's a fking TAX, pure and simple.
Do they think that people in boats use their radios for the hell of it, for a laugh?
The boating classes are easy meat though.kWITTS!!!They say that there is limited spectrum of available airwaves. so how does charging solve that problem?
Does the Gov't use the money to but more space?
No it just like MMGW, It 's a f
king TAX, pure and simple.Do they think that people in boats use their radios for the hell of it, for a laugh?
You don't see any additional taxes on quads do you?
Edited by Olf on Wednesday 5th November 18:10
Chris71 said:
FFS! I think this one boils my piss more than any of the recent government decisions! It's bad enough that the RNLI receive no government money any way, but this is shameful.
You can tell Whitehall is well inland can't you?
You can tell Whitehall is well inland can't you?
I bet you'll find there are plenty of senior civil servants who sail, so thats a fairly ridiculous statement.
And besides I thought the last time RNLI funding came up they said they didnt want government money, as they didnt want the attached government interference that would come with it.
Not that it explains why the f
kwits who run this country can't see that a simple one liner about not charging the RNLI for radio license would be a fairly easy clause to insert. Edited by scotal on Wednesday 5th November 18:24
Chris71 said:
FFS! I think this one boils my piss more than any of the recent government decisions! It's bad enough that the RNLI receive no government money any way, but this is shameful.
You can tell Whitehall is well inland can't you?
At first I thought it was terrible that the RNLI was not funded by the Government until I attended a conference where their Operations Director did a presentation to an international audience and explained why.You can tell Whitehall is well inland can't you?
No Gov't meddling,
No Gov't cutbacks,
No Gov't targets,
No Gov't approved contracts,
No Gov't army of faceless penpushers using all the cash up,
Etc, etc.
You can just imagine the State run "UK Lifeboat Agency" - there would be one centalised life-saving department based in the Midlands with 3 life-boats, all costing 7 billion each and completely unsuitable to go to sea. These 3 life boats would be administered by 75 local departments in huge offices (next to the sea) each with 400 staff manipulating the figures so that no-one actually died or ever needed rescuing from the sea, therefore, "We've met our targets in eliminating deaths at sea, so the the extra 1.5% income tax you've been paying was worth it"
The RNLI is a great organisation and the envy of the world.
odyssey2200 said:
They say that there is limited spectrum of available airwaves. so how does charging solve that problem?
The same hypocritical BS way they use higher prices to cut down smoking, cut down binge drinking, cut down car pollution etc. It is the simplest, most effective way, to raise money, whilst still appearing to be actually doing something about a specific problem.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff