| Update 10 Jan 2020: GB3DA appears to be back on-air. The RSGB’s ETCC page for GB3DA reports that the repeater was “Licensed” on Wednesday the 8th of January 2020.
|
What happened?
According to the official UK Repeaters site, the NoV for GB3DA expired on 22 December 2019. It was reported to Essex Ham on Friday the 3rd of January 2020, that the official RSGB ETCC website entry for GB3DA was reporting:
“THIS STATION SHOULD BE NON-OPERATIONAL AS THE KEEPER NoV HAS EXPIRED
IT MAY BE AN OFFENCE UNDER THE WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ACT TO COMMUNICATE WITH/THROUGH THIS STATION.”
According to the ETCC site, the NoV expired on 22 December 2019
See https://www.ukrepeater.net/my_repeater.php?id=752
When this was brought to our attention, we contacted ERG, who were already aware of the issue. Our thanks to Steve for raising this concern in our Groups.io chat group.
Update 04 Jan 2020:
In response to the online comments about our reporting of this item: For the avoidance of doubt, Essex Ham’s reporting of this issue was done following a group message from a member in our Groups.io mailing group at 15:55 yesterday. This was the first that we were aware of the matter. We contacted ERG promptly to make sure they were aware of this, which they confirmed that they are. We believe that as GB3DA is the primary repeater for Essex, and carries our nets, it is important that announcements like the one from RSGB/ ETCC are passed on to our members and the wider amateur radio community in and around Essex. The NoV expiry is a public domain matter and we have simply quoted the wording stated on the ETCC website.
To those who feel that Essex Ham has used this as some form of “point scoring exercise”, we would remind them that we are supporters of ERG, promote them weekly on-air and online, we rely on their repeaters for our weekly net. Obviously, losing access to GB3DA for our nets does not benefit us, or our net participants. We always have reported on public domain matters affecting DA, such as the recent Fusion upgrade and the ERG AGM.
We stand by our decision to publish this, as we feel that users of this repeater should be aware of the ETCC announcement, and make their own judgement on whether or not to use GB3DA. We feel that it would be irresponsible not to pass on this information or to try to cover it up. Hopefully, this clarifies our position.
I am surprised that the ETCC are in a position to give legal advice here in respect of the WT act.
They are not giving legal advice, it’s a statement designed to “encourage” Repeater/Beacon Keepers to renew. The key word in the sentence there is “may” – treat the same way you would if someone said “Tomorrow the sun may not rise”
Some RSGB members have been unable to login to the RSGB website for almost a month now without any resolution in sight. It could be a similar problem is affecting the RSGB ETCC renewal pages.
https://groups.io/g/RSGB-Workshop/message/2650
From the ETCC update page, it is apparent that other repeater updates have recently been made, so blaming RSGB for an IT issue is a pretty poor defence.
It seems clear that the repeater is without the NoV and should be switched off until the situation is rectified. The Notice of Variation terms are very clear on the matter. There is no “may” about it, relaying third party traffic without a valid licence is not permitted. I grant you, Ofcom are unlikely to prosecute, but it is still a clear breach, otherwise, why bother licensing third-party traffic repeaters at all?
I find it bizarre that people are defending this, trying to suppress news of the expiry and advising people that it acceptable to break licence conditions. NoV re-validation is a clear and well-understood process, keepers are well aware of the need to re-validate, and they are contacted by ETCC prior to expiry precisely to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen.
Stephen,
• You refer to suppression of the news yet I’ve seen no sign of that, the ETCC site is there for all to see
• You seem to doubt there is a current IT issue at RSGB, perhaps you have some more up-to-date info about it that you could share? The last thing the RSGB told me was “Our database service provider have been working on some residual issues from the recent major issue” – my understanding is it still isn’t fixed
• You say people have been advised it is acceptable to break licence condition, I’ve not seen that. Your post gives me the impression you think Repeater Users are in breach of their licence conditions. Which specific licence condition do you think Users are breaching?
73 Trevor M5AKA
Trevor,
Your specifics:
1. This is explained in the article text. It is apparent that some people feel that this website should not have brought this matter out in the open, thus suppressing it. I don’t have the details, and it seems that that club rivalry is at play. Regardless, being critical of a club for highlighting matters like this and/or trying to get it removed, is a clear attempt at suppression.
2. If you are referring to the issue that Rob is looking into regarding the member database, I fail to see what this has to do with the ETCC backend. If you take a look at the ETCC site, you will see that entries are being updated for other repeaters without a problem. Do you have any evidence of a problem with the ETCC database, or are you clutching at straws to defend the NoV expiry?
3. As I have outlined, the repeater keeper is in breach of his personal callsign. NoVs are raised against an individual’s callsign, not that of a repeater group. If the licence has lapsed, then that individual is in breach. I gather the repeater is still active, 15 days after the expiry.
Please also be aware that the ETCC guidance refers to a *possible* breach of WTA, not the amateur radio licence. These are two different documents.
I am frankly amazed that such a clear breach, by someone who should know better, is being defended, and attempts are being made to “shoot the messenger” or blame the RSGB.
Stephen,
• ETCC site says renewal date is 22 Dec 2019 so your statement “I gather the repeater is still active, 15 days after the expiry” clearly cannot be correct
• Yes the ETCC’s words do refer to a Wireless Telegraphy Act but they fail to give any indication as to which aspect of it Repeater Users might be breaching, I can’t see anything. Which part of WTA 2006 do you think Users might be breaching?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/contents
• The relevant regulatory authority is of course Ofcom not the RSGB’s ETC Committee. How accurate the information on ETCC site currently is we cannot know. If there is an issue I’m sure it will eventually be resolved, in the meantime there is no reason why Repeater Users shouldn’t carry on as normal.
73 Trevor M5AKA
Someone else having a pop at Essex Ham again.Let me guess from a nearby club?Isnt it time for this nonsense to stop?
Personally i am grateful for Essex Ham alerting hams to this as best they can. I wasnt aware the NOV had run out/not been renewed . I knew of course, about the new fusion enabled repeater being installed as the analogue one had “ had its day” . But i never knew it needed a different Or new NOV to use it . I just thought ( blindly probably) it would be renewed when the current one expired. Didn’t expect us to be left with this dillema . Bit irresponsible really , ? I dont know the in’s n outs of it of course , but just hope its sorted soon and we can get back to being happy hams again ,and enjoying the repeater and catching up with friends again , that we may not be otherwise, able to hear simplex wise xx
Perhaps someone should contact Murray (the keeper listen on ukrepeater.net) directly to clarify the position, after all if it is transmitting unlicened the NOV is issed to his licence – he was active on the RSGBtech list a couple of days ago. If, on the other hand, it has been re-licenced then ukrepeater.net should be updated in a timely manner.
I count 15 days between the 22nd of December and the 5th of January (inclusive). How many do you make it?
How’s WTA Section 46(1)(b) for starters? This states that “A person commits an offence if he contravenes regulations made under section 45; or he causes or permits a wireless telegraphy station or wireless telegraphy apparatus to be used in contravention of regulations made under that section.”
Regarding “15 days after the expiry” I made it 14, I agree if you go for fully inclusive it would be 15.
Yes I see 46(1)(b) but an amateur using the repeater would not be in breach of that.
Anyway tomorrow everywhere should be back to working normally after what has for some been a two week break, so hopefully in the following days all the issues will be resolved.
73 Trevor M5AKA
I find this whole argument frankly ludicrous.
Why are you so keen to defend this, and so reluctant to believe that it may simply be exactly what it appears to be:- that Murray Niman, as the registered NoV holder, just didn’t renew the NoV in time? I am waiting for you to try to blame Brexit for this, or perhaps Australian bush fires.
As for WTA Section 46(1)(b) – If you send third party traffic through an unlicensed repeater, you are causing that repeater to operate in contravention of at least two items under Section 45, as well as causing the repeater keeper to break the terms of his personal licence. Therefore “causing or permitting wireless telegraphy apparatus to be used in contravention of regulations”
Your apparent position that this is an acceptable situation for any number of reasons including:- it’s 14 days not 15, there might be an IT bug, ETCC information might be wrong, or that there’s a “y” in the month. I appreciate you and others may be batting for Murray due to his position on (presumably) your club committee and within RSGB, but arguing that it is in some way acceptable for a repeater to be operated without an NoV is a tenuous and, frankly, embarrassing, stance.
Stephen, we clearly differ on WTA Section 46(1)(b) – Users are not in any way breaching WTA 2006 – you seem to want to read into it something that is not there.
Quite why you would wish to bring Australian Bush Fires and Brexit into this is beyond me, no matter, how you choose to behave is up to you.
73 Trevor M5AKA
I was having a little fun with you Trevor. for some reason I can’t fathom, you seem keen to find any excuse to justify that this is not a failing on the repeater keeper, but someone else’s fault.
Re. WTA:- 46(1)(a) you must not break a rule, and 46(1)(b) you must not cause a piece of apparatus to break a rule. A repeater is a piece of apparatus. A repeater transmitting messages without an NoV breaks a rule.
In reality, Ofcom won’t care an iota, of course. If you really believe that no breach has occured here and/or that Murray is somehow exempt from the NoV/ETCC process, I’m happy to open this for wider discussion within the RSGB and consult Ofcom for you?
I can see what both Stephen and Trevor are saying .
But surely it is the NOV holders responsibility to shut down the repeater if the NOV has expired so it can’t be used ….otherwise are users expected to check the NOV is in existence for any repeater they may wish to use ….for example I could probably access 10 repeaters , quite easily , from my qth as most people probably can ….I would say it is unreasonable for me as an operator to check some web site somewhere to see if the NOV is current before using it ….and even worse for mobile stations travelling around …how would they hope to check …….anyway sure it will be resolved today .
Correct. As the guidance on ETCC states, the station should be non-operational.
The fact that Ofcom won’t prosecute does not mean that it is acceptable for repeaters to operate without the appropriate NoV.
The wording of the NoV is very clear, and I am frankly astonished that the legalities of this are even being debated.
DA and DB seem to have disappeared from the analogue repeater list on ETCC site
https://www.ukrepeater.net/repeaterlist1.htm?filter1=analogue
Interestingly GB3ER on 70cms NOV expires on 9th of January
Steve G4HTZ
The summary page is still available (and there is also a copy on the Wayback Machine).
New Years cleanup in progress then!
Steve G6HTZ,
It would be nice if it were resolved today but “in the following days” may prove a better estimate on the basis that things rarely run as smoothly as one would like.
Of course we don’t even know for certain that the NoV hasn’t already been renewed, all we are seeing is an automated message that appears on an RSGB committee’s web page and the page with that message has been disabled from the site’s search engine.
As we know the Users are not in anyway responsible for the operation of a repeater and so their actions cannot result in a WTA Section 46(1)(b) breach suggested above.
What annoys is the way some people use Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) to discourage people from doing things. You see all to often see amateurs, especially new ones being told they can’t do this or that, associated with baseless cries of “it’s illegal” and sadly in some cases they are believed.
Realistically few if any amateurs will memorise every detail of their Licence and the WTA 2006 let alone be aware of the precise legal meaning attached to each word but they naturally wish to operate in accordance with licence and one or two take advantage of this, presumably for “fun”, by spreading FUD.
Our 20 pages of Terms and Conditions leave a bit to be desired in terms of readibility. In the past one point I completely missed in it was that the T&C’s, as written, suggest you can only communicate with holders of a United Kingdom Amateur Radio Licence not those licenced overseas! Clause 11 hinges on the Definition of Amateur given in 17(1)(d)
Anyway perhaps in a few years time Ofcom will allocate some money to update the licence although it may have a sting in the tail in the form of grabbing more amateur spectrum for 5G.
73 Trevor M5AKA
Trevor,
Have you contacted Murray Niman about this. ETCC claims that two repeater NoVs have expired, and you seem to doubt that data. I assume your basis for that doubt is based on discussions with Murray or his RG?
I appreciate that you seem of the opinion that it is perfectly acceptable and for a repeater to operate without an NoV. The wording on the NoV is pretty clear, but if it is your position that those who claim an expired NoV should result in shutdown are spreading fear and doubt, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Presumably as you feel that repeaters can operate without an NoV in place, you feel that the entire process of licensing repeaters is superfluous and can be dispensed with. Ofcom may disagree.
Now look what you’ve done , its gorn off.
look again, it’s alive , it’s alive i tell you . But no one is using it
does it need to switched back on then ?