Ofcom has hinted at potential changes to the amateur radio licence in their Plan of Work 2023-24 document released at the end of March 2023.
The two notable paragraphs are:
“WTA (Wireless Telegraphy Act) licence simplification. Alongside our move to a new licensing platform, we will review our licensing processes and documentation to ensure we have an efficient approach, reducing the burden on our licensees as far as possible and simplifying their engagement with us. A key part of this program will be our review of Amateur licensing”
“Amateur radio licences review. We will consult on proposals to simplify our licensing framework for amateur radio licensing and incorporate new areas of amateur radio activity. Our aim is to provide clear updated rules which afford radio amateurs greater freedom to operate, drawing on feedback provided by the sector”
What happens next?
It appears that there will be a public consultation in Q1 2023–24 (Between April and June 2023), followed by a statement by the end of 2023.
| Update: Consultation was released on 23 June 2023!!
|
What could change?
We now know what’s being proposed, so we can remove the speculation. Encouraging to know that some of what we thought might come to pass – has! There were still plenty of surprises though!
Syllabus changes
There is currently a disconnect between the licence (Ofcom) and the syllabus (RSGB). It is RSGB, not Ofcom, that imposes that newcomers to the hobby must understand: resistors in series and parallel, the human hearing range, the height of the Ionosphere and how to draw a block diagram of a transmitter. “Greater freedom to operate” could mean that Ofcom asks RSGB to reduce the focus on electronics, particularly at the lower levels. Most newcomers don’t build their own transmitters, so does a licence holder really need to memorise the resistor colour code or understand Fourier transform?
Could Ofcom decide that the RSGB’s 2019 syllabus changes were excessive? Since the new syllabus rolled out, we’ve seen a steep drop in people moving from Foundation to Intermediate, and with the new Intermediate now containing a significant amount of “Full” theory drop down to make the exam harder, people staying put at Foundation is a worrying trend. Whilst RSGB appears keen on adding in extra theory to our primarily practical hobby, perhaps Ofcom would like to see more people enter the hobby and progress as operators, not theorists.
Consultation Links
- Essex Ham’s Ofcom Consultation Page
- Ofcom Consultation Document (101 pages)
- View our survey results
- Watch our summary video
- Read the RSGB’s response to Ofcom
We’d love to hear your own thoughts on what could change, via the comments below!
One thing I’ve noticed being new to the hobby and only very recently passing my foundation exam (30th March) is the number of people currently going through training who simply don’t understand the need to learn any of the elctronic side of things at least at foundation level.
I have heard a lot of discussion on various forums from people who say if there was an option for an ‘operator only’ licence then that would be their route of choice.
Maybe the RSGB is finally listening to growing number of voices asking for this kind of licence level and are finally willing to bend on the matter?
I’ve been a 2e1 now for over 20 years , I would love to have full power. As 50watts can sometimes be frustrating as does 10 Watts for my M3 ……
Since the passing of my wife 3 years ago I’ve struggled to learn anything new not just radio guess I put it down to the 10 years of stress looking after her and working full time with no government help .
So what I’m saying is ! I haven’t the brains now to pass a full exam . To give 2e1 say 100 Watts would help a bit ….
Really interesting points and I certainly agree about the 100w! Would also be nice to have a less ugly callsign prefix for intermediate too but I feel that is out of the question
Certainly not out of the question.
There is no reason why amateurs should be forced to change their callsign just because they have gained some additional knowledge.
It’s an anachronism from a bygone era. Other countries do not force a callsign change, amateurs are free to keep their initial callsign if they wish.
Keeping the same M callsign when you gain extra privileges would help relieve Ofcom of some administrative burden, it’s something Ofcom would probably welcome
Problems with life can be very detrimental to ones mental health preventing our minds from even soaking up a few pages of a book. The sad truth is the majority can not be the perfect narcissist. Good luck with that 73
You clearly missed the part where he explains he has difficulty learning anything new, Nothing about blaming his Ill wife or time restraints, so your arrogance I find shocking and your lack of compassion is terrible, People do have learning problems “Myself included” if everyone was able to learn at the same level everyone would be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist, what a pigheaded & big-headed approach you have.
Sorry for your loss, I’ve worked the world on 5/10 watts SSB, start with the Antenna then look at your antennas, think verticals/loops, compression on your signal is also a great help. 3db is half an S point on RX; Here is a great video on the difference between QRP & QRO & why it’s a fallacy
https://youtu.be/0rRs75Kdwq8
I’m working VK on 10 watts here
https://youtu.be/5PVtvC-88gk
5 watts to the middle east on a indoor loop
https://youtu.be/vyo82Qozbbk
50w to 100w in the grand scheme of things will offer you extremely marginal results. it is literally half an S point.
It’s people like you that are killing the hobby
50 watt radios ? Where can i get one of them ? Pull the other leg its got bells on.
interesting speculation pete
the possibility of removing the mid level license, i am mixed about it, it will simplify things but it will likely lead to a big gap in knowledge between the two license levels and discourage even more people from obtaining the higher license
it all depends on what happens to the lower level license, does it stay at foundation level power, restrictions and syllabus or does it move up to intermediate levels and syllabus?
what will the upper level license include, will it be nearer the current intermediate level syllabus or full?
as i see it the biggest restriction to moving up from foundation to intermediate is not just the syllabus, but the cost of the transceiver, M7’s can buy a baofeng and get on 2m for less than about £50
to get onto HF and be able to use intermediate power level you need a larger antenna (£100+ even for a EFHW if purchased rather than made) and for a mainstream rig (icom, yeasu etc) you are looking at £1000+ and in the current economic climate how many younger people have that level of saving / disposable income to spend (i also think this may be a factor in why so few younger people get into the hobby)
there are some cheaper HF rigs from Xiegu (G90 all mode HF for about £400, X6100 all mode HF + 6m for about £600) not as polished as a mainstream rig but very capable and simple to use for newly licensed
if the restrictions on building kits are removed then something like a QRPLabs QDX digimode 5w HF transceiver for about £100 makes HF digimodes accessible to many more you still need a reasonably big antenna due to the basic physics of radio and the wavelength of the band desired
but to build kits like the QDX you need a certain level of soldering skills and understanding of electronic theory to align and test it (as well as ultimately repair if it breaks )
was the removal of the practical’s during covid the thin end of the wedge for a basic operator class of license?
how will the trainers like pete cope with potentially yet another overhaul of syllabus
the final question will be, if even half of pete’s thoughts become reality after OFCOM’s review / plan of works / consultation or what ever they call it, what will happen inside the old boys club that is the RSGB? as they don’t like modernisation or change and it would seem they will likely have a lot of both heading their way
it will all depend on what OFCOM and the RSGB think people want from amateur radio, personally i enjoy building things and experimenting with antennas etc and i hope they don’t take that away
You say if construction restrictions abolished Foundation could build the QRPLabs QDX digimode 5w HF transceiver – they already can build it under the current licence. Foundation have always been able to build kit transmitters/transceivers. I’m curious as to why you think they couldn’t?
I think it is a blurry line, M7’s can build, but have to have it checked over by someone with relevant licence. I’ll admit I struggle to know what I can and can’t do and how to ensure it is done correctly. I would welcome the use of additional power, should it be that that changes. Because I live next to 25,000V overhead train lines and it practically wipes out 10W
for M7’s and kits look at https://www.essexham.co.uk/amateur-radio-foundation-kits-ir2028
pete explains the reasoning
you can build any kit you want so long as it don’t TX, as the M7 is assumed not to have the required skill to test and maintain the kit they are not allowed to build TX kits unless they conform to IR2028 (which none are currently known to)
No, Foundation can operate transmitter/transceiver kits they build themselves and always have been able to.
Foundation kits are no different from ready-made rigs in that both need to be used in accordance with IR-2028.
You say no kits are advertised as conforming to IR-2028 but the same is true of ready build rigs. Not a single is advertised as conforming to IR-2028.
It is how the equipment is used that matters, if a ready-made rig had to conform to Foundation IR-2028 then all rigs with a power greater than 10 watts or had 5 MHz TX capability would be banned. The station simply needs to be operated in accordance with the Mandatory elements of IR-2028, that’ what is meant by “satisfies IR-2028” in the licence
No that’s wrong Tom, Foundation Do Not have to get their home-made transmitters checked by anyone else
Making the Foundation exam questions a little harder, could make the abolition of the Intermediate licence easier.
Just two levels of competency Full + Foundation, perhaps renamed.
Remember that a fairly recent look by Essex Ham at the last RAE held, showed that 55%, of that would equate with the Foundation exam, post 2019.
No way should there ever be an exam lower than the current Foundation licence.
I get a headache at the thought of a “Beginners’ licence” to turn the 2 metre band into a CB equivalent!
When I first passed my foundation I was moving towards my intermediate and then the full unfortunately I lost my dad passed away Alzhimers and then my mother then caugh covid at hospital and 3 days after she passed away and then came the lock down, I tried to studying on the intermediate just to take my mind away from not seeing my mother at hospital so I tried reading the book etc i could not take anything in it was just a blur i just put it down to stress after lockdown then I was diagnosed with Fibromyalgia and pary of the symptoms is memory loss I was told I should surrender my licence by a ham operator I really wanted to try the Intermediate deep down I know it will be pointless I was happy on the foundation so if its going to be taken away from us if we dont progress into the hobby all I can say it was good while it lasted
Make you mark X or check if you are breathing next move ?
Wasn’t the whole concept of amateur radio to paraphrase to study and put into practice and to improve by experimentation, remember radio was invented and developed by Marconi and other amateurs.
I believe there is a disconnect between the RSGB’s expectation for the hobby and what the majority of licensed and unlicensed members want, and would like to see come to fruition. I base that on conversations I have had, and the percentage who think the RSGB are doing a good job to maintain and grow the hobby. It is interesting to consider if the RSGB, to which I remain a member, is raising the stakes (becoming licensed/methods of operating) beyond the levels actually required by Ofcom. I certainly get that impression. Perhaps the RSGB see themselves as ‘gatekeepers’? Is that fair or warranted? What about new (future) individuals to the hobby? What is the likelihood of 21st Century new ‘Hams’ building their own transceiver from scratch? Frankly, it is cheaper to purchase a commercial rig: one that has been tested and meets modern operating requirements. (We won’t go down the ‘ but are they real amateurs’ rabbit hole!)
I would like to see more of the freedoms, gained by our US colleagues, over here, such as: easier unattended operation; remote operating; wider experimentation of digital modes. I am sure there are others that you can think of. Let’s ‘light-touch’ some of the current operating procedures, within a wider framework of compliance, and set the future of our hobby to more relevant and exciting times.
Will you take part in Ofcom’s survey? If not, change is less likely to occur.
Why not have the two tere A and B by bringing back the Morse test . It worked.
The Morse requirement from the ITU was removed in 2003, so there is exactly zero chance of it being reinstated.
As for the ability to use self-built equipment, it’s not allowed because you will do it, it’s allowed because you can do it while learning about what is needed as you go. No one can build a complex radio when they are first licensed, but with time and study some can.
Just because Morse isnt a requirement anymore doesn’t mean there can’t be a class of licence
for CW operators
I would beg to differ, the point being that while there is nothing wrong with operating CW or even passing a test just to show that you can should that float your boat, Ofcom will not create a new licence class when Morse code skill is now no longer required by the international regulations. After 20 years, it just isn’t coming back.
I am M3ZKB and got my licence in july 07, I would like to get a full licence but the formulas in algerbra is o nono . in my school in the 50s algerbra was not regonized as needed, I was a rig docter for a cb club in newquay in the 80s so how it all works is easy ,I build all my gear ezcept rigs and twigs , see my qrz page regards, ken, m3zkb
What algabra? the full licence is mostly licence conditions, and math formulas can be reduced to multiplying and dividing
Not so. Only 7 of the 58 questions are on licensing. As for the 39 algebraic formulas, these are all listed on page 95 of the syllabus here: https://rsgb.services/public/exams/specifications/syllabus_2019_complete_specification_v1.5_revision_sep_2022.pdf
I would like to see changes around volunteering for testing, and making that process open to more. Right now RSGB gets the money, the testers are volunteers from RSGB, and I have not seen any way of opening the testing more to public.
so is this where the RSGB will provide a clubs with a bone?
what if M7’s could build a kit under supervision by a full license holder (in a club environment?) have it certified by the full license periodically
this could work as many clubs or their members tend to have test kit and experienced builders, so long as a M0 etc signs off a check sheet and that documentation could be part of the station log, with a periodic recertification (6 or 12 monthly?) and it is recertified if it has to be repaired, this way the M7 gets to build kit and learns how to test and maintain it
the RSGB want to provide training for new hams (e.g brick works etc), this would be great, even if kits were limited to power like 5w of the QDX
Foundation licence holders can build, then get it inspected and signed off by a intermediate or full
Not according to section 7(2) of the licence.
Alistair 2E1AJB
This is a difficult one and I see different points of view, I will put mine, I am intermediate. For my on prestige I would like to pass the full exam but do I really need too, no.
I am not going to build a radio, I play with antenna’s yes and I try and get my station as efficient as possible and with that I can get half way round the world. I do see a need for the foundation licence as when I started I knew nothing and this was the quickest way to get on the air, I don’t see the need for the Full licence unless you intend to build radio’s or other equipment. So I would argue the three level are right but the names are changed to Foundation (rules, safety and procedure) Operator (more or less as intermediate it is today but no building and 100 watts as most rigs are now) Build (everything else no restrictions)
Why, dont you think you can use 400W safely ?
the problem is with the new rules about EMF especially on HF the exclusion zone makes 400w virtually unobtainable for most hams unless you in the middle of nowhere and no neighbours
my main rig is a FT-991a 100w HF & 50w VHF/UHF, i rarely use more than 50w on HF and i get pretty much global with digital modes
i love the challenge of QRP and have a Xiegu X6100 HF + 6m for the car with a multiband antenna on a mag mount for the car (stationary ops only), 5w with mag mount i got to the US with FT8 on 10m and 15m a few weeks back
a decent well tuned antenna, with good low loss coax makes far more difference than winding the power up
I personally was primarily interested in the construction part of the hobby and having the freedom to build or modify my own equipment. I also recognised the importance of being trained in license conditions and proper operating protocols – so found the Foundation and Intermediate useful. Realistically there is much less theory in the Full Examination than there was in the 70s and 80s. QRP and the other end QRO building amplifiers is where most homebrewers gravitate.
I never understood why when we in the European Union for so many years that we didn’t harmonise the output levels available to European Countries – so making EME easier for us.
Now there is more clarification on allowed RF exposure levels I think Ofcom may be stricter and actually reduce what we are allowed to use – especially in the microwave bands.
I think Peter M0PWX (2E0PWX) makes a few good points. I want to go up to Intermediate licence, studying with my son (his foundation). In my opinion, intermediate is a good place, if you want to experiment with radio, but don’t have much time or money, or both like in my case, lol. One thing, as Peter mentioned, it would be good, if the rules were more relaxed with regard to making your own rig. There are not many engineers, and letting young people make their own radio would bring more attention. My son was really interested to start getting some kits together, but it’s already hard to get started. I don’t know how this can be achieved.
Australia copied some of the UK’s restrictions for their Foundation one of which was restricting home-construction. The National Society WIA eventually realised what a bad move that was and campaigned for Foundation to be allowed to design (if they wish)/build/operate their own transmitters/transceivers this change was introduced 4 years ago and has been a success. Hopefully Ofcom will completely scrap clause 7(2)
i think the RSGB should provide a simple process for properly produced kits like those provided by QRPLabs to be certified as suitable for M7’s (good quality screen printed PCB, suitable enclosure, clear instructions for build, test/tune and fault finding)
maybe a couple of categories
CAT 1 :- suitable for a M7 to build unsupervised (TX with TCXO, and not able to TX out of band)
CAT 2 :- suitable for a M7 to build with supervision (may need alignment or LPF / BPF filters tuning)
may be the RSGB get some newly qualified M7’s who expressed a desire to progress to build some of the kits then submit them to be evaluated as a practical check of the real world M7’s have and they should submit a report on how clear the instructions are did they encounter any issues with building or setup / tuning
We want to cut existing bureaucracy and simplify regulations not add a new layer of Certification and Inspection. It would serve no useful regulatory purpose only add to costs and discourage home-construction.
Scrapping Clause 7(2) will give a boost to home-construction which is what we want to achieve
Thanks for the update.
As someone who went though all three of the licence levels (starting with Foundation through Essexham :-) ) I found that there was a big jump in content between foundation and intermediate and virtually no more topics between intermediate and full. So removing one would make sense.
I also agree with the previous poster. Removing the electronics component of the Foundation would open the gateway to more new operators currently put off by the that side of the test. It’s quite possible for an operator to use modern radios to their full capabilities without ever touching a soldering iron, working out parallel resistance or thinking about capacitors. Having said that, still having a full licence for those that do want to learn and use all that side of the hobby and stay compliant with global licence standards is necessary
For me, the Full licence was all about the ability to supervise. That’s what was worth the study. I didn’t find it a massive step up from Intermediate. I think Intermediate is too big a jump after Foundation, if you can do maths you’re fine, but I saw a number of people flounder because they can’t throw numbers into an equation.
The content of the Full licence is determined not by Ofcom but by the need to meet international standards for operating abroad. As Intermediate doesn’t offer that, it doesn’t need to tick those boxes.
Tim,
The licence was changed a couple of years ago to address the issue you mentioned,
Foundation is no longer a “how not to interfere with your neighbours” course, but includes some bits from the old intermediate syllabus.
The intermediate now contains most of the electronics, whereas half of it used to be in the full (particularly inductors etc.)
For me, I entirely understand why it’s been dropped, but when I studied, I particularly enjoyed the practical element. I hadn’t done any soldering in anger since my teens,
Like you though, I wanted to run JOTA events for my scouts as well as apply for an SES. The ability to work abroad is also useful, as well as use some of the more extreme bands. If I was limited to it, I’m more than happy to use less than 50w. Particularly on UHF and VHF where cable losses and antenna gain make a much, much bigger difference than the amount of power you use (what’s the point of using 400w if your setup is so lossy that you can’t actually hear anyone)
I would have thought with advanced health care resulting in many of us living longer going into care and/or living in sheltered accommodations remote control of say a club station in unattended/unspervised mode could be an area they may look at in a favourable light. I believe in the US this is already permitted and would be a popular move so long as it was well regulated.
Ditto the amount of power that can be used with a personal digital hotspot needs clarification, the licence is very vague at the moment and open to interpretation. In theory, you could actually run full licence power so long as third-party access is blocked which could be open to abuse. Likewise, there are various urban myths flying around that you can’t plug a personal hotspot into an external antenna or only run XYZ power etc., this all needs tidying up in the next licence revision in the same way unattended AX.25 Packet Radio operation was cleared up in the 90’s.
As for those who ask should we learn the formulas and electronics, personally, I wound up with a successful career it IT and Comms having that knowledge on board. I don’t understand why people make such a big deal about it, the new exams look far more straightforward than the original 2-part City & Guild exams. All of us Gxxxx callsigns managed it OK.
With the massive drop off of full licence holders as the complex and increasingly difficult exam system daunts only but the hyper enthusiastic amateur – this review might be good news. Without a fundamental change amateur radio (as we know it Jim) would appear to be in a statistical death spiral. See graphs showing Foundation to Intermediate to Full attrition rates.
When talking about the initiators of the current system – does anybody know who the “they” of OFCOM actually are and the thinking pathway to the current system? Answers on a post card please.
One of the historic “theys” of the OFCOM was the former boss – Dame Sharon White errr for those who’ve never heard of her she’s now the boss of the dear old John Lewis Partnership – a business now in its own death spiral – losing £234m last year – I rest my case. Not bad work if you can get it! £1m a year!
https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2023/03/john-lewis-boss-sharon-white-reassures-customers-amid-backlash/
I will certainly be contributing to the consultation
Dave NOW – aka “disgusted of Eltham”
The content of the syllabus is the subject of an international treaty and not chosen by RSGB or OFCOM, but defined in CEPT recommendation TR 61-02, which you can download here:
https://docdb.cept.org/download/e4b9c459-5726/TR61-02.pdf
That document demands knowledge of math and electronics. If you want a different exam, it will not be valid abroad.
Fair enough – but how many people actually use it abroad? A tiny percentage. So the “Constructor” licence is able to transmit abroad and the “Operator” licence would not. The best of both worlds it appears.
Operator / Construction license -> That would be amazing :-)
Agree with G0GCQ ^
I’m guessing that even commercial stations mostly use off-the-shelf / high-end / carrier-class hardware.
Pretty sure that ICOM, Yaesu and Kenwood produce wayyyyy better equipment than most of us could / would.
@M7GIX “Pretty sure that ICOM, Yaesu and Kenwood produce wayyyyy better equipment than most of us could / would.”
without a doubt, but its the pride and achievement of getting a radio you built on the air, the ultimate would be to design, then build a radio and get it on the air
but while for people like me it is the thrill of kit building, others have no desire to wield a soldering iron and that is their choice
as to the content of the exams i am in a fairly unique position, i did my foundation in sept 21, intermediate oct 21 and full in feb 22, all done under remote invigilation with no practicals
my take on the exams was foundation had a low level of electronic theory, yes you need to know a few calcs for resistor / capacitor in series and parallel, basic antennas and how to calculate sizes for resonances etc
intermediate only added a little more detail to the same topic, i did not see a massive uplift in the complexity, (yagi is added to a quarter wavy antenna, few more blocks in the block diagrams, more detailed questions about band plans and licensing)
full was to me a massive step as there was a lot of detailed electronic theory about amplifier classes, how mixers actually work to change RF to IF frequencies, modulators and demodulators, a lot more details about EMF, Q factors on tuned circuits
i did have the advantage of having an extensive knowledge of component level repair as a workshop engineer for an IT company doing component level repair on monitors, printers and power supplies, and board level on computers, so a lot of the theory was 2nd nature to me, i knew how to use oscilloscopes, meter, anti static precautions, read circuit diagrams and block diagram
but i can see someone coming in from scratch without my level of knowledge it can be a bit over the top and complex
the other thing i noted was how each level built on the previous level, progressing up the levels quickly to me made it easier, as the knowledge from the previous level meant you were topping up rather than learning from scratch again as you progressed up each level
for me obtaining my full license was to gain access to bands like 60m and the option to apply for
some of the NoV’s although i have not actually applied for any NoV’s yet
all of mine was done self study (no clubs as during lockdown), with more people taking the self study (non club route) i can see why some of the clubs are struggling
Operator / Construction license is the best idea.
Why should I need to be an electronics engineer to be able to transmit at more than 10W? It really is an archaic system and if they don’t change, the hobby will die, or people will ignore the rules.
Different perspective as an Intermediate Licence holder, I recently booked onto an online course for Adavanced/Full Licence (it wasn’t Bath). The big thing I noticed was all the people who wanted to do the Foundation to Full course ended up dropping out rather quickly. So maybe getting rid of the intermediate may be a bit premature?
So the intermediate goes, what happens to me? Do I get uplifted into a Full licence or downgraded to a Foundation Level, to be honest I’m not going to want to be faffing about with 10W again, so back to Foundation Level probbaly mean that I will be exiting the hobby and I suspect others could do the same, bearing in mind that Amateur Radio has decreasing numbers do you really want to keep losing people,
The Foundation Licence was meant to be a vehicle for young people to get into Amateur Radio, by and large that isn’t really happening, I’m a School Governor at a Primary School with responsibility for Science and STEM, yet the school just isn’t interested in getting anybody who isn’t a teacher in to help with the STEM club, yes I know there was somew success down in Folkestone but elsewhere there is no interest. So my main focus would be introducing Amateur Radio into youth groups, problem is most now rent meeting space and even if you have access to somewhere to put an antenna up you are basically looking at summer months, bearing in mind youth groups don’t meet up during the summer holidays! So its pretty limited.
The Full licence has to meet reciprocal licensing requirements. It really isn’t that hard, and is within the reach of those with a genuine interest in radio.
Maybe only one grade of lower license is needed, not two, but it’s hard to see what level it should be. It would need a new name, and it would be necessary to grant it to existing Foundation licensees and to give existing Intermediates a Full licence.
Or maybe we should just promote Intermediates to Full and scratch the Intermediate level? That would be simpler, after all.
15 minute IDs are also an international requirement.
We shouldn’t give up secondary locators, or we would lose 5 DXCC countries!
Lifetime licenses are also a good idea, except how would we detect SKs? I don’t think we could.
A genuine interest in radio is not needed, my wife got her full callsign nearly 10 years ago, she has no interest in radio other than to chat and knows none of the maths.
Not sure about now but she was told when she did her full that there were a maximum of 6 questions involving equations so she did not bother to put to much effort into them as she was after a simple pass and went for this.
She went through the syllabus and worked out how to get a pass with the least effort.
I keep reading about people not trying because of the maths but it is easy to get a pass without the maths at all.
Personally I think the whole system is to complicated for a hobby where most buy their equipment, I sat the RAE in December 1992 and after an hour or so of enne menny minny mo I was rewarded with 2 passes.
15 minute ID’s are not now and never have been an International requirement.
While Ofcom are not suggesting giving up the Regional Secondary Locators your comment seems to suggest the reason Ofcom must keep them is because of what an unelected committee in the USA may or may not do. ARRL DXCC committee do not dictate UK licence regulations
Last I checked the ID after 15 mins was an ITU rule, although it’s true that there’s nothing to make any country implement any ITU regulation.
As for DXCC, that’s 5 easy countries (at least in propagation terms) for anyone in any of the 6. They don’t meet current DXCC rules, but are grandfathered in, so we couldn’t get them back if we gave them up. Sure, the DXCC committee is part of a foreign radio society and …… what?
15 minutes is not an ITU Recommendation have a look in the ITU Radio Regulations under Article 25 https://search.itu.int/history/HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/1.44.48.en.101.pdf
I really enjoy communicating either by morse, voice, or dmr. Although holding an intermediate licence allows more power and band access, I would like to use all amateur
bands. The problem is I , and it seems many that I’ve met, have little interest in building their own equipment. Some finding it very difficult to learn concepts ( to examination level) that
have no interest for them. Perhaps a full licence for us intermediate holders with a letter after their call sign for those who want the privilege of building their own.
If I had a choice, I would scrap off com and rsgb and have
everything centralised through the Essex radio club with Pete as president.
73 Alan 2E0HNH
As a not too bright schoolboy, failed the eleven plus; I neverless spent much time reading anything I could lay my hands on concerning the mysteries of wireless communications and it was so much fun. Studying the then Radio Amateur’s Examination Manual diligently for months on end and then passing the City and Guilds examination I obtained my ‘ticket’ in 1968 after again much hard work learning and passing the Morse code test by the ‘self taught method’.
It WAS not easy but to paraphrase what JFK once said – We do these and the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. And why do I say all this?
Well simply that because for me the hobby (not a passtime) still delights me every day that I switch a wireless set on as in those far off days when as a schoolboy, I put together a simple crystal set and picked up the BBC Light programme from over 100 miles away in Droitwich.
Why all this ramble I hear you say?
Simply because to let the hobby evolve in to just another ‘passtime’ will ensure a gradual decline in interest and will like so many other real hobbies, it just fade away, in a generation and become a distant memory. So come on, lets all strive to maintain some sort of technical interest in radio and not be afraid to promote ourselves and ‘the hobby’ to a wider audience and put some time and effort in to achieving a real qualification to be ever proud of.
Well said Martin, If part of the ‘supposed’ decline in activity is due to people not being able to grasp radio fundamentals that’s of concern if we wish to continue on with the original aims of the hobby which amongst other things which, as far as I recall were to promote self-education in communications.
Some people seem to think they almost need a degree in Electronics to enjoy this hobby, yet, in fact, I know a plumber who is a GM7 who would run rings around some professional communications Engineers and is very much self-taught, surely in part it boils down to enthusiasm? I can also think of a 2E0 who has severe mental health problems yet battled on with the studying and is an avid ‘CW nut’ now!
A couple of personal thoughts as to why I suspect people feel there is a decline in activity spring to mind:
1) As far as the VHF/UHF bands go we have spread ourselves too far apart and thinly, (not a criticism, just a fact). I can think of at least 6 different digital modes, all of which have lots of their own ‘rooms’, ‘Talkgroups’ . Gone are the days when you could put a call out on S20/V40 (145.500) and half the local amateur community heard you. Hats off to servers like CQ UK, NW Fusion, Southern Fusion etc. who work towards linking everybody back up again!!!
2) Another possible reason applies to lots of hobbies and even going down the pub. These days we have Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.) vying for our attention, it’s so easy to waste 1/2 an hour a day on Facebook. And then there’s TV, even Freeview offers 100+ channels, not to mention streaming services like YouTube, Prime, Netflix etc. It’s a very competitive area for our time yet there are only so many hours in the day. This isn’t just another hobby for some, it’s almost a way of life..
This is Chris, G1KJG agreeing with every word, well said.
I am now living in Switzerland but keep in contact with the UK scene.
I was originally a ‘B’ Licence holder and other than the Morse code, the C of G exam was the same for me as for full ‘A’ licence holders which later was translated to a Full Licence for me. I enjoyed learning the Maths and Electronics involved at the time in Night School and I feel it would be wrong for Radio Amateurs to lose touch with the basic and original principals of our hobby. That being said, I know that most people these days do not build their own equipment and would find it hard to compete with the likes of ICOM, Yeasu etc. for quality and functionality but it sooo satisfying to use ones own creation.
A very important aspect of our hobby is being lost
The practical tuition covers electronics to what ever level the student wishes, this also makes young people aware of the need in our country for Electronics based apprenticships.
Armed with a RSGB and a Club pass ensures getting an interview leading to an apprenticship
It works in our area and can work elswhere, givw a little back to the youngsters to help them get great jobs.
I should like to see an increase in transmitter power given to Foundation licencees, though if the number of people remaining at that level is a “worry” all it will do is encourage more people to stay,. As as far as I understand, having to use only 10 watts is demeaning to some. . I think that the upgrade to Intermediate gives very little except another 40 watts of power. We should in any case be in alignment with the US Technicians licence on this.
Mike. M7WGX
So would you be happy with the frequency restrictions the US Technicians have as well ?.
@mark “As as far as I understand, having to use only 10 watts is demeaning to some.”
it all depends on how those 10w’s are used, 10w into AM or FM modes on 2m don’t go nearly as far as 10w into SSB on HF, SSB also allows many station in digi mode on the same 3khz change
for me it all comes back to costs, you can get a cheap FM 2m/70cm FM only radio for £150 or less, but you a locked into VHF /UHF only, north kent where i live 2m is pretty dead apart from a few “gods waiting room or doctors surgery” type nets,
to get on HF you need a all mode HF radio and the price goes up to £1200 +, so if a new M7 goes out buys a baofeng and connects it to nice whitestick and hears pretty much nothing they will get bored and leave, they are not going to spend £1000+ to possibly hear the same on HF
Just food for thought. All arms of the military have radio operator and radio technician trades.
The operators are not expected to repair equipment, and techies don’t operate *.
I see no reason not to have an operator only licence and a constructor licence.
* As always, there are some exceptions such as SF troops with additional training when they’re away from support.
David G5VHF
Someone mention power levels, compared to much of Europe and certainly the the US and Canada the UK has a densely populated urban area, and why does the RSGB carry the can over measues introduced by OFCOM the UK is one of the last countries concerned in the regulation of Field Strengths , when the US and Canada normally easy goi ng where amongst the first to bring in regulations.
Regarding reference in post to “as frequently as practicable”, it is deliberately vague for good reason. It provides fexibility, it’s up to the licensee to decide what they feel is “as frequently as practical” for them.
I believe most operation of DMR Hotspots would be out-of-scope of the licence if it weren’t for that fexible phrase. Most users when listening to DMR from the hotspot on their handheld fail to identify on the transmit frequency used by the hotspot (a DMR ID doesn’t count as identifying), fortunately:
– It’s entirely up to the licensee as to when they choose to identify, arguably they can even choose to identify just once a day
– What is it that has to identify? licence says the Radio Equipment but Radio Equipment in the licence means your entire station – all the transmitters that comprise your station. So it might be you can use any of your transmitters at the Main Station Address to ID on, and it seems that ID would then cover operation on other frequencies/bands by any the other component parts of your station like a hotspot?
– There’s no need to ID on every Frequency or it might seem even every Band that you use (BTW this enables frequency hopping). So an ID given on 434 MHz covers a transmission on 439 MHz
I wonder if making that crystal clear in the licence might upset some people, sometimes people prefer things to be vague?
Personally I do think it is time for a change. I like many came into radio over covid having used CB back in the dark ages !!. I think the foundation system was a great way to get into the hobby….and I tree the word HOBBY. Having Qualified in Applied Biology – I had little knowledge of electonics apart from A Level Physics in early 80’s. I just like operating a radio. I did the Intermediate exam but I had to really spend time learning. Most was promptly forgotten and now I am busy again with work do not have the time to learn it all again for the full licence. Interestingly in my club many full members have not used digital modes, FT8, FT4 etc, have not used Fusion or DMR, have not had QSO’s via satellites, so indeed have less experience in these areas. I will never build a radio, but would like to use the radio more, perhaps more power, perhaps abroad etc., so an operators licence with 100W would for me be a great option.
John 2E0GZD
@2E0GZD “Interestingly in my club many full members have not used digital modes, FT8, FT4 etc, have not used Fusion or DMR, have not had QSO’s via satellites,” this is an interesting point i have noticed among a number of older (longer licensed) ops
as they are not a I.T. literate an have always used voice or CW they haven’t always kept up with the changes and new modes in the hobby, some i have come across are outright hostile to digital mode use, which again don’t promote a good view of amateur radio to new comers
if it wasn’t for digital modes i probably would not be in the hobby now
a:- it means i can operate form the sofa (via remote access into my radio pc in the shack upstairt
b::- the wife don’t moan about the noise and the volume is set to 0 on the radio
c:- i can get insane distances with 1w on wspr or 30-40w with FT8/4
d:- there are some fun modes like QRSS, slowhell (used in QRSS), hellschrieber and SSTV
e:- you can have a rag chew with JS8call, RTTY, PSK31, you just type on a keyboard instead of keying mike
Further to this proposal being rather elderly & holding two call signs M3 & 2E0
It’s smacks to me of cutting the tree down for the sake of money
There are far to many hurdles being erected this is an armature hobby for all ages & experienced if you make the obstacles greater then you will cut off the life blood & this hobby needs many more new operators or it will die!
The choice is simple key the three tiers this is not the problem it’s the job of Ofcom to manage the system which if I am correct do not want to do the management of this Legal hobby they would rather see it go to the wall I am convinced if it were not for the RSGB we would be cut off completely & all frequencies would be sold off !
Change is good if it’s got a clear course but tinkering leads to big mistakes if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!!
Jacqueline Wilson
there is one of the problems right there….people holding and using two callsigns…how stupid
The system allows multiple callsigns. Why does it bother you so much, and can you explain (without resorting to your usual tactics), why this is such a huge issue for you?
I don’t like multiple callsigns because for one thing they inflate the numbers, apparently we have 80,000+ licences in existence but I pretty much guarantee that there are not that many amateurs, let alone active ones.
If you’re going to understand where things are then actually counting accurately is important, and I don’t think that is currently done. Ofcom were supposed to be preventing the continuation of the practise of holding multiple personal licences. I don’t know if they really have done that.
Regarding the ever heard “we need more licensees or the hobby will die” then as well as the numbers issue that suggests it’s not dying then there is the need to decide what the hobby actually needs. I would suggest that reducing the technical aspect of amateur radio is a mistake because we as radio amateurs are supposed to have a minimum of technical knowledge allowing us to build and use equipment without it needing to be type approved. Lose that, and that is the radio hobby as it’s always needed to be gone, *poof* in one simple regulatory extinguishing. If the licensing regime doesn’t meet the ITU regulations then it ceases to be compliant and now you’re all appliance operators like it or not.
No I don’t hate anyone, but I love the hobby (which is what amateur means) and I don’t think future licensees will be happy with something that isn’t meaningful. That does not mean I don’t think we need change, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never a good plan.
Again, I don’t understand why this matters, or how this affects your enjoyment of the hobby. Ofcom is perfectly capable of calculating these numbers and working out how many people have a licence. Basic data processing will identify that if there are 3 licences in the same name at one address, that’s one person, not 3. Do you really that Ofcom can’t extract that information if they want to?
If numbers matter to you and your enjoyment of the hobby, the bigger issue to concern yourself with is that Ofcom doesn’t know who’s SK, and they no longer revoke licences that have not been validated in 5 years. Let’s say there are 70,000 amateurs and 80,000 callsigns – what percentage are active?
As for Ofcom revoking licenses to get to a “one licence, one ham” policy – I appreciate that you may want to see this, and yes, that would certainly allow a lot more expired callsigns to go back into the pot for others to acquire in the future, but that would only increase callsign confusion, no?
Bring back the Class B for the lazy arsed radio telephone operators and the CW as a test of the real radio amatuer
Ah yes, you’re one of those people ♂️
sure am….and you must be one of the others
I’ve never met you, don’t know your callsign, where you live. Despite all that, I know for sure I am better at morse than you
Jim won’t care if you are better at Morse than him, it’s more that he wants it to be the 1970s again when he was still young :)
love your £20 callsign just about sums you up
Probably “GM4DHJ”
Many comments regarding the provision of an “Operators” licence. It already exists as the Foundation licence. There is no requirement to progress to Intermediate or Full for those who do not aspire or wish to attain a higher licence level.
I have no background whatsoever in electronics or comms. I started off with Foundation courtesy of Essex Ham, Intermediate via https://gm6dx.thinkific.com/courses/GTG-UKI and gained my Full licence in January thanks to Bath Based Distance Learning.
The Full licence may seem a hell of a way off for those just starting out, but it is achievable for those who are prepared to put in the work.
For those who decry having to learn maths and electronics theory at the Foundation licence level, please be aware that understanding of EMC becomes ever more important at the higher licence levels given the additional power privileges. The basics have to be introduced at Foundation level or the steps up to Intermediate and Full would far more challenging.
Quality, haha!
Given that one of the three punters going for that RSGB job doesn’t know the difference between a prefix and a suffix I don’t hold out much hope…..
I have read all this with interest.
I have also noticed that not as many Foundation license holders transition to Intermediate post-2019 as did pre-2019. (I’d love to see the raw numbers if anyone can share that with me.)
I don’t think this is as simple as having Operators and Builders. I was a class B of course, and I could see the point of the distinction – yet even in 1989 most people bought their hf radios and ones with lower power than 26dBW were, as now, were the majority. I have never built a radio – well, aside from a PE Ranger – and would not attempt it. There are amateurs who can (build from scratch), and I admire that, but to be ‘technical’ has a much wider scope in radio these days.
I just hope Ofom get it right this time and the licensing regime supports the hobby in a way which arrests its decline. If radio maths and all electronics have to go as requirements, then I can live with that.
Tony Jones g7etw. (No longer involved in the rsgb or even a member)
The maths and electronics are intrinsic to understanding radio, if you want an amateur licence then you need to have it even if it’s only a few simple equations.
Governments don’t allow experimentation by technically unqualified people, they have not done so since the first half of the 20th century. There is too much at stake with the dense radio environment of the modern world.
As a current M7 where would that leave operators like me and so many others. The thought of being condemned to 10 watts and the other restrictions may make so many people give up the hobby to the detriment of all.
If the proposal of a two stage system goes ahead, a sensible upgrade to the foundation rights could kindle people’s interest in furthering their knowledge.
Before anyone flames me I know that there is more to be discussed and this is just a small part of the proposal.
73
Stan (M7MGP)
Foundation 100w Buy radio from Lynchy or wherever, add on a few simple questions and safety stuff, nothing above 1ghz, no microwave, no 5mhz etc, job done, less paperwork easier system. Scrap intermediate and just give em all a full license, have direct to full for those that are smart and strong willed enough to get it, they get 400w and all the power and the glory forever and ever, Amen, case closed,
M7EFA here.
A interesting anomaly that has been overlooked and not mentioned is that anyone can operate a CB radio in the U.K. at 12W on SSB.
Seems a tad strange, when compared to the limit on a Foundation Licence holder.
I’m now retired and successfully completed City & Guilds D224 Electronic Serving during my TV and Radio apprenticeship some 40 years ago then left the trade.
Took my Foundation and enjoyed relearning and passing.
I look at the Intermediate syllabus and genuinely think why?
I’ve not interest in building stuff, I can speak to the world on my radio as it stands.
So whilst I could have a catch up about things, what is the incentive for me?
I’m now a operator with considerable knowledge.
But have no interest in taking the back off anything anymore.
That is what licenses seem to be about from my point of view.
To end positivity, It is a privilege to be able to speak to random folks in random countries, it shows how similar we all are.
I’m very glad that I did take my exam.
73
This is all geting quite exciting.
What could happen, what could be gained or lost. All the comments.
No doubt Peter Essex Ham will let us know the outcome.
I will come back to Peter’s website “From time to time” for juicy news.
Larks’ tongues. Wrens’ livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars’ earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get ’em while they’re hot. They’re lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar. Tuscany fried bats.
Ah, you’re from the Popular Front then.
I don’t see any Ocelot’s noses.
All very interesting, Pete,
I’d like to see *all* of the electronics content moved to a dedicated exam / qualification level with advanced build rights for those who are interested in these subjects.
It’s not really the maths that puts me off, because a modern £20 scientific calculator can easily work out all of the algebra needed to pass the exams, and for me figuring out how to use the calculator efficiently is actually more interesting than the electronics content.
I struggle to motivate myself to learn abstract theory that, for me at least, has no practical application, and no real relevance beyond the actual exam.
In an era in which end-users prefer new gear and employers routinely WEEE waste working equipment, let alone hardware that needs fixing at component level (e.g. the CRT monitors that you mention), electronics content in the intermediate syllabus seems tedious, irrelevant… and anything but fun.
With that in mind, I shall persevere, and buy more coffee ;-)
73’s – M7GIX
I would like to see foundation licence holders have the privileges of the intermediate licence and intermediate exam equal a full license.
I think 10w for a foundation is far to limiting. Considering your allowed 12w SSB on 11m without a licence at all.?
I struggled a lot with the electronic side when I took my intermediate, I really want to get a full licence but it’s something I may have to accept won’t happen.
The components are so small in the modern radios that most people would have to send in for repair so I think there’s no real need for so much electronics in the exams.
I also feel there’s a lot of hatered to foundation licences for “using more power” even when no-one has any proof they are. Giving foundation 50w would alleviate this I think.
Just my views.
Thanks for reading.
73
Matt
2E0FNM
@Matt
there was another option i saw suggested during the direct to full license discussions, not sure how it would be policed though
i think it was along the lines if someone pass their direct to full, give them a sort of probation period of 3-6 months with a power limit of 50w, after that they could use the full 400w limit, as someone put it they would not have any experience of coming up through the levels and basically would have full privileges and “all the gear but no idea”
i wonder if this would help on the 10w foundation limit, once they have got a couple of month operating under their belt, then allow them to apply for a higher power limit of say 50w, via a simple application process like an NoV for band access with a full license
what about retain 3 levels
operator
exam covers operating procedure, RFI / interference identification and reduction, EMF calcs, licensing compliance only
limits 50w , the main HF,VHF,UHF bands only, only use commercial CE certified unmodified radios (no MARS Mods for out of band TX) and commercial antennas
intermediate
exam covers operator + basic electronic theory, antennas, more detailed RFI, EMF licensing
limits 100w, can build TX kits up to 50w, access to 23cm? (able to access QO-100), able to supervise operator level after 1 year
full
exam covers similar to current full
400w, additional bands like 60m, and any SHF and up bands, able to design and build any kit, able to supervise any level after 6 months
this would give a basic operator only for those who want more than CB but not willing to do electronic theory, a mid level for those wanting to build TX kits and some electronic theory, and a full license with all the toys
We don’t want to go back to the days when ready-built transceiver had to be “commercial CE certified unmodified radios”. Foundation had a CE marked rigs restriction from 2002-2006, it meant a lot of perfectly good low-cost rigs couldn’t be used.
There a lot to be said for allowing fexibility in rig choice, the restrictions you propose for the rig could have unintended consequences. Regarding your proposal to ban use of rigs that can “TX out-of-band”, consider this – In UK the Radio Equipment has to be operated in a manner that satisfies IR-2028. IR-2028 stipulates the bands for Foundation, if they could also use ready-built equipment that complied with the Foundation band requirements of IR-2028 then there is not a single HF rig on sale today that they could use. All HF rigs permit Foundation out-of-band operation as standard – all allow TX in 5 MHz.
Other countries tried a similar approach to yours they said Fnd could only use rigs that confirmed to Fnd licence – this meant Fnd couldn’t buy any rig capable of more than 10 watts output dramatically limiting choice.
Foundation should be permitted to use modified rigs, those without CE marking and home-built equipment. Other countries permit it for their Fnd equivalent licence, there is no reason why our Foundation shouldn’t be allowed the same privilige
thing is this “plan of works” will make changes, so that document will likely be updated to incorporate the required changes
also current M7’s can buy a FT991a which can TX on 60m and produce 100w, so i am not convinced by your arguments
basically i was suggesting those choosing an “operator” level, will have to use off the shelf rigs (possibly an approved list of manufacturers) and antennas, that is the price for not having to learn the theoretical sections of the syllabus, out of band i was referring to amateur bands (as they may want to progress later), as they would have detailed training about “license requirements” there should be a level of trust about power and bands they use, MARS mods remove any band limits and allow TX outside of the amateur bands
Interesting indeed , wee shall all find out in the future amsure ,Am all for talking and making voice radio contacts around the world and making radio friendship not all are interested in diodes ect in electronics , wee have to move with the times, And remember its not the class of licence but the class of the operator, i find some treat radio as a profession and not a hobby , And sadly look down on some class of licence the station holds which is a joke when some stations dont even pick the mic up and press PTT ie The Band Police ,
Keep enjoying Radio and being polite over the airwaves , RF Power levels should go up unless your knocking out nextdoors sony tv from the 80s , Happy Easter all 73
I couldn’t agree more, in the 80s and 90s I was really interested in cb/freeband and I’ve only recently taken an interest again and passed my foundation exam and now into all types of communication it really has opened the world to one little room in my house and most certainly is the best thing I’ve done for years, unfortunately sadly I’ve noticed there is some divide between different class of radio licence holder but as you rightly said it’s about the class of operator not the class of licence, hopefully the changes in the future are for the better possibly more power would be great, I often think if I had more power doesn’t necessarily mean I will use it, it’s about being sensible and responsible, enjoy the hobby after all it really is a great hobby we have, I hope your having a great Easter and 73s for now
Oh Blimey, here we go again, I suppose they’ll push me back to foundation level (doubt it but in England nothing surprises me anymore.
Why do they have to change anything, we get enough aggro with the RSGB constantly lookiing to change things, if they want to simplify things get rid of the RSGB’s monopoly of Radio in the UK, there’ll be many that disagree with my opinion but hey, it’s just that, my opinion
The country prefixes have been eroded over the past 20 years. My first licence had GM written on it, and they were country prefixes. Then they became regional secondary locators. The callsign got an asterisk in them, then they dropped that. My current licence says G4. Now we keep being offered UK wide special prefixes (GQ, GR). There is only one way this is going. Next step will be making them “optional” so you can have a shorter contest callsign.
Contest callsigns for CW contests should have extra letters added that are all dashes in Morse code. They should be compulsory to use and points would be lost for not repeating the full call at the beginning and end of every over. Twice.
Due to illness i no longer able to remember or recall information so had to give up on level 3 and remain at level 2. Will this mean i will; loss my level 2 and moved back from 2e0 to M3
No Marcus, don’t worry you will keep your Intermediate licence and all the priviliges you currently have, Ofcom is not suggesting removing them
The Foundation to Intermediate progression graph could be skewed by an uptake in people applying for the Foundation license during COVID lockdowns. It is unfortunate that not as many are progressing.
Given the pass rate for Intermediate is not that much lower than the pass rate for foundation (87.4% versus 89.9% in 2020) that would suggest the Intermediate exam is not too hard.
Whilst most newcomers don’t build transmitters, I think it is important that technical understanding is encouraged to help people diagnose faults with their equipment, improve their stations and, more broadly, encourage younger people that come into the hobby to take up more technically challenging careers.
Personally, I’m concerned that this review will be more around Ofcom following the FCC in re-introducing license charges which I think would be a shame.
No I don’t see Ofcom introducing unnecessary licence charges. FCC charges occured as an unintended consequence of other changes. Unfortunately ARRL did not spot the Bill going through Congress, if they had they would have raised objections to it and obtains an exemption for amateur radio as they had already done with other charges.
One change that is a possibility is scrapping the licence completely and making amateur radio licence-exempt. This is what happened in Canada in 2000, Sweden in 2004 and I believe other countries are looking at adopting the licence-exempt route for their radio amateurs.
There was a similar fear in 2005 that it might happen here but fortunately the RSGB managed to get the free Lifetime licence instead. I am hopeful Ofcom will leave it intact
Hi all
Why can’t the RSGB do a licence like the GMRS, you pay a fee for five years and if you like HAM then go for the other levels. I’m 63yrs old and can’t be bothered with all the crap of exams, that was school days long gone. Why should I take a exam just to press the PTT Just to have a conversation. I’ve been using cb radio since 1978 and GMRS for a good few years and DO NOT need a exam to press a button. I have no interest in building a radio or anything else, I just want to talk. If the HAM community are still that stuck up, then keep it , because it will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs. And that is definitely where your problems are. If the foundation was a paid for and the other two levels were exam, then, you might just get more people joining the hobby, but, some people can never see a solution like that until it is to late. All the best.
In the past unless you had a reasonable understanding of electronics and radio then you would not be able to operate because there were essentially no plug in and go radios. That started to change in the mid-70s. Bu that pre-1970 mindset is still what many amateurs see as a correct one, it encourages the technical capabilities of amateurs because without that amateur radio can never develop anything of its own.
Some would say that with the huge increase in licences issued during the last 40 years or so that there would be more people just operating, indeed for some time there were but then activity either died out or spread out across more modes and networks, especially once digital radio and the internet became easily accessible. I don’t have a good explanation of why that was, but some put it down to the ease of communication becoming too great. the foundation licence is regarded as the minimum standard to gain any access to amateur frequency allocations, it has been passed by children under the age of 10 so it’s hardly difficult and can be learned by an adult (even at 60+) in a few evenings. It was clearly difficult to sustain the entry into the radio hobby, and indeed often things in numbers run to seed.
The amateur community is not “stuck up” it is defending something important, the bands allocated to us and the privileges that come with that are not given for nothing they have been earned and many of the people that contributed to amateur radio also work in professional electronics, it’s a symbiotic relationship as long as the amateur doesn’t carry un-professional attitudes and approaches into commercial systems.
In general something given for nothing has no value to either those giving it nor those receiving it. If you would like to advance I would advise a little study and to take the simplest exam and see how you get on.
I would like the opportunity for M0 callsigns,to be given the opportunity to change from their eisting M0 prefix, to G2/G3 /G4 and G5 prefix calls that are available to newly licencees today.If they so wished to do so.
It’s to the eternal shame of the DTI/RA/Ofcom that they ever went away from the strict sequential callsign allocation that was practised in the past, it was entirely fair and you either accepted a random callsign or you reserved the one you wanted and waited for it to be issued.
I’ve had the same callsign for 44 years now and I had no say at all in choosing it, I don’t see why the current situation was allowed to begin unless it was down to incompetence within Ofcom.
I am yet to get a license, but have studied the Essex Ham foundation course with a view to taking my exam. I have always liked the thought of surfing the airwaves for far away people to talk to, and luckily have an income that allows me to buy cool equipment in my many and varied interests. It does strike me as odd that if all i want to do is talk using commercially bought equipment I am forced to learn electronics stuff and other radio theory that I have no interest in or will ever use. This to me is a barrier that will likely stop me from ever becoming a committed duster with cash to spend in this hobby.
I appreciate people want different things, and maybe some don’t want my type around. But as others have mentioned above, times have changed and there are so many others things competing for our time and money these days. To remain an elitist group of hobbyists will I fear not keep amateur radio in a healthy state, at least financially.
What would appeal to me is no exam required for foundation level, so that I can transmit at a low power digitally / voice to get hooked into wanting more, then I appreciate a relevant OPERATOR ONLY exam should be used to expand an operators privileges.
I should just clarify that I am happy to PAY for a foundation license and be bound to certain safety and community rules, it’s just the exam part and length of time before being able to transmit (even digitally) that is the barrier I struggle to see sense in.
I mean, i don’t need a license to broadcast my voice on a mobile phone or the internet, or to use a computer to send messages all around the world…..
(nb, the reference to being a ‘committed duster’ in my original post above may have confused some, as it did me. It should have read committed user!)
One most certainly *does* need a licence to broadcast via amateur RF transmitters, the means of getting there is irrelevant, all licensing authorities expect this to be policed by the operators of the gateways that provide this facility.
There are a few interesting angles from everyone here.
It is likely suspect that a lot of foundation holders are nowadays borne into the digital age. DMR radios are cheap (sometimes) and shiny and get you on the air. Also listening doesn’t cost much and the foundation allows an easy access to the Vhf UHF bands.
I know there was a revision to the exams with an aim to overlap the levels and some of the knowledge. This creates a structure in progress for amateurs.
Not all amateurs will engage in deep electronics but they do need to understand why certain circuits exist where emissions from circuits are concerned. The intermediate definitely covers this and also remains as a stepping stone to full.
There is a difficulty with changing Intermediate into full. Full holders are meant to be in a supervisory capability and have to prove their ability to do so. So upgrading users will not legally qualify them in terms of competence and health and safety.
All amateurs need to be able to prove they will not go outwith allowed regulations and restrictions. In principal, they should all get 100 percent on those sections. But not everyone is great at exams so the other topics help with points scoring on the examinations.
Amateur radio is ultimately about learning and the exams are only there to allow us to prove our safety and sensible operating abilities.
Worth bearing in mind that other countries allow their lowest class of licence to Supervise unlicensed people on-air, for example Australia has a Foundation licence with exam requirements similar to ours (they copied UK Foundation) their Foundation holders can Supervise transmissions by any member of the general public
How many Foundation licence holders do you actually hear on VHF and UHF ??
most of them are recycled CBers with a HF set, they have no interest and some don’t even know what VHF or UHF is..!!
Or they know is they can now use 100w on their HF set on channel 19 to brag about having a ‘ticket’
another point,
not everyone is great at exams..
you do know certain clubs can actually get you help during the test and in some instances help you pass ? i know of a guy failed the foundation four times, pretty much proving he shouldn’t be let loose with an amateur radio, yet someone at his local club was able to ‘help’ him by reading out the questions and answers and he passed..!! and with a good result too, fishy or what ??
lets also not forget anyone can do their test via Essex Ham while their mate is logged in to their computer using team viewer or other desktop remote system to help them pass..
Hmmm – you do realise that Essex Ham doesn’t run the exams, don’t you? We offer online training.
Exams are run by RSGB, and candidates are watched by independent invigilators over a webcam, and the TestReach exam software is very good at spotting remote access and other obvious cheating techniques.
Ofcom express their wish to “incorporate new areas of amateur radio activity”, one such area might be Aeronautical Platforms. Unlike other countries UK radio amateurs are currently banned from operating aeronautical stations, however, some do make use of licence-exempt spectrum for very low power (10mw) operation from drones and high-altitude balloons (HAB). Incorporating aeronautical into the amateur licence would enable higher-power to be used and would attract many currently unlicenced Drone/HAB users into amateur radio.
Back in 2012 four radio amateurs (Foundation holders) from Middlesex Univerisity took part in a major UAV competition in the USA with considerable success. M6ESY gave a presentation about it at the following RSGB Convention
https://amsat-uk.org/2012/07/12/middlesex-radio-hams-success-in-uav-competition/
I note some suggestions here involve Ofcom adding additional bureaucracy or mandating more regulations or extra compliance/certification checks.
It’s worth remembering Ofcom’s aim in this exercise is to simplify things as has been done in other countries, this involves Scrapping burdensome regulations and Reducing the administrational workload on Ofcom.
In Sweden amateur radio was made Licence-Exempt in 2004. The Regulator (PTS) no longer issues individual callsigns, it’s now the national amateur radio society SSA that gives out callsigns.
The thought of adopting the licence-exempt route did occur to Ofcom back in 2005 but fortunately RSGB helped ensure a Free Lifetime Licence was introduced instead, a preferable situation. Those who wish to return to the world of the distant past and clamour for a licence fee to be imposed should remember Ofcom don’t consider that an option, the only alternative to the current Free Lifetime Licence is for amateur radio to become licence-exempt, is that what amateurs want?
I’m just pondering should I continue the study for full (already 2E) or just wait out and see♂️
Study, it’s always worthwhile.
Yes wait and see what happens..
do what the B licences holder did, sit back and wait for the day Ofcom gave them HF,
then marvel at your persistence in not being bothered to progress for yourself to gain a proper full licence before being given it for doing nothing.
Hardly what I meant, I meant is it worth studying for an exam that might not be available hence the ‘wait out’ point.
I’m not expecting anything to be given, but the wording of the document is wishy washy at the least.
@sean,
never hurts to learn more, its what ham radio is all about, learning, innovation, experimentation and having fun while doing it
i used YouTube videos from Cornish radio amateur club “advanced course” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfUeiOrRCMglshLeaKYXTnx-z6UY3w9fi , the RSGB exam manual for full and the RSGB exam secrets book to pass my full
a ham radio exam is like your driving test, the real learning begins once you are let loose on your own with the training wheels removed,
the test provides you with the basics to get on the air, then you have to setup your shack and antenna (without releasing the magic smoke out of anything hopefully) then start discovering new modes of operation (VHF the simplest thing is learning to listen to ISS cross band repeater with a handheld by learning how to find pass times and frequencies, and doppler)
enjoy the hobby :)
if you have basic mechanical building and soldering skills it don’t need to cost a fortune and its fun to build your own kit and antennas
I expect Jim will be along to tell all the Class Bs that we should have stayed on 70cms :)
‘I expect Jim will be along to tell all the Class Bs that we should have stayed on 70cms :)’
without doubt given that most lazy arsed class Bs were professionals and walked through the three hour written RAE then were too lazy to pass a simple morse test that was all they deserved a radio telephone band, but no they wanted to be the repeater gurus of 2m … and no no no they weren’t interested in hf until they got it for no effort……anyway professionals shoudn’t be alowed to have ham licences too much of a busmans holiday…..only the pure hobbyist should be allowed in…..
Heh!
Kwality comment as always Jim :)
Good old aRSeGB the book publishing limited company,
trying their best to kill off a once technical hobby you were proud to hold a licence for and now just turning it in to a glorified CB radio service for yet even more brain dead idiots to have as much free reign as they want.
aRSeGB you aren’t fit for purpose.
ETCC you too aren’t fit for purpose.
Ofcom you have no clue about this non profit making hobby, maybe you should start issuing paid for licences and look back at the likes of the GPO, DTI, RIS and actually do some proper work for the hobby instead of listening to the idiots who just want to make money from selling books to gullible naive idiots..
You sound nice.
I bet he doesn’t like data modes either♂️
That’s easy to answer.
Threaten violence (stabbing) against Digital mode users, see https://www.qrz.com/db/M1ADU
Wow, not very aggressive like. I wonder where the bad radio people touched him?
Refers to Super Bowl though, so clearly likes a bit of CB himself.
bona !
The Radio Amateur community needs to be very careful what it wishes for, and a great deal of care and attention needs to be paid to the wording of the consultations – especially any parts that suggests Ofcom can and will ignore all opinions as the focus-groups (industry that pays millions in licence fees) have already decided. All too often, the QUANGOs are merely ticking a box to say they consulted with the public – as required by their statutory duties. They are under no legal-obligation to enact the suggestions!
A licence-exempt status may need to be resisted at all costs. Various UK governments have shown a great deal of enthusiasm for handing the keys to the kingdom to a private company as it absolves the government of all responsibility and accountability. The news is littered with private companies who have burned huge sums of tax-payer cash, only to face no sanctions, no legal action, then be awarded with more lucrative contracts.
Let us suppose that a licence-exempt model is adopted and the RSGB become the gate-keepers of everything Amateur Radio (if their structure even allows for that!?). Who do we complain to if we have a grievance, or we feel they are doing something wrong? Who do we complain to about EMC non-compliance (yes, I know the current system is broken)? Do we have to become paying members in order to qualify for a callsign (I am not a member)? What is to stop an out-going chair/general-manager from imposing maddening restrictions; or conversely a new chair/general-manager from undoing the previous chair/GM’s good work – something we see all too often in bipartisan politics. Does the chair/GM become a political appointment, that like the Prime Minister, is voted in by a tiny minority of people?!
The comments regarding the current licensing structure are interesting, although many are from that person’s point-of-view, and not necessarily reflective of the whole. We need to avoid the quick-fix, instant-gratification that has become the norm for so many other things in society. We have to meet international standards, and the Full licence should be a badge of honour and something to achieve. There is no shame in remaining at the lower licence levels if you want to. I quite happily engage with all licence classes. I do agree that the power-levels are somewhat arbitrary compared to other countries (and the 160 metre limit to protect LORAN is very out-of-date!!). I can understand a Foundation holder’s frustration trying to work DX when an equivalent USA station can use much more power. Conversely, I can appreciate the frustration caused by the din of QRM and the power-limits being unable to compete with 1500 Watts from EU countries! If power limits are harmonised, the training and exam will need to help people understand the danger they can pose to themselves when using high RF powers. RF burns can be very nasty! And comparing the power limit to Citizens’ Band SSB is something of a nonsense. 11 metres spends years in the dark unable to travel more than a few kilometres. 5 watts on the right Amateur band can reach Australia!
Some pertinent points there Gary, just a couple of comments.
An ITU Recommendation defines the international standard that all radio amateurs should meet (irrespective of the power level they run, be it 10w or 1 kW). It is Recommendation M.1544-1, even the UK Foundation comfortable exceeds the minimum standard required, see https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-M.1544-1-201509-I/en
It’s RSGB Board who are responsible for running the Society not the General Manager, the GM is the servant of the Board.
RSGB runs the amateur radio exams but is subject to a set of conditions imposed by Ofcom in a Memorandum of Understanding, a mechanism such as this could be used to address your membership concerns.
Ofcom-RSGB MoU https://thersgb.org/publications/exams/schedule-of-terms-between-ofcom-and-rsgb-conduct-amateur-radio-examinations.pdf
Thanks to Essex Ham I got my Foundation back during Covid after many years of trying. My main interest if HF and to date have spoken around the world on 10w. It is ridiculous to suggest as some have that the cost of getting on the HF bands is high. My first radio FT840 ( yes it was old but worked) cost £250 and my wire dipole cost nothing.
The step up to intermediate for me is the electronics side of things. I have tried a couple of times but it is not going to happen. For me I cant see the point of the electronics. I am never going to build a transmitter and I certainly would not even think of diving into my radio should it ever go wrong. Similarly I would not open up my microwave or TV should it not work. This would be trusted to qualified person not a hobbyist.!!! It always makes me laugh when it states this hobby is about experimenting.
I will and do make antennas and have done so since first getting my ticket and am competent at soldering. I am also a very competent operator taking part in many contests and getting relatively good results.
Does the 10watts bother me. Well not really. Your antenna is everything and ensuring this is optimal for any particular band is a must. That said CB’ers can operate 12w ssb without any licence so how is that correct?
I think many have said that an operator type level would be a good idea even keeping the current 3 tier system but at least giving the foundation level a little more power options certainly on HF.
The qualifications does not make for good operators. Take listen to your local old boys on 80m and 40m. They hardly use a call sign and prefer using first names. Not exactly the thing we were all taught.
Anyway the solar cycle is encouraging and even with my 10w I should be able to get some good DX in. Just had Japan on 18m efhw, happy days
The 12 w on CB is not quite understood as well as some thing.
It also states they can only use type approved radios and can’t construct antennas.
As amateurs we can, we can also construct antennas which give us lots of gain.
They are also stuck with one band that is subject to the solar cycle.
On FM they only get 4 W.
even new rigs are not massively expensive if you look at the Xiegu range, the G106 5w 80m-10m for £270, the G90 20w 160m-10 all mode for £400 and the X6100 10w all mode 160m-6m for £600
the G90 and X6100 have built in ATU (which can tune a coat hanger all but), and SWR scan features so easy to use, nice waterfall displays makes it easy to find signals
all well under the £1200+ for icom Yaesu etc
I have the G90 (my first rig) then got a Yaesu FT-991a and finally a X6100 for mobile / field ops (it has a built in battery which lasts a couple of hours even on TX)
if you get to intermediate with an interest in digimodes, can solder and fancy building a kit there is the QRPLabs QDX 4 band up to 5w HF digital mode only transceiver for about £100 inc case http://qrp-labs.com/qdx.html
so HF rigs for ll budgets if you know where to look
Just to add you don’t need to have Intermediate in order to build the kit and use it, Foundation can as well. The Foundation licence fully permits construction and operation of transceiver kits like the QRPLabs QDX
forgot to mention for those how don’t like kits, for most kits QRPLabs they offer built and tested versions of their kits for a small prices (e.g. adds about £35-£40 to QDX as everything priced in dollars)
Although I’m a foundation licence holder I never understood the point of the whole mobile, static, country prefixes, etc thing (I mean why does the IOM for example NEED a separate call letter?). And according to the discussions / heated arguments online… neither does anyone else, especially those with a full licence it would seem. Almost everyone thinks they do totally understand when, were, and if, to use them, but most seem to have different “understandings”.
There are some very reasonable questions on this subject, with no reasonable answers. One being “Why do all the home nations need to have an ID letter… EXCEPT England?”. To me that’s an anomaly with no reasonable technical justification.
IMO one of the very positive ways they could simplify things is to get rid of the country codes, and the other calling prefixes, and if you are on the air just ID via your call sign. No “M” “D” “A” or other complications. Just the call sign.
If they need to ID where you are broadcasting from one could simply state “…calling CQ from base.” which Ofcom already knows where that it. Or “… calling CQ mobile at [insert the first part of the postcode of the area where you happen to be parked, staying, or on foot]”.
As an intermediate my call is 2E (E for England) my licence document says 20HZH not 2E0HZH.
However as a foundation I was just M7.
Your licence will state 2#0HZH and there is a requirement to replace the “#” with an RSL in accordance with Clause 2 or Note (c).
Not a question of “need” more one of amateurs wanting more collectable entities.
As I understand it back in the late 1930’s amateurs, predominantly those in England, wanted to have more DXCC entities created that were easy for them to work. The only Regional Designators that existed were England (as now no designator), Scotland (C) and Northern Ireland (i) which recognised the three historic kingdoms that had made up the union.
But initially only two entities Great Britain and Northern Ireland were recognised by ARRL DXCC committee . The DXCC entity of Great Britain (G) covered England, Scotland, Wales as well as the Crown Dependancies comprising Isle of Man and Channel Islands.
The DXCC enitity list is managed by a group of volunteer amaerican hams, the definition of an entity has not always been consistant but it doesn’t matter because the function is of the DXCC list is primarily FUN, it gives amateurs a challenge and appeals to the desire to collect things.
After WW2 following lobbying by some UK hams more DXCC entities were created and UK Regulator GPO created some new Regional Designators, I suspect simply to help English amateurs lobbying for more DXCC entities,.so we then had Scotland (M), Wales (W), Channel Islands (C) (yes they got Scotland’s old designator). It was only later that IoM was added and eventuallyChannel Islands was split into separate entities with (U) and (J) designators.
Think I got all the above correct, I’m sure someone will let me know if I haven’t.
So in short it’s all for fun and serves no useful regulator purpose
All of you questions could be answered by doing a little online searching. As an example, the IoM is a separate country with its own parliament and laws, some of which are different to the UK.
The requirement for a secondary regional locator is probably down to differences that existed at the time of the GPO, at one time it was necessary to notify the general manager of the postal district in which one was operating at an alternative address. There’s a lot of history, removing these requirements would need someone to investigate the history and determine whether all reasons for the original ones are now unnecessary.
Much of the old requirements to use /A, /P, /M etc are no longer in force, however there is nothing to prevent a station using them as a descriptive addition as many of us do as we are Old Timers who are still the same amateur as we were 40, 50 or 60+ years ago.
Hi All. Like many newer people to this hobby (Another lockdown student) – I will “start” my HF career with a SDR radio. I feel restricted by the 10W limit (especially for HF) but in all honesty will never build my own transmitter. I understand the physics and the safety aspects of of radio construction but sooner or later the SDR radio will be the “norm”. After all who builds their own TVs and PCs these days? for that matter who services or can service their own car ? I can see merit in differentiating between an “operators” and a “constructors” license, as of course there is nothing preventing me from buildng a radio.. I do see value in having a licencing scheme as this helps prevent people doing whatever they want, on any band they like.
73
Chris
you wouldn’t build a rig like a Yaesu FT991a, or even a Xiegu G90
but you may make some of the QRP TX kits for like WSPR or QRSS beacons or even things like the ATU-100 antenna tuner for HF transmitters
some of these are just fun to build and operate, 10w limit during my short foundation stage with FT8 I got to US, CAN, Brazil, virtually all of EU with FT8, the other week I did a POTA activation near high Wycombe with my Xiegu X6100 running on battery @5w with a mag mount HF antenna on the car on 10m & 15m bands and got to US with FT8 and could hear US voice on SSB S7+ (couldn’t reply as no mike plugged in), so depending on mode and band conditions even with 10w you can get a fair DX
The primary purpose of this consultation will be to Simplify things not make them more complicated, bureaucratic and expensive which introducing yet another class of licence would do – it’s not going to happen.
If you want improvements made then it’s the existing Foundation licence that needs changing, there will not be a new class of licence.
You might wish to consider the case of Japan, they introduced the Foundation Licence (Class 4) 65 years ago in the late 1950’s. It too was originally 10 watts output on HF but in recent years was increased to 20 watts, you only have to look at the Noise Floor to see the justification for a power increase.
Ofcom itself has admitted the level of noise right up to VHF caused by interference from consumer devices etc has increased significantly in recent decades, more power is needed to achieve the same range Foundation would have had 20 years ago. There is certainly a justification for increasing Foundation power on HF to 20 watts
A lot of people complain that many Foundation licensees operate at much higher power levels. I have seen at least one with a TL922 amplifier on his QRZ pages which is clearly plumbed in to the station and antennas.
what did you expect from a bunch of 11m pirates….hammy mens lic is only a cover for ther 555 activities ……
Has nobody noticed that every time Lic conditions have been relaxed or ‘dumbed down’ the hobby has got worse? started off with class Bs getting down onto 2m then being given full status and finding they really wanted on to HF after all… but before that suddenly with the introduction of peer cw examiners loads of class B hams who stated they had no interest in HF suddenly had with a simple exchange of a bottle of whisky…then there was the novice lic …no idea what that was about but it didn’t work…just introduced stupid 2 callsigns…AND the reason 2m is dead is all the class Bs really wanted on HF and all the scumbag 11m pirates wanted to cover their continued 11m activities with The foundation tickey box farce… and what a joke 20 years of the FL has been …no progression but then again why bother when everyting has been given to them for nothing wth a joke requirement of 10w ha ha even the DXCON MAN is laughing about that in his videos….so mess about further with the lic it really doesn’t matter any longer…as long as the punters have their big baby Kaleidoscope screens and their boom broadcast mics with 4Kc/s bandwith and voodoo audio they are happy…
Don’t waste your time answering Jim. Google GM4DHJ and you’ll see that he spends his days online picking fights. He’s on a Usenet group at the moment boasting about how he’s goading people on this thread. Don’t give him the time of day and he’ll soon get bored and drift away.
yes banned by every faker on youtube if you don’t like what I say..ban me…no It was somebody else on usnet that said I was ‘goading’ not me get your facts right….I said I was having a good bounce up….because people hate the truth….tee hee
I think people would take you a lot more seriously and be willing to listen and engage with you, if you were willing to have a sane and rational discussion about whatever it is that’s bothering you. I appreciate you’re upset that things changed 20 years ago, but do you really think that insulting people is going to change anything? The current 3-tier system may not be to your liking, but it’s been in place for 20 years.
So, do you want to have a sensible dialogue about this, or are you just here for a fight?
Actually Jim is upset by things that changed at least 50 years ago but he can be useful to flush out some modern thinking and help pick it apart.
20 years doesn’t make it right…..you have to fight or you die
Jim,
You seem to be angry about pretty much everything.
Go for a lie down.
‘Jim,
You seem to be angry about pretty much everything.’
no wonder…
‘Go for a lie down.’
Thanks for your concern but it doesn’t help when people like you are using what was the old reciprocal callsign bank like my old pal GM5BKJ had…so what if it was a secuity problem?….you just had to have VHF didn’t you? …personalised heaven…tee hee
could you not get G5DAV ?
Why do you care? Try and articulate clearly without resorting to insults.
Don’t waste your time David. Google GM4DHJ and you’ll see that he spends his days online picking fights. He’s on a Usenet group at the moment boasting about how he’s goading people on this thread. Don’t give him the time of day and he’ll soon get bored.
It is only because there is something there worth insulting if there wasn’t I couldn’t ….
Jim is quite reasonably angry I would say, and from his part of the world is quite happy to call a spade a shovel.
Just googled him, toxic on just about every discussion he’s in. Angry and extreme about everything.
Reasonably angry? About what? Some letters in a callsign?
I don’t judge anyone by their callsign or their licence level, but that seems to be a big part (the only part!) for some.
‘I don’t judge anyone by their callsign or their licence level, but that seems to be a big part (the only part!) for some.’
no just can’t stand todays fly men speshly on youtube trying to be what they are not and yes I do judge everybody by their callsigns and it is easy to spot a fake…perhaps we should just let everybody make their own callsign bandit ninja come to mind…tee hee.make ti just like CB …..but then again they would run out of the G5TMs of this world…..and can you answer me a question ? if callsigns don’t matter why does nobody want a G8 plus three ? why is everybody trying to get a nice G3 G5 G4 plus two or three or an G8 plus two ?…the answer is obvious fakers the lot of them…
You may do as you wish, but I do agree with Jim about the callsign question. Back in the day you got what you were given unless you were prepared to reserve it and wait, the current free for all is insane because it violates that and people swan about pretending that they have been licensed for longer than they have to curry favour or lord it over people for their own reasons. If you have some restrictions on choice then these sort of shenanigans are not possible without paying the price of having to wait.
Jim doesn’t like me having an ex-B licence, now full, on HF but he probably doesn’t know that I still operate on 70cms where he thinks I ought to stay.
In a way this is all a joke and people derive amusement from it if they wish. At least they’re not building explosive devices to upset repeater groups like they were 40 years ago.
My issue with all this is that if Jim has a genuine grievance about callsigns, the 3-tier licence system or whatever crusade he’s on, there’s a right way and a wrong way of doing things. Insults and obscenities just gets him branded as a loon, and anyone Googling him will soon discover that he’s lost any credibility and is more interested in attacking people than seeking change.
I agree that people acquiring old callsigns causes confusion, and that vanity callsigns (and number plates) potentially mark someone as “that kind of person”, but it’s the system’s faulty, not the individual. If they’ve worked for their full licence (which carries the same privileges as a 1970s full licence, and the system allows them to pick a callsign – that’s “the system”. Petition Ofcom or RSGB. Picking on the individual serves no useful purpose. Who really cares if someone got their licence in 1970, 1990 or 2023?
As has been proved, today’s Full licence is harder to achieve than the old RAE ever was, Jim and others had it easy back in the 1970s compared to today’s Full, so does it really matter now all of the Full licences have been levelled?
and we can see from some posts in this chat why new M7’s and those of us who have progress further in the last few years avoid clubs and the old guard
and if the sort of views in those post are being represented to the RSGB why it is not fit for purpose and won’t change
People are usually quite careful who they discriminate against Peter. In my case I am happy to have a chat with anyone on air on in person, but I did rather draw the line some years ago when I was confronted by a new M3 call holder at the National Hamfest who was drunk, wearing clothing that stank of BO and vomit and was leaning so close to me that the end of his cigarette could easily have burned my cornea.
One day you will be ‘the old guard’, if you think the older amongst us are bad now you should have tried the people in the ex-service associations back in the day.
Indeed. It seems there is a sizeable contingent who will only be happy when everyone looks like them and the hobby is dead.
‘Indeed. It seems there is a sizeable contingent who will only be happy when everyone looks like them and the hobby is dead.’
what a stupid comment even for a faker ….
I agree David. There are a few “Jims” out there who long for the 70s when the hobby was very different, and they remain very bitter about the changes brought in at the turn of the century that saved the hobby from extinction (C&G pulling out of exams due to falling interest and demand). Twenty years is a long time to be holding a grudge, and trying to pick fights online just to get attention is a way of life for some sadly, and not just in our hobby.
The good news is that the hobby has evolved and there are very few people around with this engrained hatred for anything new, and apparently for people just discovering the hobby. It’s a broad hobby and there’s plenty of room for everyone, so don’t let the negativity of people with grudges looking for a fight get any of you reading this down.
‘I agree David. There are a few “Jims” out there who long for the 70s when the hobby was very different, and they remain very bitter about the changes brought in at the turn of the century that saved the hobby from extinction (C&G pulling out of exams due to falling interest and demand).’
we do and we hated seeing the hobby trashed…..
‘Twenty years is a long time to be holding a grudge, and trying to pick fights online just to get attention is a way of life for some sadly, and not just in our hobby.’
no no the rot started in 1981 with the first tranche of CBrs polutied the once fine hobby but at least they had to do the cw test to get on HF
‘The good news is that the hobby has evolved and there are very few people around with this engrained hatred for anything new, and apparently for people just discovering the hobby. It’s a broad hobby and there’s plenty of room for everyone, so don’t let the negativity of people with grudges looking for a fight get any of you reading this down’
the bad news is the hobby is finished and no tinkering will help it …nobody is interested….except for a few wothless Cbrs so enjoy your worthless last few years being tactical and hanging on every word of the DXCONMAN and similar experts with fake callsigns teaching their granny how to suck eggs and reinventing the laws of nature….tee hee
I’m not telling you anything that you don’t know already Jim, but unless you’re either willing to have a rational and civil discussion about whatever’s upset you in the past, nothing’s going to change. You’ll keep repeating the same old pattern. After your standard “it was better 50 years ago” rant, people Google you and discover that you’re to be ignored. When you start getting ignored, you become abusive, you then get banned, and finally play the victim.
If that’s how you get your kicks, fine, but you’ll have to accept that your audience is wise to this tired routine now. Why not try a different approach? You might find that you get taken a little more seriously, and people might be willing to listen and engage with you.
“Tyrbiter
People are usually quite careful who they discriminate against Peter”
which is why i did not mention names, posts or comments, but some of the behaviours mentioned in the newcomer survey are clearly on display in this thread
please remember I AM NOT Pete (M0PSX) who runs essexham, but one of his pupils who passed foundation 2 1/2 years ago, i try and make this obvious by having my 2E0 callsign in my dosplayname
Yes, it’s OK old man, I can read a callsign with the best of them.
For Jim’s benefit, I have a G8+3 callsign (44 years and counting) and I really like using it where Jim hates me doing it. But we get on him and me, whereas sometimes I see a lot of bile from people who don’t seem to want to learn things.
Like everyone else I have exactly one vote, and it’s worth exactly the same as anyone else’s one vote except for certain G3s or so I was once told ;-) Don’t worry, they’re going faaaast.
Is that Pete that Len had a bounce up with recenty…sorted him right out he did…teehee
Anyway I am wasting my time here so I will leave you all trying to figure out how to dumb down the hobby further by rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic…..
I’m sure you’ll be back soon, or else on a different site somewhere looking for an audience. I saw the comment that you’ve been “rumbled”. TBH, I don’t think you’re going to find many followers for your declining Usenet clan here as most people have either moved on, or have little or no interest in what the hobby was like 5 decades ago. Hopefully you can find what you crave elsewhere
Some of us are interested in modern amateur radio but also use Usenet as well. You really don’t need to pay us any mind, no matter what our opinions are.
That particular group seems to be full of nothing but hate, negativity and contempt for those who’ve got their licences since RAE. It’s great that those who enjoy that kind of thing have a home.
‘Some of us are interested in modern amateur radio but also use Usenet as well. You really don’t need to pay us any mind, no matter what our opinions are.’
I can see from yout posts you are a good even handed guy well done….worthy of your handle
It seems that one potentially acceptable solution to open up the hobby would be to remove a lot of technical input that is no longer a valid part of operating. Have a part one and a part two – part one being an introduction only – the part two being a much simpler and easier amalgam of the intermediate and the full. Pricing accordingly. Radio operations become easier and more accessible, the hobby grows and operators grow with it.
Do people need to Understand about propogation and antenna development? Yes but that is a consequence of being a user with no need to test on it. If you don’t know you will have to find out. Club memberships will increase.
Make joining the RSGB mandatory with a % of the subscription going to a named local club for local development and to increase capacity and interest.
The government then makes registration of tx equipment at the point of retail sale to licence holders only. While we want the hobby to be opened up we do not want to increase abuse. We also encourage private second hand sales to licence holders only. That’s the least we can do and hope for the best.
Kits have always been available to anyone regardless of licence so Ofcom should not need to worry about protecting the hobbyist by imposing technical restrictions on licencing. you do not need a licence before you buy and operate a ladder from B&Q.
Locally managed and nationally led.
“remove a lot of technical input that is no longer a valid part of operating”
i am all for reducing the technical content of the foundation exam a little, but not totally removing it, to get the most out of our hobby you need a certain level of technical understanding, as we have more power, bands and modes available than CB, may be replace some of the technical content with information about hotspots and echolink type services
if people want to use it as a general means to chat and keep in contact fine, not a problem but what happens when they get curious about other signals they hear? we have higher gain antennas and need to understand interference and how to minimise and prevent it, so we do need a certain level of understanding, or we risk foundation license holders becoming a higher tier CB
“Do people need to Understand about propogation and antenna development?”
if you stay on VHF with a baofeng then probably not, if you venture down into HF you very soon learn about it as bands mysteriously change during the day and night, this is why i would not be in favour of limiting bands like the US, as it virtually stops basic level ops when the sun goes down
but if we go down this route are we looking at the old “A” & “B” licenses, where the B license holders only had access to VHF and above until they passed a CW test? as there was less technical knowledge required, and that would not be good for the hobby
“Make joining the RSGB mandatory with a % of the subscription going to a named local club for local development and to increase capacity and interest.”
here is a problem, people like me view the RSGB as only supporting the old guard and not supporting the new hams who have come through covid and after with remote invigilation, a number including me have not had good experiences with local clubs and will avoid them,
properly run and inclusive clubs provide a great environment for new M7’s, but they have to stay up to date (i.e. understand new digital modes as well as older modes) be inclusive regardless of age and gender, and provide environments where new member don’t worry about asking “stupid questions” as we all started with little or no knowledge and have learnt a lot along the way
i am a member of the RSGB and happy to pay my membership as i view Radcom value for money, but i see little activity from the RSGB regarding making younger members welcome, expanding the hobby to those who have not yet retired or booked their funeral, e.g. my local club hold their net when people are at work (listening to it ,it sounds like a cross between gods waiting room and the local doctors surgery)? so it limits participation, programs like brickworks are done via a club, and if clubs are cliquey and not welcoming new M7’s can’t participate
membership of the RSGB and clubs should be optional as it is now, but with more and more new members to the hobby not being club members the RSGB should be looking at how we can be supported, Pete and essexham do a fantastic job, very welcoming and supportive we need to clone pete many times
“The government then makes registration of tx equipment at the point of retail sale to licence holders only”
not sure how this would work, as how many of us buy kit from outside the UK?, another possible option would be for OFCOM to add some fields to our license records on the portal so we can voluntarily add our transceiver model and serial numbers, then you have the issue of hams selling kit to each other, what happens when a ham goes silent key and their partner or relative wants to dispose of their kit? how do you track it?
“Locally managed and nationally led.”
to be locally managed we would all need to be members of clubs and the RSGB area reps visit on a regular basis, so how do you locally manage people like me who do not wish to be a club member due to either not able to make club meetings or not wish to be a member due to issues or treatment in the past?
nationally led is great but the RSGB need to start thinking outside of clubs and the old guard, and how it can include and support those like me who came through over covid and are not club members,
you can see remote invigilation and removal of the practical element has had a huge impact when you look at the figures for exams, less than 10% sit exams in a club environment, so is that clubs still running training but suggesting they sit the exam by remote invigilation as less hassle for the club and instant result for those sitting exams, or is this an indication of how few people are now going to clubs?
to come back on topic though
i think some form of serious review of the licensing is due by OFCOM but also the RSGB need to review the syllabus for the exam to reflect changes in technology, new digital modes and internet modes via gateways and hotspots, none of which are covered
also we need to look at how we retain new M7’s if their is little activity on 2m/70cm in their area some leave the hobby disappointed with VHF and due to cost of HF kit as HF is where there is more activity,
access to HF needs to be cheaper and easier, ICOM and Yaesu need to follow the lead of the likes of Xiegu and produce entry level HF all mode transceivers in the sub £500 range or OFCOM / the RSGB need to find a way for those so inclined to build kits to allow M7’s to use kits (possibly with a full license holder check / sign off of the finished kit or a power limit of 5-10w for kits to minimise risk of interference)
lastly i think the RSGB should be pushing for radio to be included in the schools STEM curriculum as radio is the tech behind mobile phones, WiFi and lots of other IoT devices so it is a technology enabler, without some form of radio tx/rx there would be little or no smart home tech, provide science teachers with free foundation level exams to get them to M7’s so they can demo ham radio to classes
the down side to that would be would we want 2m to be full of the unruly little cherubs from the local academy with a baofeng using street language?
Your post suggests Foundation can’t build transceiver kits, I covered this earlier but perhaps you didn’t see it.
The existing licence already permits Foundation to construct and use transmitter/transceiver kits, it always has. There is not and never has been any requirement to get such kits signed off by a Full licence holder.
The change we want to see in the license is the deletion of Clause 7(2), this would mean Foundation would be free to build and use any transmitting equipment they liked not just kits
If one is going to build something that is not a kit then it is incumbent on the builder to have the requisite test equipment available to ensure that they are not transmitting spurious signals or indeed creating distorted signals that are difficult to demodulate and thus affecting other band users. Unless they know someone with that test equipment then they need to buy their own.
This is swapping one sort of complexity for another in effect, it’s a matter of best use of available money for the new licensee and if they are not particularly flush then maybe this will stop them getting on air because they can’t test their construction. I hope it’s not being suggested that they just do whatever they like, the radio spectrum doesn’t get treated like that without consequences.
Peter M0PWX (2E0PWX) wrote: “the RSGB need to review the syllabus for the exam to reflect changes in technology, new digital modes and internet modes via gateways and hotspots, none of which are covered”
I would be opposed to thess being added to the Exams. We are not aiming for candidates to be able to answer exams question on the wide multitude of different modes /operating options that are available. The aim is simply to ensure they understand the basics at each level.
It’s after the exam has been passed that the real learning starts and it’s then they can start learning about D-STAR, DMR, Fusion, Codec-2, Gateways, Hotspots, FTx and other digi modes etc, if that is what they want to do. The Brickworks scheme can provide a structure to help in this process
Peter M0PWX (2E0PWX) wrote: “provide science teachers with free foundation level exams to get them to M7’s so they can demo ham radio to classes”
20 years ago the Regulator (then called Radiocommunications Agency) did something very similar, they paid to provide free training courses to School Teachers (any teacher not just science). The aim was for the teachers to get their Full licence, the exercise was an expensive failure.
I don’t think any of them made it to Full? they got their Foundation and their Intermediate which in itself proved immensly time-consuming, Full naturally takes much more time. My recollection is the training was done at weekends in a hotel.
Unfortunately licence restrictions meant that Intermediate wasn’t enough for them to bring amateur radio into the classroom. Foundation/Intermediate were banned from running the On-Air Practicals so the teachers couldn’t run courses for their pupils. Sadly Fnd/Int are to this day banned from Supervising unlicenced people on-air but that’s exactly what you want to do for in-classroom demonstrations.
Abolish unnecessary licence restrictions such as those regarding Fnd/Int Supervision and the scheme might have some success
Before doing that it’s necessary to decide why those restrictions were part of these licence classes, it is possible that they are still needed.
I was fortunate enough to have been taught the RAE syllabus by one of my teachers when I was at school, so I’m not unsympathetic to your suggestion.
Yes, there were once quite a few teachers involved in amateur radio almost all have long-since retired. They sparked interest in radio communications in their pupils.
These days after-school STEM clubs could offer pupils similar opportunities to learn about wireless technology but what is lacking is teachers with any knowledge of it.
While the attempt to train teachers 20 years was a failure I believe that if certain licence changes take place such a scheme would work.
Clearly when removing unnecessary regulations full consideration should be given to why in the distant past they were put there and whether those reasons are still valid in the modern world
This newspaper article is an good example of what happens in USA.
There school teacher Ravi Davies KF0FYL runs an after-school STEAM club for her pupils.
She holds the lowest Entry-Level class of licence but in the USA that permits her to supervise unlicenced pupils on-air, incidently she can also build and use whatever transmitting equipment she likes, no silly kit restrictions. She is training her pupils so they can get their amateur licences. This is what we want to see in this country as well
https://www.eptrail.com/2023/04/11/students-study-for-ham-radio-licenses/
How about the ultimate when it comes to exams instead of just having the correct answer in front of you the correct answer is highlighted ? this faciliy would incur a charge and could be called the Gold package ….this would increase the percentage pass rate and help with trendy things like inclusivity for the less able and wummin with or without a penis, would stop excuses coming in the way of becoming a hammy men/wummin/other …this is a no fail culture after all… …this would also end the need for an invigilator when taking a home exam over the internet….and no more scary having to go to a club to have your pals fiddle the test…then pick a nice g3 g4 g5 g2 plus your initials or notation of sexual orientation grave robbed callsign to pretend you you know what you are talking about when you give a master class on youtube ….
You GMs want to hope that Scotland never gets indepeneance what with what is planned for callsignes in the new country …no more keeping personal calls for you…tee hee
8 years ago at WRC-15 the ITU allocated a new band in 5 MHz for the Amateur Radio Service.
Although most other countries have adopted the new allocation so far Ofcom has not.
Since the upcoming licence consultation is likely to be the last one for a decade or maybe much longer this may be the only opportunity to get the allocation incorporated in the licence before the 2040’s.
Currently UK amateurs have access to some limited segments withinin the 5 MHz spectrum that are shared with the Military, adopting the WRC-15 allocation may lead to the other UK only segments being withdrawn.
The question is, do UK amateurs want the WRC-15 5 MHz allocation used by the rest of the world ?
no HF ham bands are 160 80 40 15 and 10m none of there silly WRC bands ….
no….The HF bands are 160 80 40 15 and 10 none of their silly WARC bands …
The silly WARC bands are really rather good Jim, you should try them. I particularly like 17m.
well that is the only one that would appeal to you…or anybody just about…they shouldn’t have bothered…
Making the Foundation exam questions a little harder, could make the abolition of the Intermediate licence easier.
Just two levels of competency Full + Foundation, perhaps renamed.
Remember that a fairly recent look by Essex Ham at the last RAE held, showed that 55%, of that would equate with the Foundation exam, post 2019.
No way should there ever be an exam lower than the current Foundation licence.
I get a headache at the thought of a “Beginners’ licence” to turn the 2 metre band into a CB equivalent!
I mean I could be wrong but I always thought that the HF bands were;
80 metres: 3.500 – 3.800MHz
60 metres: 5MHz
40 metres: 7.000 – 7.200MHz
30 metres: 10.100 – 10.150MHz
20 metres: 14.000 – 14.350MHz
17 metres: 18.068 – 18.168MHz
15 metres: 21.000 – 21.450MHz
12 metres: 24.890 – 24.990MHz
10 metres: 28.000 – 29.700MHz
and that 160m fell under MF?
However what would I know, I did the modern exam where you collect kellogs tokens to get a ticket.
In Australia the regulator ACMA consulted and updated the licence to increase the flexibility, utility, and relevance of the Foundation licence by removing unnecessary restrictions, while balancing the risk of interference to other radio spectrum users.
– Foundation Licensees may authorise another person to operate their station.
If the person is unlicensed the Foundation licensee must be in attendance at all
times.
– Foundation licensees may operate an amateur station over the internet in
automatic mode or computer-controlled mode, and may operate a station that is
directly connected to a public telecommunications network.
– Foundation licensees may transmit using equipment constructed by themselves or others
https://wia.org.au/newsevents/news/2019/20191105-1/documents/Foundation_Manual_Supplement_Nov_2019.pdf
“If the person is unlicensed the Foundation licensee must be in attendance at all
times.”
I can’t see a problem with the other changes you describe, but this opens the door to a whole lot of problems in my opinion.
That change occured over 4 years ago now, with so far zero problems.
I can see why the regulator ACMA chose that wording, it’s flexible and it’s all that’s needed since the licence holder remains at all times liable for any breaches of regulations / intentional interference that occurs.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, if there are no significant problems in Australia and other country with similar regulations then there no reason not to adopt it here.
Falkland Islands is holding an Amateur Radio Consultation. In it the FI Regulator says:
“Revalidation is of doubtful value given the practice of issuing lifetime Licences and the absence of any competency-based qualification criteria for operating an Amateur Radio Licence.” (Note: in FI you just ask for an amateur licence no exams required)
The FI Regulator proposes replacing Mandatory Revalidation with a licence Terms and Conditions requirement to keep contact details up-to-date.
Given Ofcom have no interest in Revoking licences which haven’t been revalidated in past 16 years it’s likely they think the same and will follow a similar path
https://regulatorfi.org.fk/news/99-licensing-of-communications-services-consultation-paper
Removing the regional locators seems like it would contribute nothing really. It’s good to immediately be able to recognise the rough direction the signals are coming from with the UK simply from the callsign. They would also need to do something about the Intermediate callsigns, which would become “20XYZ” rather than “2E0XYZ”. Maybe that’s just a matter of getting used to. Then again, if they drop the Intermediate level, then there won’t be any Intermediate callsigns in future anyway. :-D
I am an intermediate licence holder and have been for 15 years and at 77 i dont need all this nonsense and have been happy with the way things have been.i took the advance and failed and had no wish to resit as i saw little advantage in holding a full licence, leave it as it is and my wife is 80 year old with m3 foundation and too old to resitr exam
Raymond just to reassure you there will be nothing that adversly affects you. After the consultation you will still have your Intermediate licence with exactly the same callsign and you will be able to carry on just as you currently do
It appears that there will be a public consultation in Q1 2023–24 (Between April and June 2023), followed by a statement in Q4 2023–24 (between January and March 2024)
Can someone please tell how we get involved in the consultation?
Thanks in advance.
When Ofcom launches the consultation, this will include details of how to respond. From memory, it’s normally an online form you’ll need to complete.
Yes I am all for an operator only type of licence. when am I likely to need a Zenner Diode and other such things. I just want to communicate using morse or voice. Digital is a not what I would call a means of communicating neither is FT8. But hey ho yes Amateur Radio does have something for everyone I suppose. There is a need I feel for EMC and other matters of safety.
May I also add that if you build something yourself and it goes up in smoke you are not covered by your household insurance. It has to be a branded product as I understand it.
They could drop the foundation and just start at a renamed a intermediate level.
That would we be a totally destructive move, fortunately it won’t happen.
The existing three-levels of licence will remain, it’ll be the privileges available that should change for the better
Japan recently changed their amateur radio regulations to allow ALL amateurs to supervise an unlicenced person on-air.
This includes Japanese Class 4 holders, a licence which has an exam at a slightly *Lower* level than UK Foundation and permits operation on all amateur bands from 135 kHz all the way up to the millimetric 248 GHz band with the exception of the 1.8, 10, 14 &18 MHz bands.
The supervisory capability and access to the microwave and millimetric bands is what is needed for Foundation in the UK.
Japanese regulation change for supervising unlicensed people https://www.tele.soumu.go.jp/j/sys/others/ama_experience/
Yes the intermediate courses is very hard I am struggling with this I am keen to move up a bit the 10 watt restrictions on foundation is very frustrating when nobody hears you I wait until very late at night to go on hf when the bands are quiet just to be herd love ham radio but the difficulty of the intermediate course and restrictions at foundation are really holding me back on what I can achieve so frustrating
What I have learned in 20 years a ham is that people are full of excuses nothing more, it is mind boggling reading comments online not only on here but other places on the net regarding this recent ofcom announcement…….You entered into a electronics hobby, if you want to gab get on cb or pmr.
The only way is the old RAE return in my opinion.
Important distinction here is that Amateur Radio is not an “electronics hobby” – it’s a radiocommunications hobby (as defined by Ofcom and the RSGB). While “back in the day”, amateurs used to design and build their transceivers, these days it’s mostly off-the-shelf kit.
and we should ask when was this mythical era when lots of amateurs designed and built transceivers – it never existed.
The reality is the only amateurs who completely designed and built transceivers were a very tiny handful who were professional electronic design engineers. In fact search the historic records and you’ll find precious few designs for transceivers, in the 1970’s a Plessey engineer published a partial transceiver design in Radcom based surprise surprise on the Plessey IC’s he’d been employed to work on.
Pre-1965 before Ready-Built transceivers had became widely available no-one built transceivers, amateurs used seperate transmitters and receivers. The receiver was usually ready-made probably ex-military and if they couldn’t find an ex-army transmitter (CW and AM) to go with it they might build a transmitter from a published design. A legendary design was the Elizabethan by Louis Varney G5RV published in RSGB mag T&R Bulletin. How did Louis develop the design, well he worked for Marconi and was able to make use of Marconi Apprentices to develop and test the transmitter and of course used the company’s extensive test equipment, components and chassis metal working, all naturally done on company time.
Yes back in the 60’s and 70’s amateurs employed by the many British communications companies of that era, Marconi, Pye, Racal, Plessey, Ferranti et al (now all gone), were active in building equipment, using the skills they’d gained through their job, but other amateurs would just tinker doing small mods to ex-commercial PMR or military kit.
For some reason there are one or two amateurs around who look back on 1960’s/70’s when they were still young with rose-tinted glasses but we should not be fooled into thinking it was some kind of golden age
To be fair I’m on of those who’s interested in obtaining a full license not for the privileges but mostly for international recognition. Being able to travel and use my HT to reach out to others sounds like fun – not really interested in building my own radios except perhaps a repeater, which would be made of commercially available hardware.
I do hope they simplify it, perhaps as mentioned, introduce an operator only license.
When the Ofcom amateur radio licence consultation gets underway the RSGB will be posting information on their Licence Review page at https://www.rsgb.org/licencereview
Well it is now June and near the end of Q1 2023/24 but nothing from Ofcom yet… I’m hoping for an ICNIRP relaxation but I doubt that will happen. I am also hoping for 8m and 5m bands but again I think I will be disappointed. Perhaps we will see some relaxation of local planning regulations but I doubt that will happen too. More TX power maybe? Relaxation of rules surrounding beacons, repeaters or internet linking, or phone-patching? Perhaps Foundation licensees will get 20W PEP like the licence-free CBers? Who knows?
– Having spent so much money updating all licences in the UK, not just amateur radio, Ofcom won’t backtrack on ICNIRP.
– RSGB not interested in 8m and 5m at this point in time.
– Ofcom has nothing to do with local planning regs
– RSGB don’t seem to me to be keen on increasing Foundation power on HF but Intermediate may be a different matter, maybe 100 watts, lets hope so
As a relative newbie to the whole scene I must say it’s been a bit of a deflation once experienced in the real world.
2m/70cm is just full of people talking about the rig in use and antenna or mundane chat amongst the ‘cliques’, HF a bit better but fed up trying to get heard over the Mediterranean 1KW boys, and digital interesting but pointless as may as well use a computer to email.
The low signal stuff was interesting to see how far the low watt signal bounced around the globe between computers.
As to licensing it seems to be a matter of badge earning akin to the cubs.
Who cares if you can juggle formulas, understand electronic theory and practices and build an antenna out of a soup tin
Honestly I’m an old electronic tech spanning 40 yrs in various industries, do I build my own? do I heck.
Modern off the shelf surface mount technology devices and off the peg antenna work just as well for my needs.
I think there should be two classes of licence- Operator and Constructor
At the moment the closest analogy I can think of is like saying I can’t own my 300HP car because I’m not a trained mechanic.
But I am allowed to take to the road by complying with the law in having tax/insurance/MOT/servicing in place and above all using it within the laws regards speed and etiquette to other users on the highway.
Radio licensing should enable me greater freedoms without the restrictions of the past. I’ve no interest in building something for a minor hobby, there’s other stuff in life of far greater interest and reward.
Fine if it’s your only hobby and you get great satisfaction in building something from scrap and solder then you should be licensed under the constructor heading as god knows what you’ll be up to otherwise
We definately do not want two clases of licence – Operator and Constructor. All radio amateurs should be free to Design, Construct or Modify transmitting equipment for use on amateur frequencies. However in needs to be recognised that All radio amateurs have been using commercial equipment in preference to homemade for the past 50 years.
I see nothing excessive in the current Foundation exam but I’d agree both the UK Intermediate and Full exams require an unnecessary depth of knowledge of equations and electronic theory.
The Full exam only needs to meet the requirement of the CEPT HAREC syllabus, it currently far exceeds requirements. Yes syllabus includes mention of formula BUT there is no requirement to demonstrate their use in an exam. In the real world people use an Online Calculator to work out values
https://docdb.cept.org/download/2569
The same is true for Intermediate which simply needs to meet CEPT Novice (equiv to UK Intermediate despite the name whih RSGB originally suggested to the CEPT Radio Amateur Working Group) no requirement in the syllabus to demonstrate use of any formula under stresfull exam conditions https://docdb.cept.org/download/2065
These pages are just full of people making excuses for themselves not doing anything difficult in the way of learning something and advancing.
Its all driven by a possible push for a licence free ham radio world with the cartel of a few uk radio shops /sellers and pushed by their friends …
Just do the bloody graft and learn something.
I see no evidence of any kind of push from either Ofcom or RSGB for a licence-free option, and given that a licence is mandatory for HAREC/CEPT, I can’t see that happening. I’m also not convinced that this would be desirable for the main dealers or suppliers. For the hobby to prosper, remain relevant in today’s world, and to survive, licence conditions, exams and the syllabus will require periodic change. It’s happened before and it will happen again.
A technical correction: A licence is Not Necessary for CEPT HAREC. A number of countries have scrapped the licence and made Amateur Radio Licence Exempt (Ofcom did consider this option back in 2004/5).
Canada was the first to scrap the licence in 2000 followed by Sweden in 2004, but both countries remain signatories to the CEPT HAREC agreement and so participate in full reciprocal operation.
What is required in both countries is certification, in Sweden the national society SSA runs the exam and issues the callsigns. Info on the sutuation in Canada is at https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/spectrum-allocation/amateur-radio-service/amateur-certification-fact-sheet
Mind you it’s all academic I’m sure anyway in many cases, I’m sure there’s many M7’s (or the previous designation) running amps and high power rigs regardless.
After all there is no restriction on buying anything you want??
You don’t have to present your license or prove your mastery of mathematics or electronic principles to order the gear
Ofcom: Updating the amateur radio licensing framework An approach for today and tomorrow’s radio amateurs
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/263181/consultation-amateur-radio-review.pdfM5AKA
Ofcom’s proposed Amateur Radio licence improvements include:
• Introduce a new policy that licensees must only hold a single personal licence
• Change our rules to allow third-parties to operate the radio equipment if under direct supervision of a licensee
• Introduce a new M8 and M9 call sign prefix for the Intermediate Licence to replace the
current approach;
• Make the use of Regional Secondary Locators (‘RSLs’) optional;
• Allow the wider use of the RSL ‘E’ for England by all licence classes;
• Make it easier for licensees to use Special RSLs;
• Clarify the use of call sign suffixes;
• Make available the full range of unused amateur call signs via the online portal;
• Permit licensees to periodically change their call sign;
• Restrict the number of call signs an individual can hold to one; and five for Full (Club)
licences; and
• Liberalise the use of Special Event Station assignments
Especially welcome are Ofcom’s plans to:
• Increase permitted transmit power levels in a number of bands for all licence classes;
• Allow Foundation and Intermediate licensees to use the internet for remote control
operation;
• Incorporate some technical Notice of Variations (‘NoVs’) into the standard licence
terms and conditions to enable a wider range of activities without specific Ofcom
consent being required;
• Liberalise elements of the Foundation Licence to allow more activities including
allowing the building of equipment and accessing the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands;
• Permit low power airborne use in some frequency bands
Correct URL is https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/263181/consultation-amateur-radio-review.pdf
you have opened a can of worms putting the propsals on here. ho dear. Brian.
As one of the last G7 under the old RAE system, that holds several NoV’s for sites. Having just skim-read the release from Ofcom on what is proposed seems fair. I think more power for foundation holders would have been appreciated, yes it may only be half or even just an S-points but when out portable or field day it makes all the difference. I think the HF bands would seem more active giving them an experience then hopefully wanting to progress in this hobby. I think 50 watts (PEP) would have been more appropriate, intermediate 300w or 400w then the full 1kW. Then should intermediates or full licence holds decide to go portable and wanting to run more wattage then obviously the more battery power consumption is required for longer periods… but should they operate at same level as foundation holders then this to me seems a more level and fair playing field.
Almost all commercial off the shelf VHF/UHF vehicle mobile radios have three or four selectable power levels, some from 5w / 10w / 15w/ 25w / 50w some have the additional 100w depends on the model obviously… but my point being if a foundation holder runs at 25w setting under the new proposal they would be breaking their license conditions. Take the new Yaesu FTM-500, Selectable 50W / 25W / 5W this would mean switching the power level to 5 watts, might as well get a HT and dare I say it.. a Baofeng or other cheap Chinese models which some have a bigger wattage output than advertised. Don’t make sense to me, yes there are other radio models with lower output or but wouldn’t it be easier to just say 50 watts (PEP) for foundation to start with?
Yes there’s the new EMF guidelines to adhere to but there are plenty of existing intermediate and full licenced holders that are clueless about it even to this day…
You know some people are happy with running a Hot Spot or a personal node however you want to look at it, but only need D-Star / Fusion or a cheap DMR with less than a milliwatt and let the internet do the rest… that’s another story, we won’t go there but again it really does bother some people!
Since 2004> there’s so much stigma around the found the foundation users, which I never have understood… I’ve had the pleasure of talking to many people over the years! As a full license holder I’m here to promote our great hobby and encourage new or lower existing licensee to go further!
Just my 10 pence worth dare say… Which has probably p-ed one or two people reading it.
73
JJ
There was no need for Foundation to be subject to the same power limit on VHF/UHF as the 20 watts for HF.
It would have been sensible to increase the VHF/UHF power limit to 50 watts which would have resulted in increased activity levels on those otherwise largely empty bands.
I shall be making that point to Ofcom in my response.
But that aside I think Ofcom’s proposals deliver just about everything we could have wished for
Ofcom Hints at Licence Changes | Essex Ham
gbxkhsqjh http://www.gn6ak9gg7u9mjr5274yy2038b93yu0v2s.org/
[url=http://www.gn6ak9gg7u9mjr5274yy2038b93yu0v2s.org/]ugbxkhsqjh[/url]
agbxkhsqjh
Hi all I hope everyone is having a great day, I’m a foundation license holder and I would really appreciate any changes for the future and moving forward in ham radio, I like to think I would be extremely sensible when using any power we are allocated in the future ie 20 watts but unfortunately in this day and age I still don’t think it would be enough, if you are proposing to up other license levels to 100watts and possibly 1000watts it would be more appropriate to up foundation to 30watts with one condition to use Less power if it was possible because in my opinion I like to think we are all sensible enough to manage our own decisions based on conditions at that time and at least then it would give the new hams half a chance of making contacts in the future clearly this is my opinion and I hope it helps, have a great day.
Stephen when I was an M7 (M7SOC) I owned a Kenwood TS120V which had a max output of 10 watts on HF. It was fine, all I struggled with was popular call signs and pile ups.
You’ll be surprised how far 10w can take you on HF. Build a good di-pole and you’re off mate!
Bring back the three hour exam and the morse test…too many 11m piates now in the hobby due to dumbing down……
I’m not sure what that would achieve. Numbers for the old RAE were so low that C&G pulled the plug on the old-style exam. As for dumbing down – not so… the old-style RAE roughly compares with today’s Intermediate, so getting a full licence today is much harder than under RAE.