UKC

Mountain rescue radios – Storm in a teacup?

“What? Mountain rescue teams will have to pay £260,000 a year for radio use! I'm outraged!”

Is a common response to the current news story surrounding mountain rescue radios, but is that actually the case?

In reality, Mountain Rescue Teams (MRT) pay nothing for their radio spectrum use. Under a new pricing scheme currently under consultation by Ofcom, that charge will change to the sum total of... £0 . That's nothing, zilch, zip, diddly-squat. So what's the problem? There isn't one.

Radio fees are complex and Ofcom, just like all government quangos, have wrapped them up in a spaghetti bowl of language noodles. So let's see if we can untangle the mess.

Ofcom sets charges for radio spectrum use. The radio channels used by MRT's are assigned to, and paid for by, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) which is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. The MCA is funded by general taxation. There are no plans to change this. So the charges for MRT's radio use are simply passed from one government agency (MCA) to another (Ofcom).

Simple enough? Where it gets more complex, is with the Royal National Lifeboats Institution (RNLI). Currently the RNLI has some free spectrum use (in the same way that MRTs do - specifically for their search and rescue operations) but has to pay for other parts of its radio usage, just like many other users. These other parts will be affected by a pricing change, although Ofcom estimates that the RNLI's annual fee will actually be reduced.

RNLI media relations manager Danielle Rush is quoted on Walesonline as saying:

The RNLI currently pays £40,000 in licence fees annually to Ofcom for the use of radio channels in our station/boathouse radios, lifeguard radios, launching vehicles and pager system”

According to the Ofcom website: “The RNLI may see its charges fall as a result of our proposal to offer a single, lower cost licence for multiple users... ...We estimate that, based on the RNLI's usage, its fee under the new arrangements would be less than £20,000.”

I spoke to Meleri Thomas at Ofcom, who stated:

Search and rescue teams will not be affected by the proposals for new fees.”

The only agency that could be affected by a change in fees is the MCA, and it is unlikely that they would set a new precedent and impose any charges on search and rescue teams such as MRT's. The reasoning behind Ofcom's change of pricing is to try and limit spectrum use (and possibly increase revenue) in the maritime and aeronautical sectors, of which the mountain rescue is a tiny fraction.

Whilst mountain rescue teams do face many difficulties, both with funding and with real dangers on the hillside, increased radio charges are, according to Ofcom, not one of them.


This post has been read 28,823 times

Return to Latest News


27 Oct, 2008
Conclusive? Thank gods for that! Can we all start falling off the hills again?
27 Oct, 2008
I suspect you might be right, but only because there has been such a fuss. It's the law of "unintended consequences". If left un-challenged the consultation document (I've read most of it - have you?) leaves room for the MCA to be charged more for the spectrum allocated to them. They could (properly!) choose to pass that cost on to the volunteer MR ground teams that have been given use of some of channels. By making a "fuss" we have made sure that Ofcom are aware of the use of this particular piece of spectrum and as such will ensure it isn't affected. So, two lessons. 1. Ofcom does listen (I work with them on other non radio related subjects and they are co-operative if they are made aware of difficulties that their recommendations will make). 2. The Internet is a wonderful place for getting up protest and raising awareness.
27 Oct, 2008
Yes I have. I have also spent the whole day on the phone to Ofcom, MCA, etc. Yes, they 'could', but it wouldn't work, so they won't. The government 'could' charge criminals thousands of pounds for prison accommodation, thereby reducing costs and crime all at the same time? So actually I disagree with you, I think that the whole thing was blown up out of proportion. But only time will tell.
27 Oct, 2008
Yes, happily, it looks as if we can stand down: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/aip/update201008/ which includes the sentence "There has been widespread interest in these proposals, and concern has been expressed about possible impact on charities providing vital safety of life services, such as the RNLI." Another specialised news organisation's report includes the phrase "a deluge of bad publicity and vitriolic feedback" - see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/21/ofcom_clarification/ So it sounds to me as if Ofcom may agree with you that the whole thing was blown out of proportion: but if that was the case, then it was Ofcom's poor communications to blame, to the extent that they considered it worth issuing a clarification. I'm glad the consultation document was challenged. How about you, Jack ? Y
27 Oct, 2008
I'm glad we live in a society where we can openly challenge policy. I'm also glad it looks like no charges for vital rescue services. I doubt that was much to do with an internet campaign, as no changes seem to have been made, so perhaps it was a case of inaccurate reporting in the outset (media frenzy?), similar in fact to the OMM? But, yes, you may be correct - it could well be Ofcom's poor communications to blame. I have no links to them at all. However no-one will know for sure the outcome of this until the consultation is finalised at the end of Oct, and published (probably Jan?). Personally I think a lot of money should be given to MRT's by the Government, and many teams should be paid wages, but that doesn't mean I condone factually incorrect sensationalist reporting. Yes, yes, bring on the huge tide of UKC is the biggest "factually incorrect sensationalist reporting" media source in the world. Sigh. Jack
More Comments
Loading Notifications...
Facebook Twitter Copy Email