UKC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Conclusive? Thank gods for that! Can we all start falling off the hills again?

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

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.

In reply to Gerald Davison:

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.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

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

In reply to Yanchik: 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

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

"I doubt that was much to do with an internet campaign"

I think we need to be wary of that view. Why ? Because "traditional", formerly known also as "quality" media like newspapers and magazines, and radio stations, are cutting their newsgathering and fact-checking staff due to competition from t'internet. So we get our news from other places: we don't really know whether to trust them or not: and the scope for special interest groups to hijack issues is increased.

The BBC saw fit to report the "sensationalist, blown out of proportion" Ofcom cock-up. They may not be as good as they were, but they probably are still the best we've got. Other than that, I've only got two sources to rely on for this story; a specialist IT news site, and UKC. A day or two after the BBC and IT news outlet published, Ofcom saw fit to clarify their position. Circumstantial ? Maybe.

UKC ? Sensationalist, yes, but you're in the leisure industry and have to compete with Frenchmen for attention. I don't hold a grudge against UKC for factual inaccuracy in anything I've seen, and I know Mick likes to walk a fine line. So at least I know where you're coming from. But of course, my respect depends on seeing that you keep taking your responsibilities seriously...

Y

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Speaking of sensationalist reporting, the latest Heason Events newsletter put it like this:

"Outrageous government plans may mean the end of Mountain Rescue Teams!
One of our mailing list subscribers brought the following to our attention:

It appears that Ofcom want to drastically increase the amounts that the RNLI and Mountain Rescue Teams have to pay to use radios - maybe by more than £100,000 a year. For further information.

Read this shocking article to find out more"

In reply to deepsoup:

Which was then picked up by another climbing media magazine with..."Rescues are at risk following outrageous government plans.....Mountain Rescue Teams at Risk"

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

"SHOCK HORROR: Major UK Climbing website sits on hands and is scooped by IT press and minor publicity bulletin, missing opportunity to support grass-roots action on important issue of mountain safety governance"

"GREAT NEWS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: Major UK Climbing website engages in recycling campaign"....

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=326136

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=324351

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=324328

Y

In reply to Yanchik:

That's correct Yanchik it has been a major topic at UKClimbing.com for some time.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Hence why I spent some time researching it and putting my finding on the UKC news page.

Yanchick - Trying to suggest that I've been sat on my hands whilst I could be supporting an important grass-roots campaign, and that somehow means I don't support Mountain rescue is completely unfounded, and I can't really see where you're coming from.

I saw the campaign, researched it, came to my conclusions and published them. I think that's my job.

Mick, could you confirm - is that what I'm supposed to do?!

Jack

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Sorry - tongue was in cheek, which doesn't always come across. That's where I was coming from the 16-55 post (which I thought I'd posted about 16-15, but the early version seemed to vanish.) No heavy provocation intended.

Interested to hear if you or Mick have more to say on my 15-55 post. I think you (Jack) underrate UKC's potential influence in this area; I'm pretty sure Mick has some views and you might well do.

Y

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Excellent news and excellent use of the UKC news page.

(and not an onion in-sight)

James e

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:


Yes.

We read the forum posts, discussed the issue, talked to some other people, then Jack got busy and did some research and reported back in a news item - that news item is linked to a thread where anyone can have their say, and in some cases add illuminating opinions and insights.

It's now got to the stage that an increasing number of our news reports are unique - over 50%, many from leads by email or phone or us calling people and in most other cases we add context and background and do fact checking. It does take time and we only have so much time and there is so much to do on this site with articles, news, gear reviews, competitions, raising funds, moderating.. etc

News quality and frequency has increased dramatically since Jack started; but please remember we can't do it without help; the forums themselves are a great source of information and expertise, and breaking news from a variety of sources, and we are grateful of that.

We really are not that concerned about scoops but put a higher priority on clarity of reporting, and as said context, background and stating the issues.

We do want to do a professional job and we take our responsibilities seriously. We are aware of how well read our News page is and that it is the first place for climbing/mountaineering news in the UK for the climbing/mountaineering community.

I know I don't speak just for myself, but for Jack and Alan, that we all strive to do our best with the resources and time we have.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

That's all good, and I've no problem with it.

I probably maintain my disagreement with Jack (that grass-roots internet activity had nothing to do with Ofcom feeling the need to issue a clarification.) I don't think it's an important disagreement.

I do think you have huge potential to motivate grass-roots support and get things done:

10th October: thread on UKC about Ofcom threat to MR radio spectrum
10th October: UK climbing deputation attends 10 Downing Street

- obviously I'm glad you checked the facts and didn't burn your powder on that issue.

But you ain't sharing your views on how much influence you could have, either through lobbying or petition-raising, so I'll leave you and the thread in peace.

Y

In reply to Yanchik:


I agree, although I haven't followed the issue as closely as you. Jack thought he smelled something as he had sourced the original news report and then witnessed how it had propagated, he inferred, without those who ran it actually checking the facts.

Personally I would like to think that public opinion as expressed on several websites and blogs has had influence, although I'm unsure if Ofcom have stated that this is so and would have hoped that when they present options they clearly announce them so that people can comment in various ways and state clearly that these views would be considered.



I think so, but it would have to be driven by people who visit this site and we could provide a framework and lines of communication.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

I'd like to support Jack and Mick in their research of this topic. On the surface an online news forum had run a story that had been picked up by climbers and mountain rescue teams. My guess is that the register where the story comes from is a pay per view website, whereby the author gets a set amount of cash per thousand views.

Like the majority of people it is taken on face value, however even a five minute search of the Ofcom website will quickly lead you to a statement that makes the story the sort of sensationalist stuff that you'd expect of main stream media. In essence I believe the author was controversial so that he got several thousand extra views on his story, and probably £5 extra this month.

At least UKC has taken the time to fact check before fuelling and unnecessary fire.

In reply to mark reeves:

The clarification on Ofcom's website came later, after (and in response to) the furore here and elsewhere, the no10 petitions, etc.

In reply to deepsoup:

Exactly! I certainly do think it was necessary to highlight this. I've just been through another consultation with Ofcom on a completely different subject (related to fixed line phone systems) and they were about to outlaw a particular practice until enough people got together and pointed out it was in common use in the industry and wasn't causing any issues. This demonstrated that they do listen, but need to be told.

The initial way I found out about this issue was from a communication that originated from the Mountain Rescue Council, not a body known for their hysterical reactions! Contained in it was a powerpoint presentation produced by the MCA which said "No indication of alternative approach for emergency services" with regard to E&PSS (emergency and public safety services). It also said "comments invited on discounts for safety of life charities", the important word there is "discounts".

I am convinced that there was a potential risk that the status quo would have been disturbed with regard to the current pricing, banding and/or usage of spectrum allocated by MCA to volunteer MR teams.

However, I don't believe Ofcom or the MCA would deliberately set out to disadvantage MR, just that they may have done so inadvertently. By raising pubic awareness we have ensured this won't be the case.

The subsequent reporting getting "out of hand" is to be deplored, but the underlying message that there was a risk is valid and needed to be discussed.

In reply to mark reeves:


Me too, although I trust previous comments have left no doubt of that.


Five minutes research reveals that The Register claims an audited ~5M viewers per annum, UKC claims ~2M. My guess is that both sites run the same business model: good content attracts views which convince advertisers to pay for space. It may be safe to assume that The Register caters primarily to professionals: UKC primarily to sports and leisure, which may place a heavier onus on The Register to be authoritative. I don't know.

And that's the point. I had the Ofcom story from several sources. The BBC should be good enough for anyone, but sometimes it isn't (don't even start me on Russia/Georgia....) I had some corroboration from inside track in Air Traffic Control of all places. We may be smart, sceptical consumers, but we don't all have five minutes for every story we see. I'm glad Jack did, and well done to him for backing his hunch.

I'm sure Jack and Mick have had a discussion over the merits for UKC of being part of a grass-roots "let's point out their mistake" effort as opposed to a "let's check it out and report it a little later" approach.

Y

In reply to Gerald Davison:

Exactly my suspicion. Nice guys, working hard, mis-spoke themselves.

Work with government agencies, you'll become a true believer in that scenario.

Y