Love it all. Nice one Jonathon. Ofcom are privy to MANY weird and wonderful requests over any 12-month period and I guess this will solve many of their problems that ticket holders are often requesting. 20W, 100W and 1kW is also a very fair. I applaud the 1kW limit level for those who want to DX on SSB on the lower bands.. I encourage everyone to submit a response. 73 Callum. PS - I also admire the Ofcom employee that wrote the bulk of this - it's an amazing piece of work.
Regarding power when 11m CB started up so many years ago, some operator's was running 15w power amplifiers then! so 20w seems a bit low and I'm not interested in building my own equipment! Imagine running a kilowatt on 40m?; "Won't hear the RSGB news"!
Hi there Jonathan. I think that changes are generally good. I have heard the 11meter band being referred to as "the experimental " band which I find really interesting because like myself, it's where my journey began. Let's be honest, there are no kids playing 12 inch remixes over the air as was the case in the 1980's and I can run 12 watts on SSB on 11meters but only 10 on my foundation licence. I got my old CB out of the attic in 2018 and blow me down it still works. There was a couple of people on the air locally and the novelty soon wore off so I just progressed and got licenced which was one of the most negative experiences of my life! The local club told me that I would have to attend for at least 2 years before they would start "training " me. Luckily I got talking to a great lady who pointed me towards Essex ham so I did the course and took the exam at a club a couple of hours drive away. The point being is that if all the wise old men who had to do a City and Guild course to get on air keep the new people off their very own radio waves then eventually there will be nothing, and the hobby will no longer exist. Yes change is good and let's promote the hobby and make it accessible to more people. 73's
I’m sorry to hear of your experience with your local club, fortunately this is not the case for the vast majority of clubs I have come into contact with. I think that’s where the proposed changes to allow anyone to operate under supervision can be used to really prop more ham radio to the next generation by letting newcomers actually have a go! Thanks and 73.
Yes, some of the clubs really do (or did) have a chip on their shoulders. It depends where you live but most of them expect you to attend regularly before they would let you touch their radio equipment or do an exam there (in the days when that was the only option). Insurance or covid19 often cited as reasons for not being allowed to do stuff. I approached a radio club in 1997 when I was 13 years old because I was interested in Shortwave listening and found out about amateur radio from books in the library when I was trying to discover more about shortwave. I got to the club only to discover that there was no one else there anywhere near my age and they were all retired old men who didn't seem very keen, more amused and bemused I would say, about my interest in getting a radio licence. They told me I would be too young to be able to tackle the requisite exam and would need to learn morse code. I went home, continued shortwave listening, eventually got bored and took up airfix modelling instead. I forgot about radio all together for the next 20 years. Fast forward to 2014, I tried to join a radio club again, now in my 30s and once again the first thing that struck me was how old they all were, all of them at least twice my age. Undeterred, I said I was interested in getting a licence but was told that I would have to attend the club every week for a few, presumably to see how serious I really was. Then it turned out I would have to do a series of practical assessments, scheduled by the club, which didn't fit my schedule at all. I could not attend regularly because I work at sea, I wasn't retired like they all were. Not only that but they had to be done within 12 months or they became void and I couldn't choose the exam date either, it was decided by the club. So, it took me another 5 YEARS to get my licence. Enough to deter most people. The ridiculous thing was that I found the Foundation syllabus so simple that I could have sat the exam within two days of reading the study book on my own. Why were the club dragging out this "training" so much? Is it any wonder it's all dominated by a particular demographic? That's the elephant in the room and this new Ofcom Consultation as well as the move to online exams is a game changer which I think could help defeat that. My guess is that because it's a regulated, licensed thing, some clubs really see themselves effectively as the gatekeepers to it all, which in my opinion is not and should not be the role of a radio club. Nowadays it's easier than ever to circumvent clubs all together and get a licence entirely though individual effort, which is what I subsequently did for Intermediate and Full.
Excellent summary of the document… thank you for this. As an M7 QRP operator I’m more than happy with the 20w and the internet remote operation is a great move too. There’s so much to explore in the hobby anyhow but a little more freedom is well received. Very well done to the RSGB and OFCOM. Thank you again, great stuff 👍
Very well explained, Jonathan! As a Canadian ham radio enthusiast, I 10,000% agree that if Canada (VE/VA) hasn't adopted soem of these framework proposal recommendations already, we need to do that ASAP for the sake of all license holders. Thankfully, Canada does not have RSLs to my knowledge, and I'm not aware of much in the way of changes that ISEC here in Canada has made since the pandemic started 3 years ago.
I'd rather that Ofcom brought in legislation for the broadband internet connection to radiate less QRM. I have S8 noise on h.f. from 160m to 20m apart from 60m where I can operate quite well. Some amateurs have said in RadCom they suffer 10 and 20 dB over 9. G4GHB
If they bring in two of the ideas 100watts for intermediate holders and being able to allow none licensed people to make a call on any level. Means I can help the scouts out in the future. Another great video thanks for posting
Nice one, Jonathan, I personally feel its all positive, won't be for those with an attitude that's always cup half empty or are change adverse, or even a few keyboard warriors, but no one really pays attention to them anyhow :) onwards and upwards I say :)
I cannot see anything negative in any of this, all good! I'm especially glad that as a M7 I can now use by own-build stuff, so now I can build things like Allstar nodes and Pixie CW transceivers! The boost in power levels is also excellent, although I enjoy the challenge posed by QRP operations. Nice video Jonathan!
This proposal sounds a bit strange since there were elements of the Intermediate syllabus and exam that were meant to teach and ascertain ability to construct equipment as well as assess its suitability to transmit. This was supposed to confer ability to transmit using ham made equipment. Existing Foundation licence holders have not been through this process.
@@LouiseBrooksBob I understand where you are coming from. Without the luxury of having spoken to the decision-makers themselves, I think that they have had to do quite a bit of soul-searching on this topic. In the end I think that it is a juggling-act between sensible control and making the hobby more attractive to newcomers. Also, at the risk of putting words in your mouth (not my intention), it does seem that you are saying that all Foundation license holders do not have the ability/affinity/knowledge to be safe on the air with hand-made equipment. While in my own case that would certainly be true, most M6/M7 people I have met actually brings a wealth of practical knowledge and sensibility with them to the hobby, and to force them to do Intermediate or Full in order to legally experiment would just put a damper on things. Another thing that most likely made an impact on the Ofcom proposal is the wealth of help and information available via social media, and also the fact that most "hand-made" kits these days are more "lego-bricks" (using things like Raspberry Pi's and various SDR equipment) rather than the classic "trying go build a single-transistor transceiver for CW" type of thing. I have a box full of Chinese Pixie kits that I yet have to build (but couldn't because I'm M7 not 2E0), but now I can build something that can transmit at a few milliwatts without having to fear being "nicked by the band-police". And thanks to RUclips and the excellent international Ham community I own and know how to use my TinySA and NanoVNA in order to test for spurious harmonics and SWR measurements. So it might be fairly contentious, but I honestly believe this will be great for our hobby as a whole. We need far more people in this hobby on an international scale, so I view these changes as a very positive thing - Ofcom is actually moving with the times.
@@janhenkins it doesn't logically follow from what I said that all holders of foundation licences do not have the technical knowledge to operate ham made equipment. The existence of a driving licence does not imply that those who do not hold a driving licence cannot drive a car: holding a licence means that there is official recognition that the holder of the driving licence can drive a car. What does follow from the Ofcom proposal is an inherent contradiction with previous amateur radio licensing policy. Incidentally I built a pixie transceiver for my Intermediate licence project.
Firstly.. Great video. You are a good communicator. I think the proposals are overall very good. Not sure I see the point of changing callsigns and I also dont see the need for re-issuing of expired or SK licences. This tends to be a hobby that captures you for life so a person is associated closely with a call. Extra power for foundation and Intermediate is a good idea. As for 1Kw for full, well that could also be good on occassion, for those of us who can ensure at least 7m or so separation from the antenna and the public. RSL's is also fine. Don't think I'd bother with GE0KTW though, but the system is now consistent. The suffixes option is also useful e.g M7abc/QRP etc. Great stuff. I will formalise my response shortly! 73 de John G0KTW
Licensed for 40 years, I entirely support the new proposals with the exception of the optional RSL. However, as that is optional (and I don't think most people will bother with it anyway) then it is of no real concern to me. Big DXers and contesters already run much more than 400W from time to time, so the power change will serve to make them legal again. Just because some operators in urban environments could not take advantage of it is not a valid reason to deny it from everyone else.
10 out of 10 Jonathan for both the explanation and having to deal with the obvious and expected backlash of the OM's. I have to say, as an M6 I am very happy with everything that is proposed, especially the 1KW as I personally know full licence holders who exceed this amount already. As a /P operator I will still only use what RX power I need to make a contact, up to my allowance, so it is not expected that I will exceed my usual 10w as I have been fairly successful with it and my resonant dipoles for the different bands, however that 1 extra s point by doubling my power really excites me 🤣😂. Where the power increase will come in handy for me is being able to switch my Clansman 320 to high power and get the best from it, secondly being able to operate a little more power when mobile will be very useful. Cant wait for the next 145 Alive and run 20 w. Thanks again........
@@G0ogs I'm sure you do, just as I have the same proof that full licence holders do exactly the same. All we need now is the 1kw brigade stamping all over the Qrp portion of the bands as is the norm. I just don't understand why people are so afraid of change, embrace it, its coming and there is nothing anyone can do about it. As has been said before, we can tear lumps out of each others, but even if it stays the same, will that stop your known Foundation holders from exceeding their allowance, no of course it wont. PS... Beautiful dogs 👍
Its not the power, its the antenna when you learn about it in your future 2 exams. you'll get it. if you have prove of your allegations you should contact Ofcom about the the station or stations in breach of there licence conditions. you say your a M6 its about time you did some study and ditch the kids ticket.
@@grandpaandlucas7054 Every one of my /P antenna's are home brew and resonant on the bands I want to use, Including VHF Yagi, that is why I am extremely happy to work the world on 10 or less watts. Secondly, its not my job to police the bands, that's for the RSGB, working in collaboration with OFCOM but we all know that is unlikely to happen. Unfortunately we get good and bad in every walk of life, but hopefully, as happened to the dinosaur's, time will make the changes for us.
Good all round proposals. I think the power level increases will be good all round especially for foundation and intermediate licensees. The 1kw for full licensees puts us on an equal footing with many other countries this being useful under contest and marginal conditions. It sounds like Intermediate licensees are not forced to change callsig. but encouraged to do so.
As a 2E0 callsign holder, I have absolutely no desire to change my call to an m8. That's an absolutely awful & absurd , nay idiotic idea from Ofcom. I earned that call & I'm bloody well keeping it!
No one is going to force you to change either. But I know there are a good. Umber of intermediate licence holders who find the 2E0xxx to be a mouthful and are eager to change. But as I say, the proposal is to allow and encourage 2E0s to change callsign, but stops well short of forcing them to.
Very happy with losing my 2E0-M8 or M9 shortens my callsign by 1 letter and as a portable only operator I’m more than happy with power going up to 100w 😊
The M7-M8/9 -M0 progression is tidy . I do think a lot of people will sit on intermediate though with a nice shiny M callsign and 100W and forsake the M0 privileges so this could backfire a bit! Generally though a well thought out set of proposals and a well written document . M0VFX
Some great proposals there, it’s time things were updated imo. 100 W for Intermediate is definitely a real incentive for M7s to progress, and M8 /M9 instead of the awful 2E0 / 2W0 etc is so much better. Who wants to “progress” to an even longer callsign? Never made sense to me.
I dont want to lose my m3, I would normally use my m3 when QRP instead of m0 because people will pick an m3 out of a pile up instead of an m0 because they run under 10 watts normally, kinda feels like sad days ahead 😢
@@BrianMorrison yeah people could do that anyway but again even when you say your /qrp some would still look past you because people used /QRP even though they used more then 10 watts, some used /QRP as anything below 100watts, but I guess thats just how things will be from here on.
M3 is rarely heard nowadays as most of them have either upgraded or left the hobby. Mostly only British hams know that M3 means 10W, whereas to most hams in other countries it just sounds like any other British callsign
Except you can’t on two counts. 1) as I was reminded earlier G5RV has already been issued to Louis Varney’s former club. And 2) ofcom are not going to reissue any pre WW2 callsigns (those in the format of GnXX). 73!
@@johndiy6420 bear in mind that no one ‘owns’ their callsign. Merely you are licensed to use it by Ofcom. Of course the other part is that, under the proposal, you would be able to inherit your father’s callsign should you wish to do so.
I think it all moves a bit sideways and a bit upto harec in the future, great video Jonathan and lets hope the cept recommendatoin tr 05/06 comes in view allso. Love to stick a dxc up in Dartmoor and do some serious portable stuff😂 73 .. Edwin pd0sot
Good review of Ofcom changes. Question - Will it be possible for Internet remote control of repeaters and gateways with less than 5W EIRP within secondary status frequencies ? i.e 70cm
Excellent question. Having re-read this section of the proposal, I can't see why not. Ofcom will require that the owner of the repeater equipment be easily identifible (licence number of the licensee will suffice) on unattended gateways/repeaters. There is one mention of 'primary user' agreement, but no mention of how this would be conducted. I highly suspect that it will fall to the individual to be sensible with frequency choice and generally be a good ham about it. 73!
The only part i'm not keen on is 100 watts for intermediate licensees.I cant see many of them bothering to upgrade to full license.I'm a full license holder for over 20 years and have never run over the 100 watt limit. WTF !
This will be a decision for each individual, and why someone chooses to upgrade a licence. For me, I didn’t care too much for the uplifted power limited, I wanted to be able to operate overseas (particularly USA) as W#/. This was before I got my US licence.
You do know your limit with your full licence is actually 400W not 100W ...right?? You've been able to use 400W for the last 20 years, didn't you know? Soon to become 1000W. So Intermediate licensees who have 100W will have 1000W when they upgrade, it won't stay at 100W. Have a read of your licence terms and then read the Ofcom consultation. You already have more than 100 watts limit.
Maybe I've missed something, but does this mean that any licence class can supervise an unlicenced person, or would this still be restricted to full licence holders?
I’m not sure that’s 100% accurate. I’m confident that the RSGB will have had some input and influence, but this seems to be the work of Ofcom more than the work of the RSGB. 73!
@@M0JSX my guess was that the RSGB came up with the ideas and Ofcom have done the work of formulating the wording. My guess is that Ofcom have now put this for consultation so it gets the views fron hams to see if we agree with the RSGB ideas. Or I could be mistaken and Ofcom came up with all this themselves. I agree with it all anyway.
My guess is that Ofcom knew that if the RSGB board got to see it before everyone else, there's a chance they might have objected to it immediately, which would have put Ofcom in a difficult position going forward. They've asserted their authority over the RSGB to give everyone a chance to have their say. Now, the RSGB have to support the views of most radio amateurs, otherwise they will look rather silly.
G4LMN/WTF I don't think that's a good idea. Dropping the RSL I don't like that either, Kilowatt power limit, bring it on and there TVI. "2" Intermediate callsigns are dreadful I think the M8 M9 will be popular. Caveat: I am a grumpy old ham who is fast approaching 50 years with a ticket.Mostly I like what they are proposing.
i would not mourn the death of mandatory regional prefixes. I never understood why they existed, and having to change my callsign when I moved house has never improved my life.
One Kilowatt at the antenna ! That could mean pushing 1500w down the line to the "twig" in the sky... and if the has a 9db gain from the "twig" that could cause a lot of band noise. I moved home recently and I was glad to do so as I had a nearby foundation licence holder that would "splatter" 10m with excess power and claimed he was only using legal limits, he was a known CB operator in the area using 500w in the so called "freeband". I can see that this could open up a big can of worms and ofcom will do nothing to help the responsible users from pirate type activity
the only concern i have with the consultation, is the dropping of your m6 callsigns, i personally have no problem dropping my 2e0 (never used it tbh), but my m6 has 12,000 qsos on it, so it would be a shame to lose them/dxcc counts on lotw against that call, although that and my full short call are combined, but my logbooks are seperate on qrz tho, just my 2 pence worth
Many thanks , appreciated but Ofcom again buggering everything up as in the past .. what a gutter up just to save them work they have ruined amateur radio
I don't support 1kW. It effectively makes the bands smaller by minority booming out 1kW not being able to hear the majority trying to respond. I think that is position the UK should have and encourage other states to have sub 1kW limits.
@@M0RMY Yes of course you can hear low powered stations. But what you don't know is how many stations can hear you but you can not hear them. The more power one person uses the more stations can hear him as they break through the noise floor etc, and unless everyone is using the same level of power there will be more stations who he cannot hear but they can hear him. Having a higher power limit means that it will become harder to find a 'clear' part of the band.
There are more reasons than 100W to get a full licence. Personally I got the full so I could operate abroad. Turning the power up was a bonus, not the driving factor. 73
Why would there be a need for lower than a foundation licence? I held G8JJC but why would I want to keep it when I got the full licence. My callsign is fine. Why change every 2 years, nobody would know who you are. If I go to Scotland or Wales I want listeners to know that by the regional secondary locator. NOV easier, that's good. I'll stay with 5 Watts. Power madness taking over. You want 20 dB over 9, why? Ego boost. Will you still comply with the EMC distancing guidelines? Put up a better aerial instead. Building gear is good and I love doing it or modifying gear. I'm not bothered by all this. I'll do as I'm doing now. I get a big kick out of running 5 Watts or less and especially QRP to QRP contacts than somebody running 1 kW knowing he will get through. My electricity bill will be cheaper and no QRM caused by me. G4GHB
Firstly, the proposed power upgrade for full licence holders is long overdue, however EMC regulations still need to be adhered too! I wish they'd bring in restrictions on what bands FL and IL users can access, especially on HF.
Why, apart from possibly artificially boosting the value of having a full licence? There are already bands that are only available to holders of full licences.
@@LouiseBrooksBob It would be easier to detect FL and IL users in wrong bands or wrong parts of the band, rather than the present power restrictions, i.e. a M3 maybe using 100W on 40m, but that can be hard to prove - yet if they were excluded from 7.1 MHz and above, then hearing a M3 up there would set off alarm bells. It's how it's done in the US and other countries...
Great video. I hate the part that Ofcom are proposing to allow unlicensed operators to act as if they are, with supervision. Hate the reissuing of old callsigns. So disrespectful to previous holders and their families.. Stupid to not make using secondary locators.a requirement. Wrong to takeaway peoples callsigns if they hold two licences. I wouldn`t want anyone using my G7 HSL callsign that i also hold. New power levels are not necessary, so few people using more than 200w. 400w is ample. So much isn`t broken so why fix it. Meddling again in our great hobby. Tim G0 PLA.
You do realise that firstly this is about removing restrictions that are not necessary for spectrum management and secondly it's a consultation and you can comment on the various aspects and send your response to Ofcom. All of this has already been discussed between Ofcom and the RSGB, so it is likely to be a done deal. Less regulation, and remember that a call sign is not yours, it is allocated to you by the licensing authority.
Thanks for your comment. I respect your opinion Tim, but I'm afriad I think you may hold a minority view. Allowing unlicensed people to operate under supervision can only be a good thing to encourage newcomers to the hobby and encourge them to get their licence. Imagine being at a special event station where a keen member of the public comes over. They show real interest in learning about the hobby. We could actually say to them 'Would you like to have a go?'. That's real engagement and far more likely to get that person to sit a Foundation exam than 'would you like to pass a greetings message?' There will come a point where we run out of callsigns, so reissuing callsigns will have to happen sooner or later. Why do you need two Full callsigns? Although I haven't voluntarily handed back my Foundation or Intermediate callsigns, I don't see the need to cling onto them - I wonder which one you will choose? As for disrespectful to previous holders and families - Ofcom addressed this in the proposal, hence the two year rest period for a callsign (4.37 on page 29) As for power output, it levels the playing field with a lot of other European counties when it comes to DXing. No one is saying you NEED to run more power than you do currently, and the DX code of practice will still say to use the minimum amount of power possible to make the contact. 73. Jonathan
@@M0JSX Always happy to be in the minority as sometimes the majority are wrong. You talk about allowing people to operate unlicensed with supervision, may encourage more in to the hobby. I disagree, It could have the opposite affect.. Children of licensed operators could be happy to continue to operate with their parent there as a comfort blanket with no need to get a license or proper training. . And who says that supervision would always be there. Downstairs watching the telly ??? It will happen. There are ample new callsigns available. . G9 never issued. m2 never issued, m4 never issued, m8 never issued, M9 never issued. Thats 87,880 unique callsigns available from just those. Cant see that many coming into our hobby in the next 10 years. 2 year rest period after a SK is totally disrespectful. Who will get g5 RV?. It should never be reissued, so if that is out of respect for Louis Varney, how can you reissue anybody elses. Best wishes.
@@timreddish9849 G9 series were issued as test and development licences, usually to industry. If you don't like the 2 year period then say so, if there is enough comment on this issue then it may be increased.
Good day Jason. I just passed my online Intermediate exam. On 01/03/2024. When the cert. arrives from Ofcom, and I log on to get a callsign. Will I be offered a M8 or M9 call at this point ?? Or does the 2E0 Still apply for now ??. Thank you in advance Presently M7AVM..
Love it all. Nice one Jonathon. Ofcom are privy to MANY weird and wonderful requests over any 12-month period and I guess this will solve many of their problems that ticket holders are often requesting. 20W, 100W and 1kW is also a very fair. I applaud the 1kW limit level for those who want to DX on SSB on the lower bands.. I encourage everyone to submit a response. 73 Callum. PS - I also admire the Ofcom employee that wrote the bulk of this - it's an amazing piece of work.
PPS - First!
Thanks Cal. I agree with you 100%
Agree, really good video and not full of inaccuracies like the latest watersstanton video just published.
Agree Cal 73 de M0VFX
Regarding power when 11m CB started up so many years ago, some operator's was running 15w power amplifiers then! so 20w seems a bit low and I'm not interested in building my own equipment! Imagine running a kilowatt on 40m?; "Won't hear the RSGB news"!
Hi there Jonathan. I think that changes are generally good. I have heard the 11meter band being referred to as "the experimental " band which I find really interesting because like myself, it's where my journey began. Let's be honest, there are no kids playing 12 inch remixes over the air as was the case in the 1980's and I can run 12 watts on SSB on 11meters but only 10 on my foundation licence. I got my old CB out of the attic in 2018 and blow me down it still works. There was a couple of people on the air locally and the novelty soon wore off so I just progressed and got licenced which was one of the most negative experiences of my life! The local club told me that I would have to attend for at least 2 years before they would start "training " me. Luckily I got talking to a great lady who pointed me towards Essex ham so I did the course and took the exam at a club a couple of hours drive away.
The point being is that if all the wise old men who had to do a City and Guild course to get on air keep the new people off their very own radio waves then eventually there will be nothing, and the hobby will no longer exist. Yes change is good and let's promote the hobby and make it accessible to more people. 73's
I’m sorry to hear of your experience with your local club, fortunately this is not the case for the vast majority of clubs I have come into contact with. I think that’s where the proposed changes to allow anyone to operate under supervision can be used to really prop more ham radio to the next generation by letting newcomers actually have a go! Thanks and 73.
Yes, some of the clubs really do (or did) have a chip on their shoulders. It depends where you live but most of them expect you to attend regularly before they would let you touch their radio equipment or do an exam there (in the days when that was the only option). Insurance or covid19 often cited as reasons for not being allowed to do stuff.
I approached a radio club in 1997 when I was 13 years old because I was interested in Shortwave listening and found out about amateur radio from books in the library when I was trying to discover more about shortwave. I got to the club only to discover that there was no one else there anywhere near my age and they were all retired old men who didn't seem very keen, more amused and bemused I would say, about my interest in getting a radio licence. They told me I would be too young to be able to tackle the requisite exam and would need to learn morse code. I went home, continued shortwave listening, eventually got bored and took up airfix modelling instead. I forgot about radio all together for the next 20 years.
Fast forward to 2014, I tried to join a radio club again, now in my 30s and once again the first thing that struck me was how old they all were, all of them at least twice my age. Undeterred, I said I was interested in getting a licence but was told that I would have to attend the club every week for a few, presumably to see how serious I really was. Then it turned out I would have to do a series of practical assessments, scheduled by the club, which didn't fit my schedule at all. I could not attend regularly because I work at sea, I wasn't retired like they all were. Not only that but they had to be done within 12 months or they became void and I couldn't choose the exam date either, it was decided by the club. So, it took me another 5 YEARS to get my licence. Enough to deter most people. The ridiculous thing was that I found the Foundation syllabus so simple that I could have sat the exam within two days of reading the study book on my own. Why were the club dragging out this "training" so much? Is it any wonder it's all dominated by a particular demographic? That's the elephant in the room and this new Ofcom Consultation as well as the move to online exams is a game changer which I think could help defeat that.
My guess is that because it's a regulated, licensed thing, some clubs really see themselves effectively as the gatekeepers to it all, which in my opinion is not and should not be the role of a radio club. Nowadays it's easier than ever to circumvent clubs all together and get a licence entirely though individual effort, which is what I subsequently did for Intermediate and Full.
Excellent summary of the document… thank you for this. As an M7 QRP operator I’m more than happy with the 20w and the internet remote operation is a great move too. There’s so much to explore in the hobby anyhow but a little more freedom is well received. Very well done to the RSGB and OFCOM. Thank you again, great stuff 👍
Very well explained, Jonathan! As a Canadian ham radio enthusiast, I 10,000% agree that if Canada (VE/VA) hasn't adopted soem of these framework proposal recommendations already, we need to do that ASAP for the sake of all license holders. Thankfully, Canada does not have RSLs to my knowledge, and I'm not aware of much in the way of changes that ISEC here in Canada has made since the pandemic started 3 years ago.
A good summary. I'm new to the hobby, but they seem like an entirely reasonable set of proposals.
Think again.. Some are good but many are poor.
I agree.
I'd rather that Ofcom brought in legislation for the broadband internet connection to radiate less QRM.
I have S8 noise on h.f. from 160m to 20m apart from 60m where I can operate quite well. Some amateurs have said in RadCom they suffer 10 and 20 dB over 9.
G4GHB
If they bring in two of the ideas 100watts for intermediate holders and being able to allow none licensed people to make a call on any level. Means I can help the scouts out in the future. Another great video thanks for posting
Thanks Bruce. A real boon for you!
First time viewer and a brilliant summary of the proposed changes..Thanks
Thank you for watching! Welcome along!
Sounds good to me being old amateur myself I don't play Radio 2 much these days I have the old call sign G7
Thanks!
Brilliant work Ofcom and thanks for the great video Johnathan!
Nice one, Jonathan, I personally feel its all positive, won't be for those with an attitude that's always cup half empty or are change adverse, or even a few keyboard warriors, but no one really pays attention to them anyhow :) onwards and upwards I say :)
Thanks David, couldn't agree more!
Hi Jonathan. Really useful summary on some changes that warrant further reading. Thanks as always for your time.
My pleasure!
I cannot see anything negative in any of this, all good! I'm especially glad that as a M7 I can now use by own-build stuff, so now I can build things like Allstar nodes and Pixie CW transceivers! The boost in power levels is also excellent, although I enjoy the challenge posed by QRP operations. Nice video Jonathan!
This proposal sounds a bit strange since there were elements of the Intermediate syllabus and exam that were meant to teach and ascertain ability to construct equipment as well as assess its suitability to transmit. This was supposed to confer ability to transmit using ham made equipment. Existing Foundation licence holders have not been through this process.
@@LouiseBrooksBob I understand where you are coming from. Without the luxury of having spoken to the decision-makers themselves, I think that they have had to do quite a bit of soul-searching on this topic. In the end I think that it is a juggling-act between sensible control and making the hobby more attractive to newcomers. Also, at the risk of putting words in your mouth (not my intention), it does seem that you are saying that all Foundation license holders do not have the ability/affinity/knowledge to be safe on the air with hand-made equipment. While in my own case that would certainly be true, most M6/M7 people I have met actually brings a wealth of practical knowledge and sensibility with them to the hobby, and to force them to do Intermediate or Full in order to legally experiment would just put a damper on things. Another thing that most likely made an impact on the Ofcom proposal is the wealth of help and information available via social media, and also the fact that most "hand-made" kits these days are more "lego-bricks" (using things like Raspberry Pi's and various SDR equipment) rather than the classic "trying go build a single-transistor transceiver for CW" type of thing. I have a box full of Chinese Pixie kits that I yet have to build (but couldn't because I'm M7 not 2E0), but now I can build something that can transmit at a few milliwatts without having to fear being "nicked by the band-police". And thanks to RUclips and the excellent international Ham community I own and know how to use my TinySA and NanoVNA in order to test for spurious harmonics and SWR measurements. So it might be fairly contentious, but I honestly believe this will be great for our hobby as a whole. We need far more people in this hobby on an international scale, so I view these changes as a very positive thing - Ofcom is actually moving with the times.
@@janhenkins it doesn't logically follow from what I said that all holders of foundation licences do not have the technical knowledge to operate ham made equipment. The existence of a driving licence does not imply that those who do not hold a driving licence cannot drive a car: holding a licence means that there is official recognition that the holder of the driving licence can drive a car. What does follow from the Ofcom proposal is an inherent contradiction with previous amateur radio licensing policy. Incidentally I built a pixie transceiver for my Intermediate licence project.
Firstly.. Great video. You are a good communicator. I think the proposals are overall very good. Not sure I see the point of changing callsigns and I also dont see the need for re-issuing of expired or SK licences. This tends to be a hobby that captures you for life so a person is associated closely with a call. Extra power for foundation and Intermediate is a good idea. As for 1Kw for full, well that could also be good on occassion, for those of us who can ensure at least 7m or so separation from the antenna and the public. RSL's is also fine. Don't think I'd bother with GE0KTW though, but the system is now consistent. The suffixes option is also useful e.g M7abc/QRP etc. Great stuff. I will formalise my response shortly! 73 de John G0KTW
Well Expained, thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Licensed for 40 years, I entirely support the new proposals with the exception of the optional RSL. However, as that is optional (and I don't think most people will bother with it anyway) then it is of no real concern to me. Big DXers and contesters already run much more than 400W from time to time, so the power change will serve to make them legal again. Just because some operators in urban environments could not take advantage of it is not a valid reason to deny it from everyone else.
Cheers - the clearest and neatest explanation of all this I have seen, Thanks! 2E0MSR
100 watts for intermediate, I'm buzzing already, wasn't sure at first😊, thanks for the video
10 out of 10 Jonathan for both the explanation and having to deal with the obvious and expected backlash of the OM's. I have to say, as an M6 I am very happy with everything that is proposed, especially the 1KW as I personally know full licence holders who exceed this amount already. As a /P operator I will still only use what RX power I need to make a contact, up to my allowance, so it is not expected that I will exceed my usual 10w as I have been fairly successful with it and my resonant dipoles for the different bands, however that 1 extra s point by doubling my power really excites me 🤣😂. Where the power increase will come in handy for me is being able to switch my Clansman 320 to high power and get the best from it, secondly being able to operate a little more power when mobile will be very useful. Cant wait for the next 145 Alive and run 20 w. Thanks again........
I know foundation license holders who use excess power, I have the proof.
@@G0ogs I'm sure you do, just as I have the same proof that full licence holders do exactly the same. All we need now is the 1kw brigade stamping all over the Qrp portion of the bands as is the norm. I just don't understand why people are so afraid of change, embrace it, its coming and there is nothing anyone can do about it. As has been said before, we can tear lumps out of each others, but even if it stays the same, will that stop your known Foundation holders from exceeding their allowance, no of course it wont. PS... Beautiful dogs 👍
Its not the power, its the antenna when you learn about it in your future 2 exams. you'll get it. if you have prove of your allegations you should contact Ofcom about the the station or stations in breach of there licence conditions. you say your a M6 its about time you did some study and ditch the kids ticket.
@@grandpaandlucas7054 Every one of my /P antenna's are home brew and resonant on the bands I want to use, Including VHF Yagi, that is why I am extremely happy to work the world on 10 or less watts. Secondly, its not my job to police the bands, that's for the RSGB, working in collaboration with OFCOM but we all know that is unlikely to happen. Unfortunately we get good and bad in every walk of life, but hopefully, as happened to the dinosaur's, time will make the changes for us.
Good all round proposals. I think the power level increases will be good all round especially for foundation and intermediate licensees. The 1kw for full licensees puts us on an equal footing with many other countries this being useful under contest and marginal conditions. It sounds like Intermediate licensees are not forced to change callsig. but encouraged to do so.
Brilliant Johnathon 20 watts for M6 license holders this is great news thanks Jake m6lsc
As a 2E0 callsign holder, I have absolutely no desire to change my call to an m8.
That's an absolutely awful & absurd , nay idiotic idea from Ofcom.
I earned that call & I'm bloody well keeping it!
No one is going to force you to change either. But I know there are a good. Umber of intermediate licence holders who find the 2E0xxx to be a mouthful and are eager to change. But as I say, the proposal is to allow and encourage 2E0s to change callsign, but stops well short of forcing them to.
Whether anyone happens to agree or disagree is irrespective. It’s going to happen. Better to roll with it or find another hobby.
Nicely put Tim!
@@M0JSX To roll over and accept whatever this government determines is the reason this country is in such a mess.
@@Bashnja1 are we still talking about the ofcom proposal? It’s a consultation for a reason. Please do submit your response to them!
@@Bashnja1 Worst still the Gov are top down and there's a name for that. What happened to serving the people?
I got my call back after 38 years
Very happy with losing my 2E0-M8 or M9 shortens my callsign by 1 letter and as a portable only operator I’m more than happy with power going up to 100w 😊
I only passed my full exam because i hated my 2e0 callsign
Mine was also a mouthful!
Yep the 2e0 is a bit of a mouthful !! 73 de M0VFX
I prefer 2e0 to M0 for morse code. MM0 would be worse. It would sound like somebody tuning.
The M7-M8/9 -M0 progression is tidy . I do think a lot of people will sit on intermediate though with a nice shiny M callsign and 100W and forsake the M0 privileges so this could backfire a bit! Generally though a well thought out set of proposals and a well written document . M0VFX
Great summary. Thanks. I'm in favour of the proposals. Are there any negatives?
The only time I will voluntarily change my call from 2E0 to an "M" is the time when I have passed my full licence.
Well done Jonathon
73
Rob G3RCE
Some great proposals there, it’s time things were updated imo. 100 W for Intermediate is definitely a real incentive for M7s to progress, and M8 /M9 instead of the awful 2E0 / 2W0 etc is so much better. Who wants to “progress” to an even longer callsign? Never made sense to me.
True story ❤❤
@@MakingRadioWaves really ?? Wow
For the 2e0 call sign to be 6 digits instead of 5 merely establishes equality with non English hams.
I dont want to lose my m3, I would normally use my m3 when QRP instead of m0 because people will pick an m3 out of a pile up instead of an m0 because they run under 10 watts normally, kinda feels like sad days ahead 😢
You will instead be able to sign /QRP to get the point across.
@@BrianMorrison yeah people could do that anyway but again even when you say your /qrp some would still look past you because people used /QRP even though they used more then 10 watts, some used /QRP as anything below 100watts, but I guess thats just how things will be from here on.
@@mossup- You could sign /5W too.
Don't worry. You can be M0XYZ/qrp
M3 is rarely heard nowadays as most of them have either upgraded or left the hobby. Mostly only British hams know that M3 means 10W, whereas to most hams in other countries it just sounds like any other British callsign
not sure I agree with silent key call signs becoming available - i mean - I could change my call to g5rv
2e0ftm - Darren
Except you can’t on two counts. 1) as I was reminded earlier G5RV has already been issued to Louis Varney’s former club. And 2) ofcom are not going to reissue any pre WW2 callsigns (those in the format of GnXX). 73!
Agree. I would be unhappy to hear my late dad's call on the Air. It should stay passed with him
@@johndiy6420 bear in mind that no one ‘owns’ their callsign. Merely you are licensed to use it by Ofcom. Of course the other part is that, under the proposal, you would be able to inherit your father’s callsign should you wish to do so.
I think it all moves a bit sideways and a bit upto harec in the future, great video Jonathan and lets hope the cept recommendatoin tr 05/06 comes in view allso. Love to stick a dxc up in Dartmoor and do some serious portable stuff😂 73 ..
Edwin pd0sot
Dropping the regional secondary locator might be confusing for DXCC purposes.
So do I have to change from 2E0??? To M8??? Or can I keep my current call sign and STILL use 100W
You could keep the 2E0 and get the updated power limit.
This all sounds fantastic. Has there been any updates since?
73 M7TUD
Not yet. As soon as Ofcom announce anything, I’ll be making a video! 73
Excellent@@M0JSX
Good review of Ofcom changes. Question - Will it be possible for Internet remote control of repeaters and gateways with less than 5W EIRP within secondary status frequencies ? i.e 70cm
Excellent question. Having re-read this section of the proposal, I can't see why not. Ofcom will require that the owner of the repeater equipment be easily identifible (licence number of the licensee will suffice) on unattended gateways/repeaters. There is one mention of 'primary user' agreement, but no mention of how this would be conducted. I highly suspect that it will fall to the individual to be sensible with frequency choice and generally be a good ham about it. 73!
The only part i'm not keen on is 100 watts for intermediate licensees.I cant see many of them bothering to upgrade to full license.I'm a full license holder for over 20 years and have never run over the 100 watt limit. WTF !
This will be a decision for each individual, and why someone chooses to upgrade a licence. For me, I didn’t care too much for the uplifted power limited, I wanted to be able to operate overseas (particularly USA) as W#/. This was before I got my US licence.
@@M0JSX If the individuals concerned have an intermediate license then its a " NO Brianer" Einstein
@@101jumpit No Brians here anyway.
5 Watts maximum here for 30+ years. I get out.
G4GHB
You do know your limit with your full licence is actually 400W not 100W ...right?? You've been able to use 400W for the last 20 years, didn't you know? Soon to become 1000W. So Intermediate licensees who have 100W will have 1000W when they upgrade, it won't stay at 100W. Have a read of your licence terms and then read the Ofcom consultation. You already have more than 100 watts limit.
Nothing too controversial, most of the proposed revisions seem pretty sensible and reflect the modern usage case.
Maybe I've missed something, but does this mean that any licence class can supervise an unlicenced person, or would this still be restricted to full licence holders?
The proposal doesn’t say, I suspect all licence classes. 73!
Hi ! I think there's some confusion for a M7 operator isnt it 25watts 100 intermediate 1kw full
It is now! The consultation which this video was recorded about was 20W for foundation.
I still think it should be up to 30w because a lot of these Chinese, Japanese rigs most of them are 10 /15/20/
@@DrewJack-gx2wv ofcom changed it to 25w as most commercial transceivers are 5/10/25/50W output. They will never keep everyone happy
Thanks I'm happy with the decision 73's
I understand that most of the work put into this consultation paper was done by the RSGB
I’m not sure that’s 100% accurate. I’m confident that the RSGB will have had some input and influence, but this seems to be the work of Ofcom more than the work of the RSGB. 73!
@@M0JSX my guess was that the RSGB came up with the ideas and Ofcom have done the work of formulating the wording. My guess is that Ofcom have now put this for consultation so it gets the views fron hams to see if we agree with the RSGB ideas. Or I could be mistaken and Ofcom came up with all this themselves. I agree with it all anyway.
The RSGB only got hold of the consultation at the same time as everyone else did.
My guess is that Ofcom knew that if the RSGB board got to see it before everyone else, there's a chance they might have objected to it immediately, which would have put Ofcom in a difficult position going forward. They've asserted their authority over the RSGB to give everyone a chance to have their say. Now, the RSGB have to support the views of most radio amateurs, otherwise they will look rather silly.
@@avaughan585 not sure about that, the RSGB seemed to have been working on the consultation for some time before the actual paper was published
When can I change my 2e0 to an m8/9
When Ofcom say so! 😆. Probably tail end of next year
G4LMN/WTF I don't think that's a good idea. Dropping the RSL I don't like that either, Kilowatt power limit, bring it on and there TVI. "2" Intermediate callsigns are dreadful I think the M8 M9 will be popular. Caveat: I am a grumpy old ham who is fast approaching 50 years with a ticket.Mostly I like what they are proposing.
I can’t wait be a m8 with 100 watts and the kids the can use my radios without licence yah baby
Interesting Jonathan. I don't like the idea of licences being reissued however DE G4ELD
I can see the repeater proposal turning into a bit of a nightmare.
Possibly. I think ofcom are thinking about temporary repeaters (most likely cross band), but the proposal doesn’t say that.
i would not mourn the death of mandatory regional prefixes. I never understood why they existed, and having to change my callsign when I moved house has never improved my life.
One Kilowatt at the antenna ! That could mean pushing 1500w down the line to the "twig" in the sky... and if the has a 9db gain from the "twig" that could cause a lot of band noise. I moved home recently and I was glad to do so as I had a nearby foundation licence holder that would "splatter" 10m with excess power and claimed he was only using legal limits, he was a known CB operator in the area using 500w in the so called "freeband". I can see that this could open up a big can of worms and ofcom will do nothing to help the responsible users from pirate type activity
There will always be fringe cases like this. However, it also allows upstanding hams who want to push a little more power the ability to do so.
Perhaps it will encourage people to actually measure what they are transmitting, decent test equipment is cheaper than it's ever been now.
Congratulations on it all, not sure if 1000w is nessasary if you have a reasonable ant.
the only concern i have with the consultation, is the dropping of your m6 callsigns, i personally have no problem dropping my 2e0 (never used it tbh), but my m6 has 12,000 qsos on it, so it would be a shame to lose them/dxcc counts on lotw against that call, although that and my full short call are combined, but my logbooks are seperate on qrz tho, just my 2 pence worth
Many thanks , appreciated but Ofcom again buggering everything up as in the past .. what a gutter up just to save them work they have ruined amateur radio
I’m slightly confused by your comment. Are you saying this proposal is a good thing, or continues to ‘ruin amateur radio’?
@@M0JSX making it worse . In the main a lot worse
@@trig6712 please expand on that. As I think the proposal brings amateur radio into the 2020s future proofs the hobby for at least the next 10 years.
just keep it at 400 wts pep
Remember it is a limit and not an aim. Nothing says you HAVE to run QRO
I don't support 1kW. It effectively makes the bands smaller by minority booming out 1kW not being able to hear the majority trying to respond. I think that is position the UK should have and encourage other states to have sub 1kW limits.
I find I can hear low power stations through my antennas that I’ve designed and built to take my available high power. They hear me well and v.v.
@@M0RMY Yes of course you can hear low powered stations. But what you don't know is how many stations can hear you but you can not hear them. The more power one person uses the more stations can hear him as they break through the noise floor etc, and unless everyone is using the same level of power there will be more stations who he cannot hear but they can hear him. Having a higher power limit means that it will become harder to find a 'clear' part of the band.
its just a complete shambles. not many will take the full license now being given 100 watts, we'll become a country ok kiddy licence holders.
There are more reasons than 100W to get a full licence. Personally I got the full so I could operate abroad. Turning the power up was a bonus, not the driving factor. 73
no body will get on hf power to hight will push off low power users
Remember it is a limit and not an aim. Nothing says you HAVE to run QRO
Why would there be a need for lower than a foundation licence?
I held G8JJC but why would I want to keep it when I got the full licence.
My callsign is fine. Why change every 2 years, nobody would know who you are.
If I go to Scotland or Wales I want listeners to know that by the regional secondary locator.
NOV easier, that's good.
I'll stay with 5 Watts. Power madness taking over. You want 20 dB over 9, why? Ego boost. Will you still comply with the EMC distancing guidelines? Put up a better aerial instead.
Building gear is good and I love doing it or modifying gear.
I'm not bothered by all this. I'll do as I'm doing now. I get a big kick out of running 5 Watts or less and especially QRP to QRP contacts than somebody running 1 kW knowing he will get through. My electricity bill will be cheaper and no QRM caused by me.
G4GHB
Firstly, the proposed power upgrade for full licence holders is long overdue, however EMC regulations still need to be adhered too! I wish they'd bring in restrictions on what bands FL and IL users can access, especially on HF.
Now that is a controversial opinion! I think it would be much harder to take frequency allocations away now they have been established. 73!
Why, apart from possibly artificially boosting the value of having a full licence? There are already bands that are only available to holders of full licences.
@@LouiseBrooksBob It would be easier to detect FL and IL users in wrong bands or wrong parts of the band, rather than the present power restrictions, i.e. a M3 maybe using 100W on 40m, but that can be hard to prove - yet if they were excluded from 7.1 MHz and above, then hearing a M3 up there would set off alarm bells.
It's how it's done in the US and other countries...
@@MM0IMC we don't create rules simply because they are easy to enforce, or there would be things like a tax on people called Graham.
Why?
i don't see any wrong with any of the proposals. M7BKF
Great video. I hate the part that Ofcom are proposing to allow unlicensed operators to act as if they are, with supervision. Hate the reissuing of old callsigns. So disrespectful to previous holders and their families.. Stupid to not make using secondary locators.a requirement. Wrong to takeaway peoples callsigns if they hold two licences. I wouldn`t want anyone using my G7 HSL callsign that i also hold. New power levels are not necessary, so few people using more than 200w. 400w is ample. So much isn`t broken so why fix it. Meddling again in our great hobby. Tim G0 PLA.
You do realise that firstly this is about removing restrictions that are not necessary for spectrum management and secondly it's a consultation and you can comment on the various aspects and send your response to Ofcom.
All of this has already been discussed between Ofcom and the RSGB, so it is likely to be a done deal. Less regulation, and remember that a call sign is not yours, it is allocated to you by the licensing authority.
Thanks for your comment. I respect your opinion Tim, but I'm afriad I think you may hold a minority view.
Allowing unlicensed people to operate under supervision can only be a good thing to encourage newcomers to the hobby and encourge them to get their licence. Imagine being at a special event station where a keen member of the public comes over. They show real interest in learning about the hobby. We could actually say to them 'Would you like to have a go?'. That's real engagement and far more likely to get that person to sit a Foundation exam than 'would you like to pass a greetings message?'
There will come a point where we run out of callsigns, so reissuing callsigns will have to happen sooner or later. Why do you need two Full callsigns? Although I haven't voluntarily handed back my Foundation or Intermediate callsigns, I don't see the need to cling onto them - I wonder which one you will choose? As for disrespectful to previous holders and families - Ofcom addressed this in the proposal, hence the two year rest period for a callsign (4.37 on page 29)
As for power output, it levels the playing field with a lot of other European counties when it comes to DXing. No one is saying you NEED to run more power than you do currently, and the DX code of practice will still say to use the minimum amount of power possible to make the contact.
73.
Jonathan
@@M0JSX Always happy to be in the minority as sometimes the majority are wrong. You talk about allowing people to operate unlicensed with supervision, may encourage more in to the hobby. I disagree, It could have the opposite affect.. Children of licensed operators could be happy to continue to operate with their parent there as a comfort blanket with no need to get a license or proper training. . And who says that supervision would always be there. Downstairs watching the telly ??? It will happen. There are ample new callsigns available. . G9 never issued. m2 never issued, m4 never issued, m8 never issued, M9 never issued. Thats 87,880 unique callsigns available from just those. Cant see that many coming into our hobby in the next 10 years.
2 year rest period after a SK is totally disrespectful. Who will get g5 RV?. It should never be reissued, so if that is out of respect for Louis Varney, how can you reissue anybody elses.
Best wishes.
G5RV won’t get reissued as Ofcom are not reissuing callsigns with the GnXX format. Have you read the document yet, Tim?
@@timreddish9849 G9 series were issued as test and development licences, usually to industry. If you don't like the 2 year period then say so, if there is enough comment on this issue then it may be increased.
well explained Jonathan
Good day Jason. I just passed my online Intermediate exam. On 01/03/2024. When the cert. arrives from Ofcom, and I log on to get a callsign.
Will I be offered a M8 or M9 call at this point ?? Or does the 2E0 Still apply for now ??. Thank you in advance Presently M7AVM..
I suspect you’ll get a 2E0 call. I think the changes around M8/M9 callsigns will happen later this year. Could be wrong though! 73!
Thankyou Jonathan. I enjoyed your MLS videos, very illuminating. Cheers Jonathan🎉
9V1KM KK7QGL
Singapore
great stuff Jonathan, new subscriber here 73s M1ELB / OH1UK