SAVE OUR SOUND UK issues call to action:

[AndyL]

I just received this in an email from the Saveoursounduk campaign coordinator. I thought it deserved a wider audience...

 

This is the excerpt from today’s Hansard:

 

2. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to assist cathedrals and parish churches to retune or replace wireless audio equipment which operates on frequencies within Channel 69 following the clearance of that channel by Ofcom. [312127]

 

The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to David Taylor. As you know, he was an assiduous attender at our Question Time. He put pertinent and important questions before the House and assisted our Ecclesiastical Committee, and he will be greatly missed. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”]

 

I can tell the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) that the Church of England has joined an industry-led campaign to press the Government for compensation for affected groups. We are encouraging churches to contact their installation companies for advice and to seek a compensation package.

 

Robert Key: The Government are making hundreds of millions of pounds out of the spectrum auctions, and as the hon. Gentleman has said, some compensation has been promised. This affects not only churches, cathedrals and voluntary organisations, but organisations right across the creative arts. Should not any compensation include not only the residual value of equipment but replacement value, as churches have been forced off those frequencies by the Government?

 

Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. The compensation package takes into account the full cost of the significant disruption, particularly to larger churches that use a number of wireless microphones. I estimate that about one in eight churches will need to retune or replace their equipment, at an average cost of about £500. The Government agree with Ofcom that compensation is due, but the level, and eligibility, still need to be agreed.

 

Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): May I tell the hon. Gentleman how much I welcomed support from the Church of England this week for early-day motion 323, in my name and those of 131 other Members? I urge him to use all the resources of the Church Commissioners to put the maximum possible pressure on the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that justice is done in this very important matter.

 

Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I have read his early-day motion 323 on the Save our Sound UK campaign. I agree with his point. The Government recognise the importance of churches in our communities, and I am sure they will recognise that this is an unfortunate anomaly, as they did in relation to our unfair surface water charges last year. I urged the Government to respond robustly then, and I do so now, with the support of the House.

[mostlyharmless]

£500 seems a bit low for 'multiple microphones'....

[Pyramid]

£500 seems a bit low for 'multiple microphones'....

 

Indeed. When I contacted Senn early last year, when I received first letter from JMFG I was told to retune would be about £200 per set. Four sets make £800, presumably thats +VAT.making it £940. I also presume one might need to send and return via a courier. Not much change then from a grand, for what? Nothing! except for four mics that we can now use legally, that only cost £2400 orginally and have become illegal through the government chasing bigger money, at my expense!

 

I have written to my MP, Christine Russell and to Ben Bradshaw(Sec of State for Culture, Media and Sport).

 

My MP wrote back saying " ......I agree with you that it certainly is harsh to expect individual companies to absorb the costs of all these changes without adequate replacement cost compensation.

 

As for signing Early Day Motion 323, unfortunately due to Palimentary protocol, my position as a Palimentary Private Secretary excludes me from signing EDMs. I have, however, written on your behalf to Ben Bradshaw, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, expressing your desire to see greater support from the government for companies that need to replace their inventories. I will, of course, write to you again as soon as I have received his response."

OK- Fair play, she can't sign the EDM due to protocol, but she's written to express concerns to Ben Bradshaw

 

Ah right, but I'd already written to Ben Bradshaw because stupid me thought as the Sec of State for Culture, Media and Sport, that he was some sort of champion/ambassador for culture and media!

 

Here is my response from his office:

"Thank you for your letter dated 14th December to Ben Bradshaw about the EDM 323 and the 'Save our Sound' campaign. I have been asked to reply.

 

You may be aware that the 'Save our Sound' campaign relates to the Digital Economy Bill which is the joint responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport(DCMS) and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). As the Secretary of State for Culture it is not therefore appropriate for Ben Bradshaw to offer his suppport to your campaign.

 

If you have any further comments to make about the 'Save our Sound' campaign, this should be directed to BIS who are leading on the issue of spectrum allocation.

 

I hope you find this helpful

Yours sincerely

Steve Edwards

Media Desk Officer"

 

OK, I understand that the head of a department cannot disagree with what that department is doing, but how on earth was I to know which department(s) of government it was that was stiffing us?!?

 

Also, in response to a letter complaining about funding on this issue and requesting support by signing the EDM I get a response saying basically "Nothing to do with us, and oh, by the way, we don't care either!" If I want to complain now I guess I have to write a specific letter of complaint to the Sec of State for Culture, Media and Sport as that my original letter has been disregarded.

How on earth do people like this think they are serving the country when they at least come across with the attitude that they couldn't care less?

 

I have also written a letter to Lord Mandelson, who's email address is seemingly not in the public domain, (oh yes, he's special isn't he!) I will be sending that tomorrow by Royal Mail along with a letter of complaint to the Sec of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

 

Sorry for this, my longest post ever but I am really annoyed that public servants don't know half of what their job means and are not interested, the goverment seems to be intent on screwing everyone over, unless they are in the top echelons of society.

 

I don't have much hope for a good settlement but I sincerely hope that more people get on the cases of our elected representatives and push for justice!

[Gaz]

Hi Everyone. My local MP Norman Baker has replied to an email I sent to him and he's happy to sign the EDM.

 

Gaz

[techtech]

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5876/saveoursoundlet2001.jpg

 

:(

[Guest lightnix]

Just thought I'd check how the Early Day Motion is going and was a little disappointed to see it's stalled at just 161 MPs :unsure:

 

Didn't we need 200 for it to be taken seriously? Maybe those who haven't written to their MPs yet, could do so and encourage them to sign ASAP :up:

[paulears]

I think as my MP mentioned in his letter to me - the EDM doesn't actually mean very much - but it raises the issue so it gets talked about and known by MPS who might be unaware of an issue. Those that have signed probably by now represent those that can/or will. I guess that at the very least the issue is at least being talked about. I wonder if the reaction by churches could actually have more impact than ours, as we are concerned with paid for events in general, theirs is simple plant made redundant with no hope of it generating income.

[J Pearce]

The problem with the church making a stand is that the only christian church organisation that government seem to listen to is the Church of England.

Most (I'm guessing as high as 90%) C of E churches use 2-3 radios maximum, and as such only use license free frequencies and aren't concerned by the switchover.

 

The churches that use 10s of radio channels are the gospel and independent churches whose governing bodies are multiple, and as such they will find it harder to make a joint representation to the government.

 

For all sorts of petty reasons the various denominations seem to find it impossible to work with each other for the common good :unsure:

[Simon Lewis]

The Church of England is becoming aware that should the hordes of radio users who have blithely used licenceable frequencies all converge on channel 70 post switchover, then things may get just a little crowded.

 

The last time I raised the issue with a contact at Church House, they did a good job of getting the message out. This time it made the CofE newspaper, and a fairly wide readership would have seen the SOS campaign message. I would have thought a quick call to the Methodists, Baptist Union, etc. would achieve similar results?

 

Simon

[AndyL]

Just in case people haven't spotted it there is another Ofcom consultation (Omnes: Groan!) relevant to our industry / industries running at the moment:

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/600mhz_geographic/

 

Executive summary

1.1 The 600 MHz band and geographic interleaved spectrum are part of the UK's digital dividend that will be freed up for new uses with the switchover from analogue to digital terrestrial television (DTT) that is due to be completed in 2012. We are considering how to make the spectrum available in ways that best suit the needs of potential users, in order to maximise the total value to society they generate over time. We intend to publish proposals on this later in 2010.

 

1.2 This consultation aims to:

 

•update stakeholders on spectrum availability, how developments have changed this and how technical considerations may affect spectrum use; and

•seek stakeholders' input on potential uses of the spectrum and on their level of interest in acquiring it. This information will help us develop proposals on how best to make the spectrum available.

 

1.3 In summer 2008, we consulted on the detailed design of the digital-dividend awards. At that time, we proposed to award the upper and lower bands of cleared spectrum together and to hold a series of awards of geographic lots of interleaved spectrum.

 

1.4 Several important developments have since caused us to reconsider our summer 2008 proposals. The main one is our decision to align our upper cleared band with the 800 MHz band identified for release by an increasing number of other European countries. This means clearing some existing and planned authorised uses from the 800 MHz band and negotiating new DTT allocations with neighbouring countries. There will be knock-on effects for the lower cleared (600 MHz) band and geographic interleaved spectrum in terms of both what we can award and when we can award it. We will not know precisely what they are until those negotiations are completed, probably later in 2010.

 

1.5 In reconsidering the award of this spectrum, we want to take into account how demand for it might have changed since summer 2008. This may be particularly relevant to the 600 MHz band now that the 800 MHz band is much more likely to be used for new mobile-broadband applications. But there may also be other potential uses and users for the geographic interleaved spectrum that could affect how we design its award. We will look in particular at the benefits that could arise from combining some geographic interleaved lots with the 600 MHz band.

 

1.6 There is a wide range of potential uses of this spectrum, the most likely of which appear to be DTT and mobile broadband alongside others including mobile multimedia services (MMS e.g. mobile television), programme making and special events (PMSE), broadband wireless access (BWA) and communications for the emergency services. We consider each in turn and ask for stakeholders' views on these and any other potential uses. Our assessment takes into account the spectrum likely to be available and the likely technical constraints on its use. We also look at whether there may be distinctive considerations and uses in the nations and regions of the UK.

 

1.7 We expect to publish proposals for consultation on packaging and award design when there is greater certainty over what spectrum will be available for award. This is likely to happen when international negotiations are further advanced later in 2010. In order to be in a position to publish our proposals as soon as possible, we will start to develop them before completion of these negotiations. The information we receive in response to this consultation will help us in this work.

 

1.8 Our aim is to be in a position to award the spectrum so that new use can be made of it from the end of digital switchover (DSO) in late 2012

 

Closing date for responses is 28 April 2010.

[GRisdale]

Looks like the election will at least delay these evil plans...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/11/el...spectrum_delay/

 

Gareth

[tolley1466]

Do we need to write another letter if we have a new MP?

[Smiffy]

Do we need to write another letter if we have a new MP?

 

 

I would suggest that that would be sensible. The more pressure the better

 

 

Cheers

 

Smiffy

[the kid]

Just got this in from LSI. (I have tried to get the right topic there seems to be so many on the issue.)

 

http://www.lsionline.co.uk/news/story/Ofco...ill-work/L6OCUX

[d_korman]

The Equiniti web-site is now open for claim registration - have done mine.