RadioBanter - View Single Post - License Fees --- a poll

August 12th 04, 12:55 PM

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 8:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

If you had to drop it at once, maybe not. But WHO said "all at once"?

It's the most logical way to do it. Vanity call fees are for ten years, all
in
a lump.

It is? Most logical to whom?

FCC

Most other "professional" fees are for three or five years.

Are they federal?

It's only "most logical" since it's the way things are now.

Electronic fund transfers and ULS make it possible to do this yearly
without any other human interaction, if yearly was the period decided upon.

Sure - if someone is willing to do the work to set up such a system.

Part of the reason the FCC license structure is at "10 year" intervals
now is that it's too expensive otherwise.

Yep. And it's been that way for 20 years. Not going to change - in fact, I
would not be surprised if FCC went to 20 year license terms. Or even
lifetime,
with some sort of tie-in with your SSN so they could cancel the licenses of
SKs.

Ten year licenses came about since it was financially burdensome to do
the
administrative functions on a radio service that it does not pay fees.

No radio service pays fees direct to FCC. They go into the general fund. That's
not going to change.

You get all those Amateurs chipping in
$25 a year for license every year and watch how fast they'd change THAT.

I don't think they'd change it at all. Why should they? So they can get
*less*
money?

Less money, Jim?

Yes.

How can they get "less money" from the Amateur Service than what they
are
getting now?

They get no money now and they'd get no money then.

The difference with $250 in a lump sum is that the feds would get their dough
up front rather than spread out.

But there are very few people who CAN'T drop $25 right now for some
recreational purpose.

Maybe. But that's not the question. Do you really think FCC would go to
annual
collection? I don't.

OK...then two, three of five.

Again, with the high degree of automation that is occuring, it wouldn't
take a lot of effort to implement a system that "cancels" a license if an
on-line renewal with payment is not received.

Right. Except somebody has to set up such a system.

Most of us are spending about that much A MONTH for ISP service...More
for broadband...So P L E A S E don't try THAT tact, Master Chief. It's
baseless.

I think you mean "tack".

Thank-you for the correction, but it still doesn't negate the validity
of
my assertion...His TACK is baseless.

And there's a difference. ISP service is considered a necessity by many, and
one account is often used by the entire family.

A ham license is specific to one person.

And an adjusted "multiple licensees" fee could be arranged.

More complextiy.

As for the "entire family" argument, most of the popular ISP's are
around
$21 to $50 a month, depending on whether you have dial-up, broadband , etc.

I'll just go cheap and say it's $25 a month. That's $300/year. Divided
by the typical family of four, that's $75/year.

Sure.

You're suggesting that (if we assume only one licensee in the family)
the
one licensee in the family can't afford an extra $2.08/month? That's a Coke
and a bag of chips once a month for liberal acces to the electromagnetic
spectrum...?!?!

Depends on how you ask for it, that's all.

Furthermore, one only need see that the manufacturers seem to be
confident
enough in the financial solvency of the Amateur Radio program in order to
do
R&D and subsequently manufacture radios that START a $1500, now as high as
$12,000 or more! And they are right.

You can get a lot of rig for a lot less than $1500.

Sure you can.

But the argument here is that a license fee would preclude folks from
getting involved in Amateur Radio, Jim.

It would have precluded me back in 1967. Some people here would like that ;-)

I'm pointing out that the fees we are suggesting (around $20-25/yr) is
inconsequential in the overall scheme of it.

Depends on how they are paid

Now...if people can afford alcohol, CD's, cigarettes, XBox's and other
"recreational" pursuits, they can also manage to prioritize $25/year for
Amateur Radio if that's what they want to do.

Maybe. But humans don't always behave that way.

Oh...

OK.

So we are going to trivialize Amateur Radio to the XBox.

No, we're going to look at reality and deal with it. Do we want to attract
newcomers (particularly bright young people) or repel them?

About 20 years ago I knew a ham who was a serious smoker. He and his wife
each
went through 2-1/2 to 3 packs a day. These folks bought a couple of cartons
at a time.

He used to cry the blues to me that he didn't have any money for ham radio,
the rigs were so expensive, etc. etc.

One day I suggested to him that he cut down on his smoking by a pack a day,
and
put the money saved into a ham radio fund. I didn't say he'd have to quit
snmoking, just cut down.. At 1984 prices, that would have put about
$500/year
in his ham radio budget, which, combined with what he already had, would
have built a nice station in a year or two.

He looked at me like I was seriously deranged. No way he'd cut down at all.

His bad, Jim.

Of course.

So we again trivalize the Amateur Radio service so we can accomodate the
FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer, broads and booze...?!?!

Nope. Just giving an example of how people behave. This guy wasn't stupid or
uneducated.

btw, he's been a radio maintenance person (I don't know the exact MOS) in a
branch of the US military. Took care of RTTY setups and was good at it.

That's stupid. People will make the decisons they make based upon thier
own needs, interests, etc. If Amateur Radio "needed" to incorporate
fee-for-service licensure, then there would be SOME Amateurs who would need
to evaluate what was the greater priority.

Yep. And in more than a few cases, we'd lose.

So far you've not offered anything that would really be a valid
impediment to fee-for-service.

My fee for that service is....

And if THAT is not good enough for you, Hans, we'll get Congress to allow
prorated license fees based on their tax returns.

Who would do all the paperwork?

I answered that already, Jim.

Who?

Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue?

Simple: We used to have fees. They didn't go to help amateur radio or the
FCC.
And they wouldn't do it again.

Sure they would.

How?

Just like they enacted and incorporated regulatory changes to accomodate
volunteer examiners, if fee-for-service was deemed a necessity, the feds
would see to it that the necessary changes made it to law.

Right.

Now write up a proposal to make it happen. Like the one to close the pools.
Then sell it to FCC.

I'm *not* against a reasonable fee. Say, $25 max for ten years, waived if
the ham is under 21 or over 65 or disabled.

That wouldn't pay for the cost of administering the service on a
pay-for-service system, Jim.

It wouldn't? How much would?

If too much of the fee just goes to collecting the fee, what's the point?

73 de Jim, N2EY