bpnjensen wrote:

On Apr 11, 1:12 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:

Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in
potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The
other is the license.

The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the
spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the
technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within
regulatory limits.

The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and
verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and
other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract
between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator
knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations,
making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the
regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators
not in compliance.

I disagree with none of this.

The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract,
ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract
binding.

Not every contract, even one in which one or another side is
materially (as opposed to behaviorally) obligated, requires a fee to
be binding, but that's beside the point for now.

The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the
regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified.

Understood, and I don't deny that this oversight is necessary, however
- I assume then that you believe the cost of administering GMRS and
oversight is a bit higher (and an immense amount higher per watt used)
than for amateur radio? Assuming such oversight actually occurs on a
regular basis?

Another way to put this last comment - once the fees are collected, do
they go to the FCC, or to the General Treasury Fund of the US for
redistribution as Congress directs? And if the latter, does the FCC
get back all that it collects for its operations? My point there is,
lots of fees that are collected are cash cows for their respective
agencies or umbrella agencies, and I wonder about the FCC as much as
any.

The third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to
discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum
from being overcrowded.

Maybe, but given the populist-sounding intent of the GMRS (which is
almost identical to FRS in its family-friendly language), I think you
hit the nail on the head with the term "minor." Further, I am not
sure that with so many channels, such low inherent wattage and the
inherent nature of this kind of signal at these freqs, the issue of
crowding would ever become serious.

Sometimes there are privileges that are accessible to those
successful enough to afford them.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Again, I refer you to the stated and very populist-sounding intent for
the GMRS. There is, in my mind, an inconsistency. And wrt democratic
government, I'm not sure I agree at all with this philosophy.

These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not
guaranteed for every citizen.

No, only to the "priviliged class," I guess.

And there's nothing wrong with that, either.

Here, we disagree. I can afford to get the license, and the radios,
if I so choose. It is, however, not hard to imagine poorer people
than I who would have a better use for these radios and who may
actually need them far more than I would, but the license "privilege"
may be too high in cost. I detect unfairness in this system,
analogously as I would with a flat income tax.

Why would a flat income tax be unfair, if it treats all the same?