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.


Actually, you're wrong about that. Contract law holds that a
contract, to be a contract, must include an exchange of consideration on
both sides. In this case: Privileges in the radio service in question,
and the cash fee. Without the cash fee, or other consideration, there is
no contract, and the obligations and responsibilities that come with the
privileges are not legally conferred.






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?



GRMS is more tightly overseen than FRS, or CB. Administrative
costs will be somewhat higher. Especially in areas of high
congestion...cities for instance, GRMS administration costs can be higher.

Amateur service is it the same kind of service as GRMS. HF
amateur service isn't for local or on-site communications as GRMS, nor
is it utilized by business for important communication. Construction
sits may have 200 radios on site. Security companies utilize GRMS both
on site, and for units deployed in the field. Density of usage in cities
for GRMS is much higher than Amateur communications. Interference is a
greater issue. Amateur communication is, by charter, to be limited to
unimportant communications. Emergency service excepted.

Amateur VHF and above is operated within different contexts than
GRMS, even in cities, with far less operator density.

So, administration of GRMS can be more involved. But GRMS fee
usage is not limited to GMRS administration. They also help fund the
Agency.





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.


FCC does what it can to fund it's own operation. License fees,
spectrum auctions...all part of the pot.



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.



GRMS is frequently used in cities, under crowded conditions,
for, among other things, businesses, and security applications, were
interference can be far more than just a nuisance.



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.



Populist sounding is not "populist". As differentiated by the
need for a license.



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

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


For those who are successful enough to afford them.



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.


Poorer people would not be in a position to require handheld
radios for their businesses, or even family outings. If they can't
afford the license, it's not likely they'll be spending the money for
the hardware, or the circumstances that would require it.

For them, the more populist services will be adequate.

Again, we're not talking about rights, here. But privileges.
And those are not guaranteed to every citizen.