On Apr 11, 4:05 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:

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.

Webster's:

"Contract: 1 a: A binding agreement between two or more persons or
parties; esp.: one legally enforceable. b: A business arrangement for
the supply of goods or services at a fixed price. c: the act of
marriage or an agreement to marry..."

Contracts can take several forms under law, and by definition need not
include a cash exchange...it can be a simple agreement as to mutually
agreed-upon behavior. Even if there is an exchange of some sort, it
need not be material or currency. It can be an agreement or a
permit. In my business (urban planning) we routinely have contracts
of a form that require no cash exchange, but place other requirements
on the contractees. We sign zoning and building permits every day for
no charge, subject however to the beneficiary abiding by local rules.

I believe your perception of what a contract *can be* is somewhat
limited, perhaps because of the business you have worked in. Anyway,
my beef is not with the appropriate processing fee for a license - it
is with what I perceive as an exorbitant fee cost.

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.

That's fair...so far. FRS is too low-power to worry about at all, and
CB is a hopeless mess.

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.

I think you may be overstating the case. When I turn on my units, I
rarely hear anyone else on any channel. It is usually my son and I.
When I do hear someone else, it a kid or his friends down the block.
That may be beside the point, anyway.

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.

Bingo. I think the FCC wants to partially support itself on the back
of GMRS, in which a family must pay as much as a business, whose net
worth is probably inherently vastly greater.

A cash cow is a cash cow, I guess.

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

Exactly as I suspected. At the agency where I work, we do not have
this luxury - each fee we charge needs to have a rational and economic
nexus to the work or task it funds. That is only fair, I think.
Anything not related to a specific task has to be granted from the
general fund, and that we must justify in another way.

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.

Every automobile driver has a license (or is supposed to). If that
isn't populist (some would say TOO populist), nothing is - even many
dirt-poor people have cars - and the license is not the determining
factor as to whether it is affordable or not. No driver's license
costs as much as any reasonably operable vehicle...and how much does
highway patrol cost to monitor those licensees on a constant basis?

Poorer people would not be in a position to require handheld
radios for their businesses, or even family outings.

...or for general family communications, I suppose? This is a gross
assumption that I don't think is supportable. Even poor folks may
want to be in contact with their children or elderly parents when they
walk down the street to the store or over to a neighbor's home. There
are myriad situations where this kind of communication would be
appropriate.

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.

Oh, come on - the hardware is *cheap* - at second-hand prices it is
practically free. A LOT cheaper than a cell phone. Even brand new,
my walkie-talkies cost far less than a license did.

For them, the more populist services will be adequate.

That might be true, or might not. This is a gross assumption that may
not apply to many aspects of need. An FRS radio signal may not be
quite potent enough, and I don't need to enumerate the drawbacks of CB
AM transmission.

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

I see, guaranteed only to those with the Do-Re-Mi?

Being government-priviliged for having developed special skills -
permission to act as an airline pilot, astronaut, automobile driver,
ham radio operator or medical doctor - these are all appropriate
priviliges that have been earned for their extra value and skill
components. For government to endow a person with a privilege on a
purely cash basis, however - without the beneficiary having earned the
privilege through acquisition of special skills or other distinction -
smacks of pre-American royalty or modern-day dictatorships.

On a less political basis and in private business, this passes
acceptably. In American government however, it is not acceptable.

Bruce Jensen