"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

There's a bit of marketing psych going on here, of course. Asking
somebody to cough up seven cents a day or forty-nine cents a week
isn't the same thing as asking them to pay $25 a year. And asking them
to pay $25 a year isn't the same thing as asking them to pay $250 for
ten years, payable up-front.

Marketing psych ? Well, if that's the choice or
even if I just had to pay 10 cents per month to renew my
ham license, I'd let my callsign lapse. Just not worth it as
there are many better things / hobbies to waste money upon
besides ham radio. A casual listen to the daily Net
'boredom parade' on 40M will convince anyone of this.

Sounds to me like this scatterbrained idea to
charge $250 fee for a renewal is almost as bad
as the dry-drunks at ARRL which gave us "Incentive
Licensing" in the 1960's, from which ham radio
has never fully recovered. (even with code requirements
being relaxed, you still don't see young people comming
into the hobby anymore, this should tell you something....)

The smart marketer knows that you need to make the initial payout
relatively small. That's why there was never any fee for a Novice
exam.

Sure, it works everytime. I am in the auto sales
business and we have a saying: "For every seat
there's an ass, for every wallet there's a credit plan"

(These are updates of the original: "There's a sucker born every minute")

--

Hopefully, Hans will submit his proposal to FCC before it's too late.

yawn


73 de Jim, N2EY

The future is he http://****qrz.com

KØHB wrote:
K4CAP/K4YZ wrote: (about license fees)


I think fees in the $25/year range would not be inappropriate.


So let's take a poll:

Q1: If it cost $250 (plus testing fees) for a 10-year license would you
have become a new amateur radio operator?

--- or ---

Q2: If it had cost $250 to renew your license each time over your ham
radio career, would your license have lapsed by now?



Here are my responses:

Q1: Not a chance.

Q2: When raising a family, spending $250 on a discretionary avocational
item would have been out of the question.


There are probably better ways to make a poll like this, Hans. Your poll
tips all off to your opinion, and won't allow for a good answer from the
pollees. (is that a word?)

Since opinions vary in intensity even among people agreeing on a
subject, it might be better to use a agree disagree scale with say 5
possible answers:

Q1. The Ham license fee should be $250 for a ten year period.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q2. I would support a $250 Ham radio license fee if it was tied to
increased enforcement

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q3. I would never support a $250 Ham radio license fee.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q4. I would pay $250 for a ten year Ham license.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q5. A ham license is worth $250 for a ten year period

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q6. $250 is too much for a 10 year Ham license.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q7. If the fee for a Ham license were $250 for a ten year term, I would
allow my license to lapse.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q8. I would prefer to pay for a $250 license fee once every 10 years, if
it was the case.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q9. Paying for a $250 license fee at the rate of $25 per year is the
best way of financing the fee, if it was the case.

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Q10. There should be no license fee, ever

A - Strongly disagree
B - Disagree
C - Neutral or don't know
D - Agree
E - Strongly agree

Then allow a section for comments.

This way you'll get your answers, but without tying the person to a
digital yes/no response. Digital responses are usually way too broad to
be of much use.

My response to this new poll would be:

1 - C
2 - D
3 - B
4 - E
5 - E
6 - D
7 - A
8 - A
9 - B
10 - B

So this puts me down as a person that is neutral on the idea of a $250
dollar fee, but would support such a thing if it were tied to increased
enforcement. I'd never say I would never support such a fee. I think the
fee is too much, but would not allow my license to lapse if the fee were
that much. I'd also prefer to pay the fee at once, rather than spread it
out. And I'd never say there should never be a fee.

Or to answer your poll:

1 - yes
2 - yes


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


That's EXACTLY why your suggestion of $2.50/year was ludicrous.


So is your $25.00/year suggestion. The FCC has calculated that it costs
$20.80 to process a ham license transaction (see current vanity call
fee), so the net revenue from each yearly renewal would be $4.20 at
current labor rates. Great idea!

73, de Hans, K0HB
---
"Hey, call down to the machine room and tell them to empty the bit
bucket, and FAST, before that baby overflows."

"Mike Mills" ) writes:

Sounds to me like this scatterbrained idea to
charge $250 fee for a renewal is almost as bad
as the dry-drunks at ARRL which gave us "Incentive
Licensing" in the 1960's, from which ham radio
has never fully recovered. (even with code requirements
being relaxed, you still don't see young people comming
into the hobby anymore, this should tell you something....)

I suspect the majority of US hams were not licensed when incentive
licensing was introduced. After all, it's been 35 years, and the
various layers of simplification have brought in many new hams.

I suspect the whole thing about incentive licensing is overblown.

How did incentive licensing damage the inflow of young people to the
hobby? It was the already licensed hams who grumbled, and who lost
anything.

Consider that all the changes made over the 35 years to make it
easier for people to come into the hobby (and we've seen similar
changes here in Canada in recent years) may have the reverse effect
when it comes to young people. Maybe the tests, code and theory, that
are so much a burden for the older person coming into the hobby were
not an impediment to the young. They thrived on it, and at a young age,
it was a boost to be able to pass the test when older people were
griping about how hard the test was. When I passed the test in 1972, at
the age of 12, it was no drag to be able to accomplish that. It was
practically like snapping my finger, because what was in the test interested
me, and it was not merely an obstacle to overcome before I could start
yacking on the radio. If you're ten (which is when I first set out
to learn the code, though I did not go about it properly), or eight, you're
young enough that being able to understand a "code" of some sort is picking
up a secret language that those around you don't know; that's incentive
in itself to learn it.

But, all the changes have been made by middle age men, or older, who
often seem to have forgotten what it was like to be young and get their
first ham license, or who came into the hobby in later years. They
are making judgements based on being middle age, which may not reflect
what it's like to be young.

For that matter, too often the mistake when talking about getting newcomers
into the hobby is that quantity is the necessity. If only we can get
big numbers, then we're safe. But in trying to lure those numbers, the
pool gets watered down. The hobby is no longer a technical playground,
it's no longer a place where kids can play and grow up, either into technical
pursutes or just adults who have a better than average familiarity with
technical matters (a rather important thing, given how much more technology
we're surrounded by compared to thirty years ago). There is plenty I learned
from amateur radio that have nothing to do with technical matters, but it
comes from being part of a not just for children activity when I was still
what amounted to being a child. Maybe in watering down the entrance
requirements, the hobby is not bringing in those who would benefit from
the hobby, as they traditionally would have. "It takes nothing to get
into the hobby, what possible appeal could there be?" Once things
have started down the slope of making it easier to attract larger numbers,
then there is no alternative but to seek even larger numbers, because
then the only thing you do have is those large numbers. Gone are the
benefits of amateur radio, to the actual hams and to society at large,
and there goes any ability to justify the frequencies except by large
numbers.

And getting back to the middle age men, it is they who keep repeating
the mantra "how can amateur radio be appealing in a world where every kid
has a cellphone and a computer?". So long as competition with society in
general is the pivot point, then of course there can be little appeal
to the youngster. Only by promoting the hobby's strengths and uniqueness
can one hope to compete with superior forms of communcation.

Michael VE2BVW

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: (Michael Black)
Date: 8/12/2004 11:27 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I suspect the majority of US hams were not licensed when incentive
licensing was introduced. After all, it's been 35 years, and the
various layers of simplification have brought in many new hams.

It has. I suspect your suspicion is correct!

I suspect the whole thing about incentive licensing is overblown.

Morbidly so. Of course the Hatfield's and McCoy's went at it for over a
hundred years, so I suspect those remaining few who got caught up in the
Incentive Licensing brohouha will keep barkling about it until they are gone.

How did incentive licensing damage the inflow of young people to the
hobby? It was the already licensed hams who grumbled, and who lost
anything.

BAM! Hammer hitting nail on the head.

BIG SNIP TO....

And getting back to the middle age men, it is they who keep repeating
the mantra "how can amateur radio be appealing in a world where every kid
has a cellphone and a computer?". So long as competition with society in
general is the pivot point, then of course there can be little appeal
to the youngster. Only by promoting the hobby's strengths and uniqueness
can one hope to compete with superior forms of communcation.

Amateur Radio has always appealed to a certain few, and those who are
interested in radio for radio's sake...not necessarily as the fastest way to
communicate or the most efficient.

I imagine it will always be so...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 8/12/2004 7:59 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

KØHB wrote:
K4CAP/K4YZ wrote: (about license fees)


I think fees in the $25/year range would not be inappropriate.


So let's take a poll:

Snip to Mike's comments...

There are probably better ways to make a poll like this, Hans. Your poll
tips all off to your opinion, and won't allow for a good answer from the
pollees. (is that a word?)

My point exactly. Hans' "poll" was so skewed that one would be hard to
NOT answer it the way HE wanted it answered...NOT necessarily how it SHOULD be
answered.

Since opinions vary in intensity even among people agreeing on a
subject, it might be better to use a agree disagree scale with say 5
possible answers:

Snipped too...Excellent alternatives, Mike...Nice job.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

Any more insulting insinuations today, Hans?

I don't see any "insulting insinuations" in my message, but if you found
one, well then accept it with my warmest compliments.

72.5, de Hans, K0HB

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

Hans' "poll" was so skewed that one would be hard to
NOT answer it the way HE wanted it answered.

Awwww gee, Captain Obvious, ya figured it out! Kinda like your leading
question as to whether we should "trivalize the Amateur Radio service
so we can accomodate the FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer,
broads and booze?"

Sunuvagun!

72.5, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/12/2004 3:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

Any more insulting insinuations today, Hans?

I don't see any "insulting insinuations" in my message, but if you found
one, well then accept it with my warmest compliments.

As always, Hans...we can be rest assured of your ability to shave from
either side of the mirror...

72.5

I'd expect nothing less than "not quite enough" from one of your posts,
Master Chief.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/12/2004 3:40 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

Hans' "poll" was so skewed that one would be hard to
NOT answer it the way HE wanted it answered.

Awwww gee, Captain Obvious, ya figured it out!

Then why don't you just ask people if they agree with you, rather than
suggest it's a "poll"?

Kinda like your leading
question as to whether we should "trivalize the Amateur Radio service
so we can accomodate the FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer,
broads and booze?"

Quoted out of context...Again, I'd expect nothing less, Hans.

Jim Miccolis made a SPECIFIC reference to a person he supposedly knew who
was addicted to tobacco, and suggested in his post that his friend would rather
spend money on his addiction than divert the money to Amateur Radio.

I ask, would YOU trivialize Amateur Radio just to accomodate a few who
would have to choose between Amateur Radio or purient addictions?

Sunuvagun!

Sunuvagun yourself. What "point", other than proving you can quote out of
context, do you think you have made? If it was to try and appear antagonistic
rather than objective, you did it in spades.

72.5

Again, once more with not quite enough...Why am I not surprised?

Steve, K4YZ