In article , "Kim"
writes:

Can't help but point up the "dedication" factor, here. There are those who
preach that CW is a matter of dedication and "worthwhileness" of being a
member of the amateur radio community.

Who preaches
that?

The argument could be made that
having the money--no matter what it takes--proves worthwhileness to the
amateur radio community.

We think many but not
all would reject the idea
of someone being able
to buy an amateur
radio license.

But perhaps the fact
that money alone
cannot honestly buy
an amateur license is
what really bothers
some people about the
code test. Or any
serious level of
testing.

At least one non-
amateur here has
made repeated mention
of what his house is
worth, how he could
buy a "Hummer" for
cash, etc.

Perhaps that person
is frustrated and
angered by his
inability to buy his
way into amateur
radio.

Or to buy some respect
from others.

You have made us
think about it, Kim.

Thank you.

"Ya gotta do what it takes" applies across the board...wouldn't it?

That's what mature
people who want a
particular goal say.

(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

Can't help but point up the "dedication" factor, here. There are those who
preach that CW is a matter of dedication and "worthwhileness" of being a
member of the amateur radio community.

Who preaches
that?

The argument could be made that
having the money--no matter what it takes--proves worthwhileness to the
amateur radio community.

We think many but not
all would reject the idea
of someone being able
to buy an amateur
radio license.

But perhaps the fact
that money alone
cannot honestly buy
an amateur license is
what really bothers
some people about the
code test. Or any
serious level of
testing.

At least one non-
amateur here has
made repeated mention
of what his house is
worth, how he could
buy a "Hummer" for
cash, etc.

Perhaps that person
is frustrated and
angered by his
inability to buy his
way into amateur
radio.

Or to buy some respect
from others.

You have made us
think about it, Kim.

Thank you.

"Ya gotta do what it takes" applies across the board...wouldn't it?

That's what mature
people who want a
particular goal say.

I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed for
a few greenstamps.

In article ,
(William) writes:

I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed for
a few greenstamps.

On what basis
do you make
that guess?

We have seen
no evidence of
such wrongdoing.

Have you?

Note that our
original claim
is still valid:
There is no way
to honestly buy
an amateur license.

(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed for
a few greenstamps.

On what basis
do you make
that guess?

FCC
enforcement
actions
..

We have seen
no evidence of
such wrongdoing.

Then
why
would
the
FCC
investigate
testing
irregularities
?

Have you?

I
am
not
the
FCC
..

I
only
read
some
of
their
reports
..

Note that our
original claim
is still valid:
There is no way
to honestly buy
an amateur license.

Honestly
..

"William" wrote in message
om...
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed for
a few greenstamps.

On what basis
do you make
that guess?

FCC
enforcement
actions
.


Based on the enforcement actions and the exam investigations, the FCC has
only found need to investigate a tiny fraction of the tests conducted. This
refutes your assertion that "plenty of Extras..." were able to "buy" their
licenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed for
a few greenstamps.

On what basis
do you make
that guess?

FCC
enforcement
actions
.


Based on the enforcement actions and the exam investigations, the FCC has
only found need to investigate a tiny fraction of the tests conducted. This
refutes your assertion that "plenty of Extras..." were able to "buy" their
licenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

You need a course in oceanography and glaciology.

Ever heard of "Tip of the Iceberg?"

"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed
for
a few greenstamps.

On what basis
do you make
that guess?

FCC
enforcement
actions
.


Based on the enforcement actions and the exam investigations, the FCC
has
only found need to investigate a tiny fraction of the tests conducted.
This
refutes your assertion that "plenty of Extras..." were able to "buy"
their
licenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

You need a course in oceanography and glaciology.

Ever heard of "Tip of the Iceberg?"

I have administered plenty of test sessions and know many Extra class
operators. None of them "bought" their licenses. They legitimately passed
the required testing.

Between the FCC data and personal experience, the evidence continues to
refute your assertion. What data do you have to justify your opinion?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

William wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...

"William" wrote in message
.com...

(Quitefine) wrote in message

...

In article ,
(William) writes:


I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed for
a few greenstamps.

On what basis
do you make
that guess?

FCC
enforcement
actions
.


Based on the enforcement actions and the exam investigations, the FCC has
only found need to investigate a tiny fraction of the tests conducted. This
refutes your assertion that "plenty of Extras..." were able to "buy" their
licenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


You need a course in oceanography and glaciology.

Ever heard of "Tip of the Iceberg?"

Assuming you mean that there ia huge amount of corruption, and only a
very few are seen? Any supporting evidence?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
William wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...

"William" wrote in message
.com...

(Quitefine) wrote in message

...

In article ,
(William) writes:


I'd guess there are plenty of Extra's who'se 20WPM exam was passed for
a few greenstamps.

On what basis
do you make
that guess?

FCC
enforcement
actions
.


Based on the enforcement actions and the exam investigations, the FCC has
only found need to investigate a tiny fraction of the tests conducted. This
refutes your assertion that "plenty of Extras..." were able to "buy" their
licenses.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


You need a course in oceanography and glaciology.

Ever heard of "Tip of the Iceberg?"

Assuming you mean that there ia huge amount of corruption, and only a
very few are seen? Any supporting evidence?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, are you saying that Riley is 100% effective? Or is there
something in between?

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

You're still trying to avoid the concept that that was based upon
servicing a particular service that is financially non-contributory, Jim.

? I don't see how. Looks to me like FCC just matched the fee to the license
term.

Note that under present rules, there's only one way to get a renewal before the
"90 days or less till expiration" window: Get a vanity call. When you get a
vanity call, FCC gives an automatic renewal so they don't have to prorate the
fee. That's how they'd do any sort of license fee, IMHO.

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

Are they federal?

Some are...some aren't.

OK. But they're professional - a business expense.

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.

And that would require what...A couple of days worth of some "consultant"
loading the programs and debugging the program, Jim...?!?!? Come on ! ! !

It's the federal government and it involves handling money. You know it
wouldn't be as simple as if you and I were doing it.

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.

Who says?

Congress. You think they want an agency controlling its own purse strings?

The Finger of God has etched this in stone somewhere and I missed it?

Worse - politicians! ;-)

There's also a "checks and balances" issue. If an agency can directly benefit
from fees and fines, there's a perceived conflict of interest.

In a free market situation, a provider cannot simply raise prices at will
("more money for ME!") because people will go elsewhere. But there's no
alternative to a government licensing agency like FCC, so the rules are set up
so that the agency cannot directly benefit.

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.

Again, WHO SAID THIS? WHERE is it written that this could/would
NEVER change?

See above. Most agencies work like this.

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

Sure they would.

WHO SAID that this was set in stone, Jim? Where is that burning
bush...???

It's the most probable, given the way things have been at FCC for over 20
years. Heck, they're liable to look at the price of new ham gear and say "gee,
at those prices, $250 for a license isn't much..."

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.

Uh huh....

And what bit of science has yet to be developed that could allow this to
happen?

Not science. Engineering.

"Scientists dream of doing great things. Engineers do them".

The problem is bureaucratic.

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.

ULS already allows for the grouping of licenses. Again, Jim, much of
the stuff is already in place for this!

Still a pile of money all at once.

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.

And you're still insinuating that there's some permanently etched order
from God that makes a 10 year interval the "last word"...

Nope. Just most probable.

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.

Already answered...Several times....

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?

So...You are suggesting that kids who can afford $100 for an XBox and
who-knows-how-much for the additional software programs for each game
couldn't/wouldn't spend some unspecified amount for an Amatuer license...?!?!

Yep - *if* they have to come up with it all at once.

Sorry Jim, but that's assinine.

If they will spend almost 2 C-notes for a video game "taht they
want"...Why wouldn't they spend $25 (or less for an "under 21 person) for an
Amateur license that they would necessarily have to want also...?!?!

Instant gratification.

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.

Note how many hams smoke, too.

Sure he was.

He was an addict. He chose his addiction over something else. Are we
supposed to disregard implementing ideas which might exclude those who CHOSE
to spend thier monies on THIER addicitions...?!?!

It makes sense to market something in a way that will attract the intended
market. It's a natural human tendency to want to make a distinction between
spending a little money frequently and spending a lot of money in a lump, even
though they total to the same amount.

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.

Good for him.

Yep. He had all sorts of stories about how many messages they handled, how many
high powered transmitters were used, military life, etc., etc. He never got
close to any actual combat but he did a necessary job.

He did have one very good effect on me: Convinced me never ever to get near any
tobacco product.

Let's hope his lungs hold up.

Yep. You know better than I how much damage smoking can do.

But the point remains: "Selling" isn't always based on logical behavior.

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.

No, we won't.

We would. Or at least we might.

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?

Don't go Lennie on me now!

Lennie who? The poet?

This thread's only 10-15 deep...go back and
find it.

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?

With the apporopriate changes in the law, license fees could be
re-directed back to the appropriate agency.

Congress won't do it for reasons above. Plus because every agency would show
up with its hand out.

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?

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

So wrote up a proposal..

73 de Jim, N2EY