| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
License Fees --- a poll
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. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB" Date: 8/11/2004 9:25 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: .net 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. If you had to drop it at once, maybe not. But WHO said "all at once"? Part of the reason the FCC license structure is at "10 year" intervals now is that it's too expensive otherwise. You get all those Amateurs chipping in $25 a year for license every year and watch how fast they'd change THAT. But there are very few people who CAN'T drop $25 right now for some recreational purpose. 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. 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. 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. And if THAT is not good enough for you, Hans, we'll get Congress to allow prorated license fees based on their tax returns. Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue? Steve, K4YZ |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue? I initiated a poll. You may feel free to answer the questions at your convenience. If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB" Date: 8/11/2004 10:02 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: .net "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue? I initiated a poll. You may feel free to answer the questions at your convenience. If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian. But your poll (and comments in other replies in various threads this week) were in direct response to and in contrast to my suggestion FOR license fees. Your "poll" was worded in such a way as to elicit a "bleeding heart" reply over necessary household expenses as opposed to paying for "dsicretionary avocation" expenses. If that wasn't trying to "pad" the results, I don't know what was... Perhaps you'd care to exercise some of your claimed education and reword your "poll" in such a way so as to elicit more valid responses without being confrontational? Steve, K4YZ |
"KØHB" ) writes: 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. 73, de Hans, K0HB $250 does seem like a lot of money. But then, the issue is that one is expected to pay it in a lump. As I said, we had an annual license fee here in Canada up to 2000, and it was just part of the cost. But if it was that you paid once every ten years, I think it would affect things, maybe dramatically. It's cheaper to require a renewal only every ten years, but that would then require a lump sum, that might be a difficulty to some or many. Of course, an annual fee paid annually would offset the cost of an annual renewal. Of course, an annual renewal has other benefits. Ten years seems a long time, and it doesn't allow for keeping track of the hams. When they dropped the license fee for hams here in Canada in 2000, licenses became lifetime. Not only are we not paying a fee once a year, but even that level of interaction between the ham and the regulatory body has disappeared. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Michael VE2BVW |
I wrote:
If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian. "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote back: But ............... PLONK |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
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? A1: Not at the time I did (age 13, 1967). Maybe not at all. Even if you adjust for inflation, it was a lot of money for me back then. Today I'd spring for it. In the late '60s and early '70s I could (and did) build a pretty good station for less than $50. CW, of course, but capable of worldwide communication. --- 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? A2: No. By the time I was 23, I would have spent $250 for a ten-year license. But that question is somewhat academic because without a license in the first place, renewal would not matter. While coming up with $250 in one lump would be difficult, I would simply have saved up for it. -- 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. 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. -- Hopefully, Hans will submit his proposal to FCC before it's too late. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB" Date: 8/11/2004 10:29 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: .net I wrote: If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian. "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote back: But ............... PLONK Coward.... Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: Jack Twilley Date: 8/11/2004 12:28 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "K0HB" =3D=3D groupk0hb writes: [... the poll ...] K0HB So let's take a poll: K0HB Q1: If it cost $250 (plus testing fees) for a 10-year license K0HB would you have become a new amateur radio operator? K0HB --- or --- K0HB Q2: If it had cost $250 to renew your license each time over K0HB your ham radio career, would your license have lapsed by now? Of course not, but it's a straw man you've assembled. You're the only one that I've noticed who has assumed that a license paid for with fees would continue to have a term of ten years, and you're the only one that I've noticed who has assumed that said license would require payment in full. Of course it was a strawman. Hans is as bad about being unifocal on his own views as he accuses others of. Hans' "poll" was along the lines of "Do you enjoy beating your wife"... Here are some options that would have better assayed the demographic: Would you be in favor of a yearly license fee for your Amateur Radio license (1) Yes (2) No If a yearly license fee were imposed, it would: (1) Be no problem (2) Be of little problem. (3) Negatively impact my finances, but I'd work it out (4) Would preclude me from Amateur Radio licensure If you would be ameniable to a license fee, assuming a commensurate return of service, what would you consider a reasonable fee? (1) $1 to $5 a year (2) $6 to $10 a year (3) $11 to $15 a year (4) $16 to $20 a year Of course these options would not have provided Hans with the desired "See, MY opinon was THE right one..." I'd easily pay $50 every two years for my amateur radio license. If my license required $250 for ten years, I'd budget for it. Now, if the FCC wants to get the cash and continue to encourage new hams, they'd make the first ten-year license free, with each subsequent ten-year license renewal costing $250. In that case, you'd have to budget for it if you wanted to renew it, but you wouldn't be dropping a large chunk of change for an untested hobby. That's an idea. Or another idea...Your operator license and simple station license are free...(make 2 meters an automatic "gimme"), then each additional band you want to operate is "extra". Personally, I don't think "having a large number of licensed amateur radio operators" is necessarily a good thing for amateur radio, at least in the USA. It's four times bigger than it was when I was first licensed, but it's harder to strike up "routine" conversations on 2 meters anymore...Other than being a rough guideline for the government to judge "occupancy" by, I don't think it much matters... I would personally prefer to see one-tenth as many operators with each of those operators being active in at least one common facet of amateur radio (contesting, rag-chewing, emergency services, et cetera) and one uncommon facet of amateur radio (spread spectrum, innovative antenna/rig design, alternative power, et cetera). At least then the assertions that amateur radio operators advance the state of the art of technology and contribute to the health and safety of the community at large would have as much weight as the assertions that hams are just a bunch of overweight balding white men wasting valuable spectrum by discussing their colostomies and deviated septums. Sure, the ARRL and other lobbyists would lose "the power of numbers", but quality's worth more than quantity to me, and I suspect the FCC might actually agree, given a moment's freedom =2D From the political and economic overtones of every word that passes in and out of their offices. I think there should still be a requirement to have a minimum amount of activity logged at each renewal period. But those are just my personal opinions, of course. And well stated. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote We shouldn't expect other radio services to pay our way any more than we'd tolerate having to pay for thier operations! No other radio service pays for our licenses. The FCC budget comes out of the Treasury Dept's "General Fund", not from fees collected. Good luck on this one now! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
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? A1: Absolutely not. At the time I got my first license, I was unemployed - no way I would have been able to justify that kind of an expense at the time. Q2: If it had cost $250 to renew your license each time over your ham radio career, would your license have lapsed by now? A2: No. I first became licensed in 1999, and so I have not had to renew yet. I will say, however, that come 2009 when it's time to renew, if there's a $250 fee to renew, I'm outta here. John Kasupskim Tonawanda, New York Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS) Member of ARES/RACES, ARATS, WUN, ARRL http://www.qsl.net/kc2fng E-Mails Ignored, Please Post Replies In This Newsgroup |
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:49:49 GMT, Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Why should fees apply to a amateur license in the first place? We are a 'not for profit' operation. We are not a business. These were exactly the points made by the ARRL to convince the FCC to not charge license fees when fees were reinstated. We use the public airways. We are the public. This applies to commercial/business users as well. I was under the impression that all the employees of the FCC were payed by tax monies. So why should we pay them twice for the same job? This makes no sense. How does charging a license fee result in an employee being paid twice (much as I would have liked to have been paid the going industry rate which was double what I was paid....)? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
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? Taking your poll at it's face value I would never in this world have been able to come up with an inflation-adjusted $250 spot cash back for a ticket back when I got mine. A drop-dead one year Novice ticket?? How would that have worked?? I was a teenager with just a paper route for income and you can bet there were both kids and retirees out there who would have had the same problem. --- 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? Absolutely not but I'd be screaming and hollering. 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. Depends on young family income levels which varied all over the scale then and which varies even more today. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv |
|
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB" Date: 8/11/2004 6:13 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: k.net "Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote We shouldn't expect other radio services to pay our way any more than we'd tolerate having to pay for thier operations! No other radio service pays for our licenses. The FCC budget comes out of the Treasury Dept's "General Fund", not from fees collected. No kidding, huh...?!?! I didn't say anyone did, Hans. I SAID that we would not want to pay for any other services fees anymore than they'd want to pay for ours. Please provide the quote where I said anything different. I SUGGESTED that we may need to accept the idea of "fee-for-service" Good luck on this one now! What luck to do I need, Hans? I didn't make the comment you suggested I did. Why don't you focus on what IS said, rather than trying to find something you can whip into an argument...?!?! Good luck on THAT one now! Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: (Brian Kelly) Date: 8/11/2004 7:28 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net... 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? Taking your poll at it's face value I would never in this world have been able to come up with an inflation-adjusted $250 spot cash back for a ticket back when I got mine. That was the absolute "under these one set of circumstances" answer he was looking for...And in ONE set of circumstances, he would be right. A drop-dead one year Novice ticket?? How would that have worked?? I was a teenager with just a paper route for income and you can bet there were both kids and retirees out there who would have had the same problem. Come on, folks....2004...NOT 1974... --- 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? Absolutely not but I'd be screaming and hollering. 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. Depends on young family income levels which varied all over the scale then and which varies even more today. Like I said...there's always options. This isn't a definitive or final option. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 8:58 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: 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? Most other "professional" fees are for three or five years. 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. Part of the reason the FCC license structure is at "10 year" intervals now is that it's too expensive otherwise. Yep. And it's been that way for 20 years. Not going to change - in fact, I would not be surprised if FCC went to 20 year license terms. Or even lifetime, with some sort of tie-in with your SSN so they could cancel the licenses of SKs. 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. 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? How can they get "less money" from the Amateur Service than what they are getting now? 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. 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. 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. 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...?!?! 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. I'm pointing out that the fees we are suggesting (around $20-25/yr) is inconsequential in the overall scheme of it. 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. 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. 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...?!?! 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. So far you've not offered anything that would really be a valid impediment to fee-for-service. 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. 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. 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. 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. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/12/2004 6:55 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: License Fees --- a poll From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 8:58 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: 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. Most other "professional" fees are for three or five years. Are they federal? Some are...some aren't. 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 ! ! ! 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? The Finger of God has etched this in stone somewhere and I missed it? 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? 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...??? 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? 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! 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"... 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...?!?! 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...?!?! 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. 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...?!?! 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. Let's hope his lungs hold up. 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. 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! 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. 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. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"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 |
Michael Black wrote:
"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 believe Mr Black wasn't licensed during the Incentive licensing time. I suspect the whole thing about incentive licensing is overblown. Completely. 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. It didn't. All new Hams are products of the time they become Hams. I don't have any personal experience with incentive licensing or Novice class or 13 wpm Morse code or 20 wpm Morse code. All I have is the experience of going through the ranks from 1999, culminating in being a "Nickle Extra". 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. I have never failed to be impressed by the ability of middle aged and older men to become *incredibly* angry about so many seemingly trivial things. "The Morse code test is gone, and next we'll be forced to worship Satan and vote Democrat!" ;^) 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. Correct. I want good hams, not huge numbers. 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?". I hear this, and I wonder how there can be any competition between these? Ham radio is about radios, communications without wire around the world and locally. It's about making radios and accessories and antennas and the like. Cell phones are about ordering pizza and talking to people on the telephone. Computers are things that you buy at circuit city or best buy and plug 'em in and dial up the internet and really aren't technical. The people using computers that are closest in personality to Hams are the young hackers that write scripts and virii. We don't want them, thank you very much! 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. Good and insightful post, Michael. - Mike KB3EIA |
Mike Coslo wrote:
I believe Mr Black wasn't licensed during the Incentive licensing time. DOH! I meant to say Mr Mills! As you know, you are Mr Black! - My bad! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote I ask, would YOU trivialize Amateur Radio just to accomodate a few who would have to choose between Amateur Radio or purient addictions? Tobacco is a p(r)urient addiction? Sunuvagun! If I'd known that, I'd never have retired my meerschaums. 71, de Hans, K0HB |
Brian Kelly wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net... 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? Taking your poll at it's face value I would never in this world have been able to come up with an inflation-adjusted $250 spot cash back for a ticket back when I got mine. A drop-dead one year Novice ticket?? How would that have worked?? I was a teenager with just a paper route for income and you can bet there were both kids and retirees out there who would have had the same problem. --- 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? Absolutely not but I'd be screaming and hollering. 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. Depends on young family income levels which varied all over the scale then and which varies even more today. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv I'm with you on both questions, Brian. Besides, I figure those charged with administering and enforcing amateur radio are already drawing a paycheck. Aside from Riley Hollingsworth, those who are charged with amateur radio testing are already getting a free ride. Let the no-loads have a go at doing what they're supposed to be doing. Why should radio amateur volunteers do their work for them? Dave K8MN |
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:33:16 GMT, Dave Heil wrote:
I'm with you on both questions, Brian. Besides, I figure those charged with administering and enforcing amateur radio are already drawing a paycheck. The license fees collected have no relationship to the "salary and expenses" portions of the FCC budget. In fact, it works in reverse. The Vanity processing fees do not go to the Commission, but the work of processing them gets done by regular employees as part of the job. It's just another siphon from the public's pocketbook invented by The Congress. The FCC was very happy not having to collect and process fee payments in the decade or so when they were suspended. Aside from Riley Hollingsworth, those who are charged with amateur radio testing are already getting a free ride. Let the no-loads have a go at doing what they're supposed to be doing. Why should radio amateur volunteers do their work for them? If you are referring to the former field office examiners, those positions were abolished in the early 1990s after all amateur and commercial examination functions were privatized. The employees affected either retired, were transferred to other open clerical slots, or were RIFfed in the Great Debacle of 1996. The examiner at my office became the office secretary when the former secretary transferred to another agency in 1991 but retained the tail-end examiner work until the privitization was finalized. As I have stated here quite often, I am in favor of the FCC "unprivatizing" the examination function, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between none and zero. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
|
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... 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. 73, de Hans, K0HB Q1: If it had cost $250 for the 10 year license when I first entered ham radio, I probably would not have done so for I had no basis to determine whether the activity would appeal to me. Initially, it was just something that I did to participate in my husband's interest (now ex-husband). Q2: I would have renewed but complained loud and long about it. Having learned that ham radio was something that I actually like, I would not give up my license for anything. Since entering ham radio, I've belonged to my local club in the various areas that I've lived, became a VE, taught upgrade classes, participated in special events, entered contests, been a club officer and many other activities. Both I and the clubs to which I've belonged would have missed a great deal if that first license had been $250. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/12/2004 6:56 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: 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 think *I'm* being quoted out of context there... My point about my smoking friend was that, in *his* value system, smoking a lot took higher priority than saving up for a ham station. Part of this was no doubt addiction-fueled, but another part was that he even though he bought 'em by the carton, his cigarette expenditures were relatively small, relatively frequent purchases. If he had to buy a year's worth of smokes all at once, he might have quit. I don't think I was misquoting or quoting out of context at all, Jim. YOU made a point of using your friend as a case-in-point. MY point is that is someone wants to prioritize his addictions before Amateur Radio (or bass fishing, or knitting or golfing...etc...) then who needed him in the first place? I ask, would YOU trivialize Amateur Radio just to accomodate a few who would have to choose between Amateur Radio or purient addictions? How is Hans' or my opposition to license fees trivializing amateur radio? YOUR post, Jim, suggests that we not enact fees since if we enacted fees it would somehow prevent Amateur Radio from attracting people who would then have to choose between supporting an addiction OR funding Amateur Radio activities. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
"Michael Black" wrote 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. Michael, I am convinced that incentive licensing remains the hands down all time winner of the DAIOTC (Dumb Assed Idea of The Century) award. When a lot of us got started in the hobby the bands were not subdivided like they are today and it seems that we all, regardless of license class, worked together to improve the Amateur Radio Service. I didn't lose any privileges in 1968 because I had been an Extra for several years, but I thought it was a really bad idea at the time, and I remain convinced that it indelibly damaged Amateur Radio in the United States. Back then, it seems that we all, regardless of license class, worked together to improve the Amateur Radio Service. Back then, nobody got a special deal because they could beep faster or remember more electrical formulae than someone else. I got my Extra in 1964, well before disincentive licensing, and it was simply just another personal accomplishment, and did not "elevate" me above other hams. We all shared the same spectrum, worked together to solve the same problems, competed in contests, trouble-shot each others radios, and generally had fun together. If you forgot the numbers for the dipole formula, it was OK to ask someone else. If your Morse speed was 10WPM the speedier guys would slow down for you, not QSY to some specially reserved band segment. The one or two "old timers" on 75 meters who didn't like newcomers ("No lids, no kids, not space cadets") were universally looked down on as poor examples of what a ham ought to act like. The Novice bands were a "cacophony of exuberance" to steal a term that K1ZZ used in a meeting here in Minneapolis. Old hands were on those Novice bands also -- it was not unusual to hear W4KFC or W5ZD patiently working WN4KKN or WV2CNL -- nobody remarked that it was "nice" of them to do that -- it was just part of being a good ham. The notion that you had earned a special band segment never occurred to anyone -- we were just excitedly "playing in the ether", and there was no distinction on the air between Extra, Advanced, General, or Conditional -- elitist special callsign formats to celebrate the fine granulations of your test taking/memorization skills had not been invented. 36 years later we are still sliced and diced into 6 different classes, carefully divided into our own special frequency segments, and Lord protect the Extra who suggests that a new Technician might have something to contribute to our beloved Amateur Radio service. We'll never return to 'back then', unfortunately, and the intervening years have not produced the breed of "superham" which we were promised by ARRL and FCC; quite the opposite --- the technical acumen of the typical amateur of today is many dB lower than it was back then. Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com