|
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
One more item on this matter -
If I were to buy a license for the operations of these radios, it would be the first time - EVER - that I had paid more for the license than for the equipment itself. In this case, about 200% of the equipment value. When I got my Amateur radio license several years ago, it didn't cost nearly as much as the used equipment I had purchased for a decent price. When I got my CB license way back when, it cost $20 -seemed fairly steep at the time, but still only about 1/6th of what I paid for a single radio, and less than 7% of the overall investment (two radios plus base/mobile antennas was probably in the neighborhood of $350 all told). I got a lot of use out of both of those batches of equipment - thus, the prices of the licenses were both eminently reasonable. Now, the license costs twice as much as *two* of the radios themselves? Which I use a lot less than either of those older radio systems? This is to say nothing of the fact that a license to operate a car/boat/etc costs nowhere near the price of the vehicles, all of which have vastly more potential for abuse and irresponsible operation, with far greater consequences, than 5-watt walkies talkies with a two-mile effective range. Heavy equipment operators and truck drivers would go belly-up instantly if the government tried to charge a proportionally high kind of license fee. Nowhere is there a license whose fee is so high in comparison to the equipment being operated. I think the FCC is off its rocker. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
I haven't used any of my CB radios in a long while.I have at least two
old books here which deal with CB Radio.None of my CB Radio books mention anything at all that a license is required to use CB Radio(s).Since when,in America,has it been required to pay a fee for a license to use a CB Radio? cuhulin |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 12:00 pm, "Brian O" wrote:
"bpnjensen" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 9, 5:54 pm, "Brian O" wrote: Why do you pay for groceries? Why do those nasty grocery stores have to charge for them? How dare they? Even though they control all the groceries sold to them, they should not have any right to charge for them!! You, sir, do not own the airwaves, the American people say who operates and who does not. You sir are a thief, plain and simple. Bullsh** Nobody *owns* the airwaves any more than they own outer space. You need to speak with the FCC. Give me your phone number and Ill have them contact you. Groceries cost someone money to produce. Radio transmission medium costs nobody anything. The bureacrats are the thieves. Again, your opinion. If you dont like it, get the law, and the system changed. And a large fee on one limited-band service helps to protect this - how? By keeping renegades from wanting to use the service for abusive purposes. People that pay money for their licenses are much more responsible when they operate, especially since they are registered with an agency that can put them in jail if they dont. Oh, yeah - that worked really well with prohibition in the 1920's, didn't it? It was a total sucess with CB radio, wasn't it? It did until the deregulation of the CB band. Nonsense. If people want to abuse the use of 2-mile range walkie talkies, they're going to do it with or without a license. Responsible users, which I consider myself to be for reasons already stated, are going to use it properly and courteously...whether they have paid or not. albiet illegally So, the fee is going to make sure that my little 2-mile walkie talkie is not going to mess up a Homeland Security operation - how? There are a lot of businesses that use the same frequencies. If anarchy were to get started like it did when CB was deregulated, then those frequencies would be just a worthless as the CB. And I say, a license is not going to prevent a person from abusing a privilege. If the government merely wants to keep track, there is no reason why a license must cost $85. If they really don't want interference, they'd be better off not making the business frequencies available to the GP in the first place. The GMRS is much less prone to anarchy because the power is lower and the nature of the transmissions and signals is far different. Finally, I'll bet the only businesses that use these freqs extensively anymore are rural, where few GPs use the GMRS anyway...everyone else uses cell phones. You would lose the bet. Wrong. Period. There is considerable actual difference on the ground. One can directly affect health safety and welfare, the other cannot. Thats not entirely true. Sure it is. The effects on health and safety are purely a result of improper use, and a license does not prevent this. Many people with driver's licenses get out and behave miserably on the road every day - and those without licenses can go years without getting caught, by just being careful. But in the end, those that violate the law of operation are penalized, and those that dont have a license, even though they operate safely, when caught, are penalized. This, with *massive* police oversight at virtually all times. For something like a radio license, where oversight is minimal and the power and range are too low for most people to notice anyway - the success of this service wil ultimately depend on whether people *use* the radios properly or foolishly. Government regalation will not be the deciding factor. Yes, but the first step to misuse is illegal use. Wether by operation, or registration. Its not unreasonable at all. Yeah, it is. He who is unfaithful in little will be unfaithful with much. This is at least an opinion, or more realistically blather, and you know it. Life is not all or nothing, black and white. I have far more faith in individual humans to do the right thing at the right time than I do in some expensive goverment program to try to control what people do with the ether. I know that I will never abuse the ability to use the radio in a worthwhile and public-spirited way, whether I have paid the confounded fee or not. Youre already abusing the government, set up by the people of this country. You are as bad as someone that cheats on their taxes. Your point of view is no different than someone that robs a bank. Bullsh**. Someone who robs a bank wants to live for free, with no regard to who is losing as a result. I would never rob a bank, just like I would never interfere with someone else's valid communications; and I don't expect the government to rob me. One is not better or more acceptable than the other, legal or not. Bruce Jensen But you already are robbing the government of a legal fee. Again, no better than wanting it for free. B- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Virtually everything above is opinion. Thus, this conversation ends. Bruce Jensen |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 9, 5:47 pm, "Brian O" wrote:
And my point is that it is unethical to require an outrageous fee for a license for this service. That's just as wrong, arguably worse, than operating wiothout a license. Sorry, but your opinion that it is unethical is just that, an opinion. If you dont like the law, lobby to change it. Its not an ourageous fee especially in the face of what a cell phone costs per year. Yes, it is my opinion, and your POV is just the same. BTW, a cell phone is far more versatile and far-reaching than a walkie talkie. You can try to justify your illegal operation all you wish. It still doesn't change the truth of your operations being illegal. B Big deal. Civil disobedience has always been illegal. It doesn't preent people from doing it, and it doesn't prevent it from being right. BJ |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote:
But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what the law SAYS that matters. Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters. What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"? I know that using it for general public information is not the same as saving lives - but your assertions that laws must be slavishly followed for vague and untenable reasons just doesn't cut the mustard. IMO. Totally irrelivant. It doesnt matter how you use it, its still illegal if youre not following the law by being licensed. And I say, Big Deal. My otherwise responsible use for valuable purposes is not harming anybody at all, and is helping many. The GPs who show up there *with licenses* cannot say as much about their own transmissions. Luckily, the bands are not crowded at YNP. Then they should answer to the FCC as the FCC sees fit. You have no room to talk. BS. I can say whatever I want about any topic I wish. What I know. Now that you have publically stated where you are and when you operate and that you have no license, you are exposing yourself to retribution from the FCC. I invite them to prove a single incident based on what I've said here. For all you know, I am lying through my teeth. Also permitted. It may be wrong, but its not immoral, or unethical Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or unethical? Here's a definition from Webster hisself: Wrong: (2) Something wrong, immoral or unethical, esp: principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law. "Immoral" and "unethical" are right in there. therefore you have no moral basis to break that law. That's what the establishment always says. If you don't like it, then get off you illegal-operation backside and do something to change it through the system. For all you know, I am. BJ |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 9, 4:19 pm, (Michael Black) wrote: "bpnjensen" ) writes: If you transmit on GMRS without a license, then the rules can't mean a thing to you since you've already broken the rule that requires a license to use the band. This is an unreasonable illogical emotionally-based extrapolation, and is beside the point. Once again, what effect exactly will the fee have on my operation of the radio, other than the vague notion that some bureaucrat knows I exist? The fee limits who can use the band, so it ensures that it doesn't get so crowded that it's unuseable. Oh, I get it. Thus, even if someone has a valid use for the radio, if they cannot afford it, they are stuck, up the creek without an aerial. Real sweet, real public-interest minded. I still say, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT WHETHER THE RADIO IS USED PROPERLY? If they can afford the radio, im sure they can afford the license. Again, that's the same principal as all the radio regulations. Take them away, and you get a free for all, like in the early days of radio. A free-for-all with radios that communicate at maximum a few miles? Yeah, sure. besides a fee is not going to prevent improper use of the radio. Have you ever heard CB radio?? Evidently not! And yes, a fee, paying to REGISTER as a user, will prevent improper use of the radio, just for the fact that the FCC now has your address. That ship at sea couldn't send out the SOS because the band was crowded with land based transmitters. If anyone can use the GMRS band, then chances are those who were using it for serious use won't be able to do so because it's either too crowded, or because someone who doesn't know what they are doing is playing around. A fee does not mean that someone knows what he is doing. It might mean that only the rich get to use it, though. Again, if he can afford the radio, he can afford the fee. They go hand in hand. Note that the one thing that has basically put radio in the hands of everyone, the cellphone, has a sophisticated infrastructure to make very good use of the allocated spectrum. It can tolerate a high density of users because of that infrastucture. Low power units, with the cells all over the place, and the phones are controlled by the cells so they may switch frequency as required. I don't own one. It simply isn't useful to me. Uh huh... The old way, any geographical area could only tolerate a small number of users and a small number of phone calls, because they had a handful of frequencies and one or a handful of base units meaning the carphones had to have higher power and contact the central base. If someone was using a channel, then nobody else could, because those signals had to cover a relatively large area. Note that there are a number of bands allocated to license free use. The old 27MHz CB band at this point, not just the 100mW walkie talkies of the old days but the 5watt units, a 100mW 49MHz allocation, and of course the FRS band up in the 450Mhz range. The caveat is that by letting anyone use them, there is no control over useage. Hence even if a user can live with the power limitations, they may not find it suitable because everytime they want to make an important transmission the kid down the road is talking to their friend. If they want something better, they can pay for the privilege. If you want to break the law, and then make a big deal that you've broken the law by not getting a license, then your intent is to change the law. At least you are willing to take the consequences. But you are simply saying "I won't pay the license fee, I don't like it". I am not in favor of breaking the law. I am also not in favor of unfair laws that penalize those with less money. I am certainly of in favor of paying through the nose for the privilege of providing a public service, which is what I and several other volunteers do at Yellowstone each summer, with no interference from the government or to other users. Again, justification of you illegality. Your objection doesnt change the fact that it is illegal. Just show me that the fee actually accomplishes something worthwhile, and is not wasted after it is collected, and I will retract. The fee covers the REGISTRATION, which keeps most people in line since they now are known by the FCC. How is that different from someone who ignores the laws because they think worry about interfering with emergency communication isn't important to them, or they think they have a right to the radio waves so it doesn't matter if their bootleg station interferes with an existing licensed radio station? It is different in that I consciously use the radio in an appropriate and useful way. I don't get on it and ramble or make noises or tread upon someone else's comms. Neither do any of the geyser watchers at the park. I use it to provide worthwhile information to other interested parties, including official information providers at a US Government installation. The summer network there at Yellowstone is invaluable for those who are charged with getting the information out to the public. But you still break the law. What does that make you? It makes you a law breaker. I talk on the radio less than 1/2 hour per year, total, only to report on-the-spot geyser information, to help other people enjoy an improved experience and to provide data points for possible future reasearch. It is the same freq used by everyone in the geyser basins, NPS included. If I could use a freebie-fee 27 MHz walkie-talkie, I would - but nobody would hear me, because it ain't what they use. Bruce Jensen Maybe they have licenses? If not, then they are in violation as well. If so, then maybe you need to get on board and stop illegal operations. B |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote: But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what the law SAYS that matters. Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters. What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"? Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it. dxAce Michigan USA |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 9, 5:47 pm, "Brian O" wrote: "bpnjensen" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 9, 12:16 pm, "Brian O" wrote: There are standars of right and wrong. The point is its illegal to operate a gmrs radio without a license. And my point is that it is unethical to require an outrageous fee for a license for this service. That's just as wrong, arguably worse, than operating wiothout a license. Sorry, but your opinion that it is unethical is just that, an opinion. If you dont like the law, lobby to change it. Its not an ourageous fee especially in the face of what a cell phone costs per year. I agree, it is an opinion, just as is your POV. I have explained elsewhere in this thread why I think the way I do. But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what the law SAYS that matters. Yes, you do, you can break the law by operating a gmrs radio without a license, or comply with the law and get a license to operate. Just because you don't pay for illegality now, doesn't mean you wont later. If you feel safe, you're welcome to it. But people that generally don't have regard enough for the law will turn gmrs into another cb radio band. I for one don't want to see that and will report people using the radios without a license. Fine, go ahead. I believe your opinion to be incorrect. As I have also explained elsewhere in this thread, I do not use the radio improperly, and in fact I use it for a valid and worthwhile public purpose ONLY. My transmissions are brief, to-the-point and limited to specific use in the Yellowstone geyser basins. There are plenty of unlicensed people there, nobody uses his/her call sign, and the NPS VC welcomes out information. Totally irrelivant. It doesnt matter how you use it, its still illegal if youre not following the law by being licensed. The GPs who show up there *with licenses* cannot say as much about their own transmissions. Luckily, the bands are not crowded at YNP. Then they should answer to the FCC as the FCC sees fit. You have no room to talk. Ah, a snitch, eh? What are you going to do, interrogate each user? Just report what I know. Or what you suspect? What I know. Now that you have publically stated where you are and when you operate and that you have no license, you are exposing yourself to retribution from the FCC. As I have explained before, I use them for a couple of weeks a year to report observations of geyser activity in Yellowstone National Park. This activity is very common among the geyser enthusiasts and scientists that congregate there. It is quite useful, is clearly not an abuse of the airwaves, and provides invaluable information to the Visitor Center who in turn provide geyser viewing advice to the millions of folks who visit each year. Now, if I read the rules correctly, the legal use of these devices requires frequent identification using the assigned call sign. In all of my experience there, I have not once heard an utterance of a call sign. This, in direct view of federal government employees that are also sworn peace oficers (rangers). That still doesn't give you an excuse to break the law. "No body else does it, why should I have to?" Your opinion. As I have stated, I disagree and am not going to be penalized for providing a public service. Again, not my opinion, or yours. Its what the law SAYS. You can try to justify your illegal operation all you wish. It still doesn't change the truth of your operations being illegal. It also doesn't change the truth that the law is wrong and benefits only the bureaucrats. BJ It may be wrong, but its not immoral, or unethical, therefore you have no moral basis to break that law. If you don't like it, then get off you illegal-operation backside and do something to change it through the system. B |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
If it is a matter of life or death,I believe the fcc will let such a
situation slide in case it's someone useing whatever kind of a radio,license or no license. cuhulin |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 9, 5:54 pm, "Brian O" wrote: Why do you pay for groceries? Why do those nasty grocery stores have to charge for them? How dare they? Even though they control all the groceries sold to them, they should not have any right to charge for them!! You, sir, do not own the airwaves, the American people say who operates and who does not. You sir are a thief, plain and simple. Bullsh** Nobody *owns* the airwaves any more than they own outer space. You need to speak with the FCC. Give me your phone number and Ill have them contact you. Groceries cost someone money to produce. Radio transmission medium costs nobody anything. The bureacrats are the thieves. Again, your opinion. If you dont like it, get the law, and the system changed. And a large fee on one limited-band service helps to protect this - how? By keeping renegades from wanting to use the service for abusive purposes. People that pay money for their licenses are much more responsible when they operate, especially since they are registered with an agency that can put them in jail if they dont. Oh, yeah - that worked really well with prohibition in the 1920's, didn't it? It was a total sucess with CB radio, wasn't it? It did until the deregulation of the CB band. Nonsense. If people want to abuse the use of 2-mile range walkie talkies, they're going to do it with or without a license. Responsible users, which I consider myself to be for reasons already stated, are going to use it properly and courteously...whether they have paid or not. albiet illegally So, the fee is going to make sure that my little 2-mile walkie talkie is not going to mess up a Homeland Security operation - how? There are a lot of businesses that use the same frequencies. If anarchy were to get started like it did when CB was deregulated, then those frequencies would be just a worthless as the CB. And I say, a license is not going to prevent a person from abusing a privilege. If the government merely wants to keep track, there is no reason why a license must cost $85. If they really don't want interference, they'd be better off not making the business frequencies available to the GP in the first place. The GMRS is much less prone to anarchy because the power is lower and the nature of the transmissions and signals is far different. Finally, I'll bet the only businesses that use these freqs extensively anymore are rural, where few GPs use the GMRS anyway...everyone else uses cell phones. You would lose the bet. Wrong. Period. There is considerable actual difference on the ground. One can directly affect health safety and welfare, the other cannot. Thats not entirely true. Sure it is. The effects on health and safety are purely a result of improper use, and a license does not prevent this. Many people with driver's licenses get out and behave miserably on the road every day - and those without licenses can go years without getting caught, by just being careful. But in the end, those that violate the law of operation are penalized, and those that dont have a license, even though they operate safely, when caught, are penalized. This, with *massive* police oversight at virtually all times. For something like a radio license, where oversight is minimal and the power and range are too low for most people to notice anyway - the success of this service wil ultimately depend on whether people *use* the radios properly or foolishly. Government regalation will not be the deciding factor. Yes, but the first step to misuse is illegal use. Wether by operation, or registration. Its not unreasonable at all. Yeah, it is. He who is unfaithful in little will be unfaithful with much. This is at least an opinion, or more realistically blather, and you know it. Life is not all or nothing, black and white. I have far more faith in individual humans to do the right thing at the right time than I do in some expensive goverment program to try to control what people do with the ether. I know that I will never abuse the ability to use the radio in a worthwhile and public-spirited way, whether I have paid the confounded fee or not. Youre already abusing the government, set up by the people of this country. You are as bad as someone that cheats on their taxes. Your point of view is no different than someone that robs a bank. Bullsh**. Someone who robs a bank wants to live for free, with no regard to who is losing as a result. I would never rob a bank, just like I would never interfere with someone else's valid communications; and I don't expect the government to rob me. One is not better or more acceptable than the other, legal or not. Bruce Jensen But you already are robbing the government of a legal fee. Again, no better than wanting it for free. B |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
www.devilfinder.com Old Faithful Webcam
I have been to Old Faithful before in Jellystone National Park,in 1956.My family and I spent the night in Jackson Hole,Wyoming.I like Wolf Creek,Wyoming.Frenchy's restaurant and that Railroad Track that goes through that tunnel in that Mountain. cuhulin |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in message oups.com... One more item on this matter - If I were to buy a license for the operations of these radios, it would be the first time - EVER - that I had paid more for the license than for the equipment itself. In this case, about 200% of the equipment value. When I got my Amateur radio license several years ago, it didn't cost nearly as much as the used equipment I had purchased for a decent price. When I got my CB license way back when, it cost $20 -seemed fairly steep at the time, but still only about 1/6th of what I paid for a single radio, and less than 7% of the overall investment (two radios plus base/mobile antennas was probably in the neighborhood of $350 all told). I got a lot of use out of both of those batches of equipment - thus, the prices of the licenses were both eminently reasonable. Now, the license costs twice as much as *two* of the radios themselves? Which I use a lot less than either of those older radio systems? This is to say nothing of the fact that a license to operate a car/boat/etc costs nowhere near the price of the vehicles, all of which have vastly more potential for abuse and irresponsible operation, with far greater consequences, than 5-watt walkies talkies with a two-mile effective range. Heavy equipment operators and truck drivers would go belly-up instantly if the government tried to charge a proportionally high kind of license fee. Nowhere is there a license whose fee is so high in comparison to the equipment being operated. I think the FCC is off its rocker. This is really an irrelevant point. The cost of the equipment has nothing to do with what and why a fee is charged. If you had a $2K gmrs basestation, then you would pay the fee?? What strange thinking. If you want a kids toy, change to 49 mhz units. What you want is something that will go for a good distance. Therefore you need to pay the fee to register. You did that for your ham license. If you had a fleapower qrp station, you still would have to pay the fee. Again the cost is totally irrelevant to the equipment used. As a fellow ham, I would think you would know why the fee needs to be paid. Although, maybe your a no-code that has no concept of operating being a privilege and not a right. Maybe the FCC IS off its rocker, but that is not an excuse to rob the government of a fee. That is just thievery, plain and simple sir. Again, if you don't like it, do something to change it besides anarchy. B |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, "Brian O" wrote:
This is really an irrelevant point. No it isn't. The cost of the equipment has nothing to do with what and why a fee is charged. It certainly isn't anymore - *now* its to pad someone's pocket. If you had a $2K gmrs basestation, then you would pay the fee?? I might - but then I'd be using it for something a lot more substantial with greater reach, wouldn't I? You know, here in California, there is requirement that any fee has to have a nexus and a sense of proportion to the activity being regulated. That's only fair. It requires the fee collector to perform a rigorous exercise to justify the level of fees. However, when the fee greatly exceeds the value of the equuipment being operated, and there seems to be no valuable use for the after the payment, something's rotten in Denmark. What strange thinking. Look who's talking! You sound like a Communist, supporting total regulation of every damn piddling aspect of your life! By your arguments, we should submit to whatever fee the government wants us to pay for anything! Oh, you bought a new bicycle? $1,000 please. Ah, a toy train? $450 please. A pair of water skis? Wow, that'll be $1,500 please! If you want a kids toy, change to 49 mhz units. What you want is something that will go for a good distance. No, what I want is something that will communicate over short distances with the OF visitor center. A few times a year. A 27 MHz or 49 MHz walkie talkie won't do that because they don't have that equipment in the the VC. If they did, I'd use one. Therefore you need to pay the fee to register. Like a good little sheep...right? Since when are you such a government booster? You did that for your ham license. It sure as hell wasn't $800 I paid to use $400 of equipment. If you had a fleapower qrp station, you still would have to pay the fee. Still a cheap fee by comparison. Again the cost is totally irrelevant to the equipment used. I disagree. As a fellow ham, I would think you would know why the fee needs to be paid. Although, maybe your a no-code that has no concept of operating being a privilege and not a right. Babble babble babble. I got my license decades ago when the code was de riguer, and the FCC didn't want to screw people. I think your idea of why the fee gets paid is pretty vague, and also your understanding of how fee levels are determined. Maybe the FCC IS off its rocker, but that is not an excuse to rob the government of a fee. That is just thievery, plain and simple sir. Like stealing back your wallet after it's been pilfered? You seem to suuport the government's thievery, but when a citizen refuses to pay an exorbitant fee, you scold him? Listen if they want to charge a reasonable fee for small usage, I'll pay it. When they resort to highway robbery, forget it. Again, if you don't like it, do something to change it besides anarchy. You sound miffed :-) Feelings of inadequacy? Maybe you should send the FCC guys up to Yellowstone this summer so they can spy on, and get those scofflaws, screw up the communications and **** off the NPS visitor center guys - eh? Maybe then you'd have a real feeling of accomplishment. Proably more than arguing with me, anyway. The only thing my wasting $85 on a license would do is make Big Brother complacent enough to ignore me, having gotten their pound of flesh, and then I could act like a total jackass on the radio - hmmm - maybe I should - that sounds fun! I'm done. Say what you like, but you're supporting an unethical and excessive fee structure that might freeze out some valid users. Bruce Jensen |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 11:52 am, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote: But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what the law SAYS that matters. Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters. What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"? Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it. dxAce Michigan USA It may. I don't know the full GMRS law or general law on radios. I was using an extreme example to make a point anyway - if it has holes, then pick something less extreme. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
Interesting that Jackson Hole got it's name from William C. ''Teton''
Jackson,a premier horse thief.I like that. cuhulin |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 9, 4:19 pm, (Michael Black) wrote: "bpnjensen" ) writes: If you transmit on GMRS without a license, then the rules can't mean a thing to you since you've already broken the rule that requires a license to use the band. This is an unreasonable illogical emotionally-based extrapolation, and is beside the point. Once again, what effect exactly will the fee have on my operation of the radio, other than the vague notion that some bureaucrat knows I exist? The fee limits who can use the band, so it ensures that it doesn't get so crowded that it's unuseable. Oh, I get it. Thus, even if someone has a valid use for the radio, if they cannot afford it, they are stuck, up the creek without an aerial. Real sweet, real public-interest minded. I still say, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT WHETHER THE RADIO IS USED PROPERLY? Again, that's the same principal as all the radio regulations. Take them away, and you get a free for all, like in the early days of radio. A free-for-all with radios that communicate at maximum a few miles? Yeah, sure. besides a fee is not going to prevent improper use of the radio. That ship at sea couldn't send out the SOS because the band was crowded with land based transmitters. If anyone can use the GMRS band, then chances are those who were using it for serious use won't be able to do so because it's either too crowded, or because someone who doesn't know what they are doing is playing around. A fee does not mean that someone knows what he is doing. It might mean that only the rich get to use it, though. (balance of content stipulated) Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The other is the license. The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within regulatory limits. The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations, making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators not in compliance. The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract, ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract binding. The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified. The third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum from being overcrowded. Sometimes there are privileges that are accessible to those successful enough to afford them. There is nothing wrong with that. These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not guaranteed for every citizen. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. p |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 11:52 am, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote: But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what the law SAYS that matters. Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters. What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"? Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it. dxAce Michigan USA I rechecked the GMRS rules - if I read it right, the rules provide that a licensee may permit a person *not normally authorized to operate the radio* to use it for emergency communications - like your buddy or someone else not a family member. The GMRS rules do not, as far as I can tell, say that an unlicensed owner of a radio may use it for emergency communication. This could be a technicality, and might be legally overlooked in real life. It sure is fun pushing Brian O's buttons, though. BJ |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 1:56 pm, "Brian O" wrote:
You know, here in California, there is requirement that any fee has to have a nexus and a sense of proportion to the activity being regulated. That's only fair. That doesnt apply to federal fees. California.....now I understand... Yeah - California gets it *right* - and passes a law keeping bureaucrats honest - while the feds keep on stealing us blind. It requires the fee collector to perform a rigorous exercise to justify the level of fees. However, when the fee greatly exceeds the value of the equuipment being operated, and there seems to be no valuable use for the after the payment, something's rotten in Denmark. Of course, most stuff in California is rotten... Oh, yeah, nothing like your vaunted Federal Government where everything is done according to Hoyle and nobody is dishonest or underhanded. Sheesh, if that isn't a freaky attitude, I don't know what is. Our government was founded on law. When people like you take the law into their own hands, anarchy erupts. Founded on law but run by scoundrels. Sometimes anarchy works. People exceeding the speed limit, for example. Most speed limits used to be ridiculously low, and almost nobody observed them...went way too fast, in fact...and despite the tickets the anarchists got, speeds did not drop. Finally about 12 - 15 years back, the Feds restored sanity to speed limit laws, raised them for highways, and now most people observe the speed limits, even if they aren't quite as a fast as folks used to go. It wasn't because the American motorist rose up and petioned Washingon - it was because a few smart people paid attention to what the anarchists were saying with their higher "illegal" speeds. Stealing is stealing, no matter how you justify it. That's right - and when the Feds do it, it's still stealing, no matter how *you* justify it. Go for it. Illegality breeds irresponsibility. Nope. Onerous government regs do. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"Brian O" ) writes:
Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or unethical? Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay or operate illegally. Actually, the choice can include "finding alternatives". And that's what blows his justification up. He has a ham license, yet that's no good for reasons he's bound to come up with. He could use FRS walkie talkies, an allocation for people who need some communication capability but don't want to pay a license fee, and are willing to share with the masses. He can use CB, that was intended for this sort of thing, and no longer even has a license. He can use field telephones, complete with the roll of wire. He can use semaphore, or blinkers. He can write the message down, and either pass it on later, or use a messenger to deliver it. Undoubtedly he has all kinds of reasons why none of them work. The problem is, that once he starts judging that way, it's easy to say "well somewhere in the aero band would be perfect, I think I'll use that". And that completely ignores the issue of the ultimate importance of all this. Obviously if someone is an emergency situation, then just about anything goes. But, they'd better be careful that they actually have properly judged the emergency to warrant the use, because if they think it's okay to use police freqencies to call for someone to come and repair a flat tire, they'd likely judge wrong. One alone may not impact on emergency communicaiton, but once everyone starts doing it, that ruins the frequency. Even if there were no alternative communcation methods available, the justification of breaking the law would depend on how important this is. "But I want to" isn't justification. Don't be fooled by his references to "civil disobedience". Because that's about changing things, and all he's doing is conveniencing himself. ANd the joke is, since he claims to have a ham license, is that there have been cases of people losing their ham licenses because they had disregard for rules in the other services. THe FCC may decide that if he shows such bad interpretation of the rules with GMRS, then he can't be trusted with a ham license. Michael |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote: But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what the law SAYS that matters. Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters. No, its not opinion, its legal statute. It doenst matter what people do. What is legal is legal, no matter WHAT people do. What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"? You are not aware of the law. There are circumstances where the law does allow operations in situations where life or property may be lost. That doesnt cover what you are doing however. I know that using it for general public information is not the same as saving lives - but your assertions that laws must be slavishly followed for vague and untenable reasons just doesn't cut the mustard. IMO. Exactly, in your opinion. But again, its what the law SAYS, not what your opinion is. Totally irrelivant. It doesnt matter how you use it, its still illegal if youre not following the law by being licensed. And I say, Big Deal. My otherwise responsible use for valuable purposes is not harming anybody at all, and is helping many. You dont know its not harming anyone, and that again is irrelivant to the point of legality. The GPs who show up there *with licenses* cannot say as much about their own transmissions. Luckily, the bands are not crowded at YNP. Then they should answer to the FCC as the FCC sees fit. You have no room to talk. BS. I can say whatever I want about any topic I wish. No, not really. And you missed the point. Just because they operate poorly does not excuse your illegality, that is where you dont have room to talk. What I know. Now that you have publically stated where you are and when you operate and that you have no license, you are exposing yourself to retribution from the FCC. I invite them to prove a single incident based on what I've said here. For all you know, I am lying through my teeth. Also permitted. Not in court its not. Keep it up. You may wind up there. It may be wrong, but its not immoral, or unethical Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or unethical? Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay or operate illegally. Here's a definition from Webster hisself: Wrong: (2) Something wrong, immoral or unethical, esp: principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law. "Immoral" and "unethical" are right in there. therefore you have no moral basis to break that law. That's what the establishment always says. If you don't like it, then get off you illegal-operation backside and do something to change it through the system. For all you know, I am. I doubt it or you wouldn't have time to post in here. B |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 11, 12:06 pm, "Brian O" wrote: This is really an irrelevant point. No it isn't. Yes it is. Cost of the equipment is irrelivant to the fee of the license. A ham pays the fee for the license, but he might be using a $5 homemade tranciever. That doesnt give him a right not to pay the fee. The fee and the test EARN him the privilage to operate on the ham bands. Not the cost of his equipment. The cost of the equipment has nothing to do with what and why a fee is charged. It certainly isn't anymore - *now* its to pad someone's pocket. So they should give you a license for free? You want to use the radio. pay the fee to process the paperwork so the FCC will know where you are when you operate. If you had a $2K gmrs basestation, then you would pay the fee?? I might - but then I'd be using it for something a lot more substantial with greater reach, wouldn't I? You know, here in California, there is requirement that any fee has to have a nexus and a sense of proportion to the activity being regulated. That's only fair. That doesnt apply to federal fees. California.....now I understand... It requires the fee collector to perform a rigorous exercise to justify the level of fees. However, when the fee greatly exceeds the value of the equuipment being operated, and there seems to be no valuable use for the after the payment, something's rotten in Denmark. Of course, most stuff in California is rotten... What strange thinking. Look who's talking! You sound like a Communist, supporting total regulation of every damn piddling aspect of your life! By your arguments, we should submit to whatever fee the government wants us to pay for anything! You have the right to lobby and change the law. You dont have the right to operate illegally. Oh, you bought a new bicycle? $1,000 please. Ah, a toy train? $450 please. A pair of water skis? Wow, that'll be $1,500 please! If you want a kids toy, change to 49 mhz units. What you want is something that will go for a good distance. No, what I want is something that will communicate over short distances with the OF visitor center. A few times a year. A 27 MHz or 49 MHz walkie talkie won't do that because they don't have that equipment in the the VC. If they did, I'd use one. Therefore you need to pay the fee to register. Like a good little sheep...right? Since when are you such a government booster? Our government was founded on law. When people like you take the law into their own hands, anarchy erupts. You did that for your ham license. It sure as hell wasn't $800 I paid to use $400 of equipment. Again irrelivant. If you had a fleapower qrp station, you still would have to pay the fee. Still a cheap fee by comparison. Again the cost is totally irrelevant to the equipment used. I disagree. You can disagree but the law is still there. As a fellow ham, I would think you would know why the fee needs to be paid. Although, maybe your a no-code that has no concept of operating being a privilege and not a right. Babble babble babble. I got my license decades ago when the code was de riguer, and the FCC didn't want to screw people. I think your idea of why the fee gets paid is pretty vague, and also your understanding of how fee levels are determined. You can think what you want I suppose. Maybe the FCC IS off its rocker, but that is not an excuse to rob the government of a fee. That is just thievery, plain and simple sir. Like stealing back your wallet after it's been pilfered? You seem to suuport the government's thievery, but when a citizen refuses to pay an exorbitant fee, you scold him? Stealing is stealing, no matter how you justify it. Listen if they want to charge a reasonable fee for small usage, I'll pay it. When they resort to highway robbery, forget it. Again, if you don't like it, do something to change it besides anarchy. You sound miffed :-) Feelings of inadequacy? Maybe you should send the FCC guys up to Yellowstone this summer so they can spy on, and get those scofflaws, screw up the communications and **** off the NPS visitor center guys - eh? Maybe then you'd have a real feeling of accomplishment. Proably more than arguing with me, anyway. Not miffed at all. Thiefs are common even in the Parks. The only thing my wasting $85 on a license would do is make Big Brother complacent enough to ignore me, having gotten their pound of flesh, and then I could act like a total jackass on the radio - hmmm - maybe I should - that sounds fun! Go for it. Illegality breeds irresponsibility. I'm done. Say what you like, but you're supporting an unethical and excessive fee structure that might freeze out some valid users. Bruce Jensen If you don't like it, again, you can do something about it. But operating illegally is what it is. B |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 1:44 pm, "Brian O" wrote:
You are not aware of the law. There are circumstances where the law does allow operations in situations where life or property may be lost. That doesnt cover what you are doing however. Can you point out one? Besides, it might just cover what I am doing. People do burn themselves in the boiling water occasionally, and if it gets an ambulance down there faster, I will use that radio, license be damned. You don't know its not harming anyone, and that again is irrelivant to the point of legality. I'd challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise. As to harm, the burden of proof is on the accuser. You know that. BS. I can say whatever I want about any topic I wish. No, not really. Yes - really! I invite them to prove a single incident based on what I've said here. For all you know, I am lying through my teeth. Also permitted. Not in court its not. Keep it up. You may wind up there. This isn't court, is it? Stop pretending. Someone in authority has to register a complaint first. Nobody has caught me operating without a license. Why, when my transmissions have been out for all to see and hear, in plain sight of the federal government? For all you know, I have a license! That doesn't mean I think the government overcharging for a pittance of a service is right. More likely, it is because nobody really cares when no harm is done and the service provided is of value to so many. Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay or operate illegally. It is, when it is a government agency. They have an ethical obligation to charge no more than necessary to accomplish an essential task. If they overcharge, they have blown it. As a probable fiscal conservative, you also know that. BJ |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 1:29 pm, (Michael Black) wrote:
"Brian O" ) writes: Well, what in hell does "wrong" mean to you, if not immoral or unethical? Its not unethical or immoral to charge whatever someone wants to charge for a service. They can charge what they want to. You have the choice to pay or operate illegally. Actually, the choice can include "finding alternatives". And that's what blows his justification up. He has a ham license, yet that's no good for reasons he's bound to come up with. He could use FRS walkie talkies, an allocation for people who need some communication capability but don't want to pay a license fee, and are willing to share with the masses. He can use CB, that was intended for this sort of thing, and no longer even has a license. He can use field telephones, complete with the roll of wire. He can use semaphore, or blinkers. He can write the message down, and either pass it on later, or use a messenger to deliver it. Undoubtedly he has all kinds of reasons why none of them work. The problem is, that once he starts judging that way, it's easy to say "well somewhere in the aero band would be perfect, I think I'll use that". You are right - there are simple straightforward reasons why none of the alternatives you suggest would work. You are also wrong - I would never, ever use a service, GMRS included, where the potential for interference in a potential emergency were more than negligible. In aero bands, police services or any other essential government radio service, or the amateur bands, the possibility would *never* occur. Again, it isn't about what some bureaucrat thinks is right - it is about what IS right. And that completely ignores the issue of the ultimate importance of all this. Obviously if someone is an emergency situation, then just about anything goes. But, they'd better be careful that they actually have properly judged the emergency to warrant the use, because if they think it's okay to use police freqencies to call for someone to come and repair a flat tire, they'd likely judge wrong. One alone may not impact on emergency communicaiton, but once everyone starts doing it, that ruins the frequency. GMRS has several dozen freqs if you include the subchannels. In Yellowstone, emergency comms are rarely on anything but official park radio service equipment, not on GMRS freqs. With the single channel used by geyser monitors, and the fact that all of the other channels are wide open and practically unused by anybody in that mountainous terrain except for occasional kids and parents on an outing (and these comms are usually goofy if you have a chance to listen), the legal argument is a very poor match for reality. In fact, in the geyser basins themselves, it is quite obvious that all of the unlicensed radio users there would become the de facto emergency network if a mishap occurred. The NPS would depend on them to find out where a rescue would need to take place. Even if there were no alternative communcation methods available, the justification of breaking the law would depend on how important this is. "But I want to" isn't justification. The fact is, I don't want to break the law. I am a far straighter- shooter than most other people, and I have no arrests for misdemeanors or felonies anywhere in my 47-yaer-record. A handful of traffic tickets, mostly mistakes, are my entire retinue. However, I don't want to be screwed by my government either. This fee is a screwjob. Don't be fooled by his references to "civil disobedience". Because that's about changing things, and all he's doing is conveniencing himself. Your interpretation from afar. You don't know half the story. And the joke is, since he claims to have a ham license, is that there have been cases of people losing their ham licenses because they had disregard for rules in the other services. THe FCC may decide that if he shows such bad interpretation of the rules with GMRS, then he can't be trusted with a ham license. ....and those are the kind of people who will likely use the ham bands illegally as well. The joke is, none of what you describe here will ever happen. My interpretation of the rules is perfect (except for that excessive fee), and more importantly my *execution* of operations according to rules is exemplary, as it was on the ham bands and CB when I used those. Bruce Jensen |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 1:12 pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The other is the license. The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within regulatory limits. The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations, making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators not in compliance. I disagree with none of this. The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract, ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract binding. Not every contract, even one in which one or another side is materially (as opposed to behaviorally) obligated, requires a fee to be binding, but that's beside the point for now. The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified. Understood, and I don't deny that this oversight is necessary, however - I assume then that you believe the cost of administering GMRS and oversight is a bit higher (and an immense amount higher per watt used) than for amateur radio? Assuming such oversight actually occurs on a regular basis? Another way to put this last comment - once the fees are collected, do they go to the FCC, or to the General Treasury Fund of the US for redistribution as Congress directs? And if the latter, does the FCC get back all that it collects for its operations? My point there is, lots of fees that are collected are cash cows for their respective agencies or umbrella agencies, and I wonder about the FCC as much as any. The third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum from being overcrowded. Maybe, but given the populist-sounding intent of the GMRS (which is almost identical to FRS in its family-friendly language), I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "minor." Further, I am not sure that with so many channels, such low inherent wattage and the inherent nature of this kind of signal at these freqs, the issue of crowding would ever become serious. 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. These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not guaranteed for every citizen. No, only to the "priviliged class," I guess. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. Here, we disagree. I can afford to get the license, and the radios, if I so choose. It is, however, not hard to imagine poorer people than I who would have a better use for these radios and who may actually need them far more than I would, but the license "privilege" may be too high in cost. I detect unfairness in this system, analogously as I would with a flat income tax. Bruce Jensen |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 11, 1:12 pm, D Peter Maus wrote: Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The other is the license. The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within regulatory limits. The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations, making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators not in compliance. I disagree with none of this. The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract, ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract binding. Not every contract, even one in which one or another side is materially (as opposed to behaviorally) obligated, requires a fee to be binding, but that's beside the point for now. The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified. Understood, and I don't deny that this oversight is necessary, however - I assume then that you believe the cost of administering GMRS and oversight is a bit higher (and an immense amount higher per watt used) than for amateur radio? Assuming such oversight actually occurs on a regular basis? Another way to put this last comment - once the fees are collected, do they go to the FCC, or to the General Treasury Fund of the US for redistribution as Congress directs? And if the latter, does the FCC get back all that it collects for its operations? My point there is, lots of fees that are collected are cash cows for their respective agencies or umbrella agencies, and I wonder about the FCC as much as any. The third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum from being overcrowded. Maybe, but given the populist-sounding intent of the GMRS (which is almost identical to FRS in its family-friendly language), I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "minor." Further, I am not sure that with so many channels, such low inherent wattage and the inherent nature of this kind of signal at these freqs, the issue of crowding would ever become serious. 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. These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not guaranteed for every citizen. No, only to the "priviliged class," I guess. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. Here, we disagree. I can afford to get the license, and the radios, if I so choose. It is, however, not hard to imagine poorer people than I who would have a better use for these radios and who may actually need them far more than I would, but the license "privilege" may be too high in cost. I detect unfairness in this system, analogously as I would with a flat income tax. Why would a flat income tax be unfair, if it treats all the same? |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
bpnjensen wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:12 pm, D Peter Maus wrote: Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The other is the license. The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within regulatory limits. The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations, making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators not in compliance. I disagree with none of this. The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract, ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract binding. Not every contract, even one in which one or another side is materially (as opposed to behaviorally) obligated, requires a fee to be binding, but that's beside the point for now. Actually, you're wrong about that. Contract law holds that a contract, to be a contract, must include an exchange of consideration on both sides. In this case: Privileges in the radio service in question, and the cash fee. Without the cash fee, or other consideration, there is no contract, and the obligations and responsibilities that come with the privileges are not legally conferred. The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified. Understood, and I don't deny that this oversight is necessary, however - I assume then that you believe the cost of administering GMRS and oversight is a bit higher (and an immense amount higher per watt used) than for amateur radio? Assuming such oversight actually occurs on a regular basis? GRMS is more tightly overseen than FRS, or CB. Administrative costs will be somewhat higher. Especially in areas of high congestion...cities for instance, GRMS administration costs can be higher. Amateur service is it the same kind of service as GRMS. HF amateur service isn't for local or on-site communications as GRMS, nor is it utilized by business for important communication. Construction sits may have 200 radios on site. Security companies utilize GRMS both on site, and for units deployed in the field. Density of usage in cities for GRMS is much higher than Amateur communications. Interference is a greater issue. Amateur communication is, by charter, to be limited to unimportant communications. Emergency service excepted. Amateur VHF and above is operated within different contexts than GRMS, even in cities, with far less operator density. So, administration of GRMS can be more involved. But GRMS fee usage is not limited to GMRS administration. They also help fund the Agency. Another way to put this last comment - once the fees are collected, do they go to the FCC, or to the General Treasury Fund of the US for redistribution as Congress directs? And if the latter, does the FCC get back all that it collects for its operations? My point there is, lots of fees that are collected are cash cows for their respective agencies or umbrella agencies, and I wonder about the FCC as much as any. FCC does what it can to fund it's own operation. License fees, spectrum auctions...all part of the pot. The third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum from being overcrowded. Maybe, but given the populist-sounding intent of the GMRS (which is almost identical to FRS in its family-friendly language), I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "minor." Further, I am not sure that with so many channels, such low inherent wattage and the inherent nature of this kind of signal at these freqs, the issue of crowding would ever become serious. GRMS is frequently used in cities, under crowded conditions, for, among other things, businesses, and security applications, were interference can be far more than just a nuisance. Sometimes there are privileges that are accessible to those successful enough to afford them. There is nothing wrong with that. Again, I refer you to the stated and very populist-sounding intent for the GMRS. There is, in my mind, an inconsistency. And wrt democratic government, I'm not sure I agree at all with this philosophy. Populist sounding is not "populist". As differentiated by the need for a license. These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not guaranteed for every citizen. No, only to the "priviliged class," I guess. For those who are successful enough to afford them. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. Here, we disagree. I can afford to get the license, and the radios, if I so choose. It is, however, not hard to imagine poorer people than I who would have a better use for these radios and who may actually need them far more than I would, but the license "privilege" may be too high in cost. I detect unfairness in this system, analogously as I would with a flat income tax. Poorer people would not be in a position to require handheld radios for their businesses, or even family outings. If they can't afford the license, it's not likely they'll be spending the money for the hardware, or the circumstances that would require it. For them, the more populist services will be adequate. Again, we're not talking about rights, here. But privileges. And those are not guaranteed to every citizen. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 11, 1:12 pm, D Peter Maus wrote: Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The other is the license. The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within regulatory limits. The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations, making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators not in compliance. I disagree with none of this. The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract, ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract binding. Not every contract, even one in which one or another side is materially (as opposed to behaviorally) obligated, requires a fee to be binding, but that's beside the point for now. The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified. Understood, and I don't deny that this oversight is necessary, however - I assume then that you believe the cost of administering GMRS and oversight is a bit higher (and an immense amount higher per watt used) than for amateur radio? Assuming such oversight actually occurs on a regular basis? Another way to put this last comment - once the fees are collected, do they go to the FCC, or to the General Treasury Fund of the US for redistribution as Congress directs? And if the latter, does the FCC get back all that it collects for its operations? My point there is, lots of fees that are collected are cash cows for their respective agencies or umbrella agencies, and I wonder about the FCC as much as any. The third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum from being overcrowded. Maybe, but given the populist-sounding intent of the GMRS (which is almost identical to FRS in its family-friendly language), I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "minor." Further, I am not sure that with so many channels, such low inherent wattage and the inherent nature of this kind of signal at these freqs, the issue of crowding would ever become serious. 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. These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not guaranteed for every citizen. No, only to the "priviliged class," I guess. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. Here, we disagree. I can afford to get the license, and the radios, if I so choose. It is, however, not hard to imagine poorer people than I who would have a better use for these radios and who may actually need them far more than I would, but the license "privilege" may be too high in cost. I detect unfairness in this system, analogously as I would with a flat income tax. Why would a flat income tax be unfair, if it treats all the same? I'm wondering that, as well. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 11, 1:44 pm, "Brian O" wrote: You are not aware of the law. There are circumstances where the law does allow operations in situations where life or property may be lost. That doesnt cover what you are doing however. Can you point out one? There is in existance, in practice, if not in statute, a rule that states you may use any frequency to summon help when life or limb are in danger. These days, I think it would be a lot more difficult to prove you needed to do so, since such things as cell phones, etc. are readily available to anyone, and if you're back far enough in the toolies that you can't get to a phone, you're not likely to be heard on VHF or UHF anyway.. and not a lot of back country types cart around an HF rig and antenna system. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
|
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
dxAce wrote in
: bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 11, 11:53 am, "Brian O" wrote: But thats the whole point. Your opinion, and mine, doesnt matter. Its what the law SAYS that matters. Opinion again. IMO, it's what people really do that matters. What if a person had no license to operate a GMRS radio, and he does not becasue the law prohibits it, but comes upon a situation where if he does not, lives could be lost. Does he use the radio anyway, or slavishly adhere to the law? Does his use to save lives make him no better than a robber? How stubbornly must the law be followed, in your opinion, to be "right" instead of "wrong"? Doesn't the law make an exception where lives could be lost? I can't recall the legal term for it. Yes... BUT... It has to be a situation where you are facing *IMMEDIATE* death. Example: Tornado warning.... use radio to warn others... NOT LEGAL Tornado is destroying your home with you in it...call for help. LEGAL Also, be prepared to fight in court. Many cases where folks have accessed law enforcement frequencies have ended up badly for those who tried to use this rule. Crossposted to alt.radio.gmras where this thread belongs. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"bpnjensen" wrote in
oups.com: It may. I don't know the full GMRS law or general law on radios. I was using an extreme example to make a point anyway - if it has holes, then pick something less extreme. http://www.geocities.com/gmrspage/GMRS_Regulations.html Crossposted to alt.radio.gmrs, where this thread belongs. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 3:31 pm, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote: On Apr 11, 1:12 pm, D Peter Maus wrote: Bruce, the license is part of a two pronged approach to reigning in potential abuse of the system. One is the regulations themselves. The other is the license. The regulations establish procedures by which operators occupy the spectra, the assignment of spectra based on application, and the technical parameters that must be met in order to operate within regulatory limits. The license, is a paper trail that 1) Identifies the operator, and verifies him/her as a valid operator to both the regulatory agency and other operators, 2) identifies the operator as signatory to a contract between the operator and the regulatory agency stipulating the operator knows, understands, and will operate in compliance with the regulations, making him or her responsible for compliance, 3) permits the regulatory agency to take swift and purposeful action against operators not in compliance. I disagree with none of this. The fee does three things. One is that it is part of the contract, ie, consideration given for value received, and makes the contract binding. Not every contract, even one in which one or another side is materially (as opposed to behaviorally) obligated, requires a fee to be binding, but that's beside the point for now. The second is that it helps pay for the operation of the regulatory agency overseeing the use of the spectrum as specified. Understood, and I don't deny that this oversight is necessary, however - I assume then that you believe the cost of administering GMRS and oversight is a bit higher (and an immense amount higher per watt used) than for amateur radio? Assuming such oversight actually occurs on a regular basis? Another way to put this last comment - once the fees are collected, do they go to the FCC, or to the General Treasury Fund of the US for redistribution as Congress directs? And if the latter, does the FCC get back all that it collects for its operations? My point there is, lots of fees that are collected are cash cows for their respective agencies or umbrella agencies, and I wonder about the FCC as much as any. The third, though minor, is that it inhibits incentive to some operators to discourage them from acquiring privileges in order to keep the spectrum from being overcrowded. Maybe, but given the populist-sounding intent of the GMRS (which is almost identical to FRS in its family-friendly language), I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "minor." Further, I am not sure that with so many channels, such low inherent wattage and the inherent nature of this kind of signal at these freqs, the issue of crowding would ever become serious. 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. These are not rights, but privileges. Meaning they are not guaranteed for every citizen. No, only to the "priviliged class," I guess. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. Here, we disagree. I can afford to get the license, and the radios, if I so choose. It is, however, not hard to imagine poorer people than I who would have a better use for these radios and who may actually need them far more than I would, but the license "privilege" may be too high in cost. I detect unfairness in this system, analogously as I would with a flat income tax. Why would a flat income tax be unfair, if it treats all the same?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In theory, it sounds fair, but it cannot account for wide disparity in income and net personal value, and the simple fact that there is a lower baseline income beyond which a person cannot afford to survive. For those who are at the poverty line or below, a flat tax could well make life practically impossible. For people who depend on a minimum wage or a waitress's tips, it could make the difference between a roof over their heads or life in a cardboard box. From a slightly different angle, I do notice that some of the proposals exempt those at or near the poverty level; this seems like stab in the right direction, and still retains a strong sense of progressiveness. However, none of the proposals avoid placing the onus of the budgetary balance on the wages of the middle class, which stands to lose a great deal. Simply put, a strong, numerous and comfortable middle class is the backbone of any democracy, and I believe the long term effect of a flat tax would also be to further erode the middle class income brackets and thus the basis of the democratic republic in which we live. There is nothing new here that hasn't been said and/or considered by many people on both sides the aisle, many far more knowledgeable and historically informed than I. These matters simply happen to be the ones that strike me as the most critical in the big picture. I am one of those relatively few fortunate people who would benefit financially somewhat from most of the flat tax proposals out there. I still believe it would be unfair to the less well-off, and bad for the the republic. That's all I will say about that matter. Bruce Jensen |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
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 |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
On Apr 11, 10:50 pm, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"bpnjensen" wrote in message ups.com... On Apr 11, 1:44 pm, "Brian O" wrote: You are not aware of the law. There are circumstances where the law does allow operations in situations where life or property may be lost. That doesnt cover what you are doing however. Can you point out one? There is in existance, in practice, if not in statute, a rule that states you may use any frequency to summon help when life or limb are in danger. These days, I think it would be a lot more difficult to prove you needed to do so, since such things as cell phones, etc. are readily available to anyone, and if you're back far enough in the toolies that you can't get to a phone, you're not likely to be heard on VHF or UHF anyway.. and not a lot of back country types cart around an HF rig and antenna system. I agree, and I'd bet there is probably a statute as well. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
Suppose,just supposing,if you bought a motor scooter for peanuts at a
scrap iron yard/junk yard.You took the scooter home and all it needed to get it running real good is cleaning the spark plug and some fresh gasoline and change the oil and filter(s).You decide you will once in a while ride that scooter to work or to the stores or ride it around on the streets/highways,just for fun.You still would have to get that scooter registered and pay some money for a license plate for that scooter.Operating a motor vehicle on public streets.roads/highways/interstates is not a right,it is a privaledge. Some radios,using them,even if you screw up,your license can get yanked away from you.So,get a license (if a license is required for such and such whatever kind of radio(s) to use that radio and keep the FCC off of your back. cuhulin |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"John" wrote in message ... wrote in news:1851-461ACF71-664@storefull- 3255.bay.webtv.net: I don't own any GMRS radios.Are y'all talking about those two way walkie talkie radios I see for sale in the Wal Mart stores and similar stores? They require a license?,,, I didn't know that.How about those Nextel cell phones that also have built in walkie talkies? Nextel cell phones do not require a license. In the Nextel example, Nextel itself is licensed on the frequencies, for that purpose, and the caller is doing so on Nextel's license. -- William Baldwin, Jr MBA HCM program at the Univ of Phoenix Ground below Zero at New Orleans area La. go to: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"John" wrote in message ... Craig Schroeder wrote in : http://tinyurl.com/ypf46y That's an older article. Now the FCC is back on board with the PRA. There are several high-profile enforcement actions pending. I doubt the FCC is "on board" with anybody, which would be illegal anyway. The FCC does what it whims, and the PRA either likes it or not. When they didn't, they wrote the pouting, exaggerated article about how they weren't getting their way. Now that the FCC are taking actions they agree with, it's an "outdated article". -- William Baldwin, Jr MBA HCM program at the Univ of Phoenix Ground below Zero at New Orleans area La. go to: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"WILLIAM BALDWIN JR" wrote in
: "John" wrote in message ... wrote in news:1851-461ACF71-664@storefull- 3255.bay.webtv.net: I don't own any GMRS radios.Are y'all talking about those two way walkie talkie radios I see for sale in the Wal Mart stores and similar stores? They require a license?,,, I didn't know that.How about those Nextel cell phones that also have built in walkie talkies? Nextel cell phones do not require a license. In the Nextel example, Nextel itself is licensed on the frequencies, for that purpose, and the caller is doing so on Nextel's license. You misquoted. I didn't write the NextHell part. |
why Bother getting a licence to use a GMRS radio?
"WILLIAM BALDWIN JR" wrote in
: I doubt the FCC is this strict. Was it an emergency, yes or no? The example above makes it sound like it has to be a MAJOR emergency, IMMINENT, or that the user must be personally involved. The FCC has other priorities than the PRA's paranoia / Jealousies. their rulings would therefore be a somewhat lower bar than an opinion of the PRA. This was my opinion only. Not the PRA's. I cannot speak for the PRA. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com