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.

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

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

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

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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