"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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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?
cuhulin


The manuals of all radios are required to indicate the requirement for a
license.

Crossposted to alt.radio.gmras where this thread belongs.

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.