"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.

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

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

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.

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

"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

"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

"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.

"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.

"John" wrote in message
...
"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.

Sorry, John, it *DOES* look like I was quoting and replying to you. Under
your name it shows that you were replying to , whose
question about Nextel was the one I was answering. The NextHell is cute, is
their a story in there??

--
William Baldwin, Jr
MBA HCM program at the Univ of Phoenix
Ground below Zero at New Orleans area La.
go to: www.coastguardauxiliaryslidell8cr.us