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