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