[AMRadio] AMRadio Digest, Vol 197, Issue 4
Larry Oneets
oneets123 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 4 20:55:43 EDT 2020
Well not all of us spend thousands of dollars on equipment, some old stuff
from Ebay and mostly home brew stuff. Don't have the cash for the "good"
stuff. A 2 or 3 tube cw transmitter will work as good as a 2 or 3 thousand
dollar transmitter A hundred dollar receiver that is tuned up works well
also. $50 IS a lot to some folks.
Larry K9LWI
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:20 PM <amradio-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> Send AMRadio mailing list submissions to
> amradio at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> amradio-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> amradio-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of AMRadio digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal Proceeding is
> Open for Comments (W. Harris)
> 2. Re: Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal Proceeding is
> Open for Comments (craig yoho)
> 3. Re: Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal Proceeding is
> Open for Comments (w5jo at brightok.net)
> 4. Re: Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal Proceeding is
> Open for Comments (manualman at juno.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:22:56 +0000
> From: "W. Harris" <nbcblue at hotmail.com>
> To: "w5jo at brightok.net" <w5jo at brightok.net>
> Cc: AM Radio List <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal
> Proceeding is Open for Comments
> Message-ID:
> <
> CY4PR17MB1128D43BCFD752E148E2A11CBE2D0 at CY4PR17MB1128.namprd17.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> So a ham, even on a fixed income, can spend hundreds, maybe thousands of
> dollars on ham equipment can't afford a license fee of $50 every 10 years?
> Really?
>
> Bill - K5MIL
> ________________________________
> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net <amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
> on behalf of w5jo at brightok.net <w5jo at brightok.net>
> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:17 PM
> Cc: AM Radio List <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal Proceeding
> is Open for Comments
>
>
> Good arguments Rob, however, some hams are or may be on a fixed income and
> a
> one time $50 fee at renewal every 10 years could cause a bit of trouble.
> I
> am advocating from that perspective and the fact it is a voluntary
> organization even though I can afford the fee. Many hams may be inactive
> most of the time, but in the event of a major catastrophe would come out of
> the woodwork to help.
>
> Jim
> W5JO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Atkinson
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 4:03 PM
> To: Jim Wilhite
> Cc: AM Radio List
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal Proceeding
> is Open for Comments
>
> I don't have a problem with it. If it happens okay. If not, okay.
> I used to pay $8 just to take the license exam. If I failed, the fee
> was not refundable. I therefore made sure I'd pass. No memorizing
> for me. That was back in the early 1970s. 50 dollars is probably the
> same adjusted for inflation. In fact, if they charged $50 to take the
> test it would cut down on frivolous applicants and people testing
> again and again until they pass, and not learning anything. By
> frivolous I mean people who want to get a ticket just to see if they
> can, with no intention of ever getting on the air. I run into "hams"
> like that around here often. It will also curb vanity call sign
> hoarders. A license is good for 10 years. $50 is $5 / year. I have a
> hard time believing an active ham will balk at that. It will also cut
> down the bloated bogus ham population. Does anyone think all 700,000
> hams in the U.S. are active? We're all inactive for one reason or
> another at times, but judging by ham band activity I estimate
> liberally, that there are 50K active hams.
>
> The ARRL is against it. I have heard off the record that they, or
> some of them, fear hams will drop their membership to pay the fee.
> That's ridiculous. It's NOT $50 every year.
>
> 73
> Rob
> K5UJ
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to nbcblue at hotmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 15:21:35 -0400
> From: craig yoho <yoho411 at gmail.com>
> To: "W. Harris" <nbcblue at hotmail.com>
> Cc: AM Radio List <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal
> Proceeding is Open for Comments
> Message-ID:
> <CAFTFC=
> 2q68GuKDaDt8x0uJN6oMeJgY2KWYwxYR82-U7D1RRuSw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I don't usually chime in, however. Here's my dime. This is how
> things start. This year $50 , 4 years from now $75, 10-$150. Where is
> this money actually going ? Is this to pay for our share of the spectrum
> so big business does not interfere? Is this to secure our frequencies
> from being farmed out to whomever? Is it to subsidise the lack of income
> from the FCC, so that commissioners and their expansive staffs continue to
> make large takehome? Latest data I could dig up on that was 2018 where
> there were 1492 employees of the FCC where the AVERAGE salary was
> $134,990.13 a year with total salaries in excess of $200.73 Million.
> Where does it go ? My point being when does it end? When you give up
> your freedom, liberties and privilege, you will never get them back. Ask
> me about my healthcare, my retirement healthcare, my pension, those items I
> will never get back. What does this say about discouraging the outside
> community, those younger generations. To you and I $50 every few years is
> nothing, however as most of you know those rates will increase until there
> is pushback from the community, or until they dwindle down the maximum
> usable frequencies and the service goes away. Pushback now , fight now
> when it can be scuttled immediately, or try to push back when the rates get
> jacked up every few years. I guess I don't look at the immediate, I look
> at long term. $50 now could be $250 then. When its out of your control,
> there is very little you can do to stop it. Just my take , an opinion
> from the younger generation of Amateurs. de KB3RHR - Craig
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:23 PM W. Harris <nbcblue at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So a ham, even on a fixed income, can spend hundreds, maybe thousands of
> > dollars on ham equipment can't afford a license fee of $50 every 10
> years?
> > Really?
> >
> > Bill - K5MIL
> > ________________________________
> > From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net <amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net>
> > on behalf of w5jo at brightok.net <w5jo at brightok.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:17 PM
> > Cc: AM Radio List <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal
> Proceeding
> > is Open for Comments
> >
> >
> > Good arguments Rob, however, some hams are or may be on a fixed income
> and
> > a
> > one time $50 fee at renewal every 10 years could cause a bit of trouble.
> > I
> > am advocating from that perspective and the fact it is a voluntary
> > organization even though I can afford the fee. Many hams may be inactive
> > most of the time, but in the event of a major catastrophe would come out
> of
> > the woodwork to help.
> >
> > Jim
> > W5JO
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Atkinson
> > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2020 4:03 PM
> > To: Jim Wilhite
> > Cc: AM Radio List
> > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal
> Proceeding
> > is Open for Comments
> >
> > I don't have a problem with it. If it happens okay. If not, okay.
> > I used to pay $8 just to take the license exam. If I failed, the fee
> > was not refundable. I therefore made sure I'd pass. No memorizing
> > for me. That was back in the early 1970s. 50 dollars is probably the
> > same adjusted for inflation. In fact, if they charged $50 to take the
> > test it would cut down on frivolous applicants and people testing
> > again and again until they pass, and not learning anything. By
> > frivolous I mean people who want to get a ticket just to see if they
> > can, with no intention of ever getting on the air. I run into "hams"
> > like that around here often. It will also curb vanity call sign
> > hoarders. A license is good for 10 years. $50 is $5 / year. I have a
> > hard time believing an active ham will balk at that. It will also cut
> > down the bloated bogus ham population. Does anyone think all 700,000
> > hams in the U.S. are active? We're all inactive for one reason or
> > another at times, but judging by ham band activity I estimate
> > liberally, that there are 50K active hams.
> >
> > The ARRL is against it. I have heard off the record that they, or
> > some of them, fear hams will drop their membership to pay the fee.
> > That's ridiculous. It's NOT $50 every year.
> >
> > 73
> > Rob
> > K5UJ
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> > AMRadio mailing list
> > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
> > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> > the word unsubscribe in the message body.
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > Message delivered to nbcblue at hotmail.com
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> > AMRadio mailing list
> > Archives: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/amradio/
> > List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> > List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> > Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> > the word unsubscribe in the message body.
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > Message delivered to yoho411 at gmail.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Craig A Yoho
> *304-376-8428*
> *yoho411 at gmail.com <yoho411 at gmail.com> *
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 16:12:03 -0500
> From: <w5jo at brightok.net>
> To: "Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service"
> <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal
> Proceeding is Open for Comments
> Message-ID: <36AB2FE962D44A2A9C04BB6D1CD80956 at JimPC>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> At my age I am lucky to remember my name, but recently the FCC reassigned
> one of the millimeter or micrometer bands to allow primary use to other
> entities and reduced amateur usage to secondary. I think, but again I
> plead
> old age memory, it has to do with 5 G, I maybe wrong on the use but I do
> know the ARRL was involved and tried unsuccessfully to stop it.
>
> Jim
> W5JO
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> What is the threat now?
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:50 AM ARS W5OMR <ars.w5omr at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the late 50's, it was the reallocation of 11m to the Citizens band. In
> > the 1990's, it was the reallocation of the bottom of the 220MHz band to
> > UPS
> > (who never used it).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020, 04:52 Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What is the threat? What are the other services?
> > >
> > > 73
> > >
> > > Rob
> > > K5UJ
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 19:18:07 -0400
> From: <manualman at juno.com>
> To: amradio at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal
> Proceeding is Open for Comments
> Message-ID: <AABRXFU7DAD5HNRJ at smtpout03.vgs.untd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> A penny a day is all it takes. I found a dime in the food store parking
> lot today. I'm good for the next 10 days.
>
> Pete, wa2cwa
> www.manualman.com
>
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:22:56 +0000 "W. Harris" <nbcblue at hotmail.com>
> writes:
> > So a ham, even on a fixed income, can spend hundreds, maybe thousands
> > of dollars on ham equipment can't afford a license fee of $50 every
> > 10 years? Really?
> >
> > Bill - K5MIL
> > ________________________________
> > Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 9:17 PM
> > Cc: AM Radio List <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Fw: ARLB021 FCC Application Fee Proposal
> > Proceeding is Open for Comments
> >
> >
> > Good arguments Rob, however, some hams are or may be on a fixed
> > income and a
> > one time $50 fee at renewal every 10 years could cause a bit of
> > trouble. I
> > am advocating from that perspective and the fact it is a voluntary
> > organization even though I can afford the fee. Many hams may be
> > inactive
> > most of the time, but in the event of a major catastrophe would come
> > out of
> > the woodwork to help.
> >
> > Jim
> > W5JO
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>
>
> End of AMRadio Digest, Vol 197, Issue 4
> ***************************************
>
More information about the AMRadio
mailing list