[CW] A Call to Arms

Wed Nov 25 11:25:58 EST 2020

Steve, other than your experience with fee versus free, we are in 100%
agreement.

That was a well-written letter!

As for the fees: in 2015 the FCC canceled fees for vanity license
applications. They were 21.40 - I just looked it up - I remembered having
read about it in QST. Ergo: to have canceled it they must have started
charging it somewhere in there. That was what I was referencing.

73 Chris

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 5:53 AM <sbjohnston at aol.com> wrote:

>
> "Fee-free" licensing is new?  Well I've never paid a fee, and I've had a
> ham license since 1976.  That's 44 years.  Hardly new.
>
> Why do I care if there is a fee?  It is not about me personally.  I am
> concerned about the overall impact.
>
> In my time as a ham I have observed periodic proposals by the Commission
> and others to either charge fees or abolish them.
> Each time these proposals were considered, the resulting analyses
> repeatedly concluded that two factors
> strongly argued against charging such fees:
>
> 1. FCC fees would tend to discourage potential new amateur operators from
> pursuing their
> license in what is otherwise a non-commercial, volunteer service.
>
> 2. The cost of collecting and managing the fee programs would exceed the
> amount collected or
> reduce the value returned to the FCC to a de minimus level.
>
> If you are interested, here is some further reasoning...
>
> Point 1:
>
> There is no question that FCC fees would tend to discourage potential new
> amateur operators
> from pursuing their license. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that it
> is in the public interest to
> encourage new and especially youthful amateur radio participants. A $50
> FCC fee for a beginner
> to get his or her license would certainly be a deterrent, especially for
> young people. The fee
> becomes even more of a negative factor in a service in which the starter
> equipment costs can be
> very low - even lower than the so-called "nominal" $50 fee!
>
> I would also point out that charging a fee to get involved in a volunteer
> service like amateur
> radio would tend to discourage potential amateurs from economically
> challenged families to a
> greater degree than more affluent families. This is certainly not a
> desired outcome.
>
> Point 2:
>
> A few minutes of research confirmed my recollection that the past analyses
> concluded the cost of
> collecting fees and managing the fee programs would have exceeded the
> amount collected or
> reduce the value returned to the FCC to a de minimus level.
>
> The current NPRM itself reports that "Applications for personal licenses
> are mostly automated
> and do not have individualized staff costs for data input or review." In
> earlier fee proposal
> situations, license processes were not automated, and costs would have
> been higher then, yet the
> analysis revealed it was not helpful to charge fees. What has changed now?
>
> The NPRM itself is making the point that costs are lower than ever - so
> why charge fees at all?
>
>
> I submitted these comments to the Commission back in September...
>
>
> Steve WD8DAS
>
> sbjohnston at aol.com
> http://www.wd8das.net/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Radio is your best entertainment value.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris R. NW6V <chrisrut7 at gmail.com>
> To: CW Reflector <cw at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Tue, Nov 24, 2020 10:15 pm
> Subject: Re: [CW] A Call to Arms
>
> Hans,
>
> I agree that fee-free is fairly new. But look at it this way; for a person
> of limited means, it's not $5 per year - it's 50 bucks upfront. Not much
> for you (or me)? Yay us. But for a 10-year-old kid? Somebody retired and
> living on a small fixed income? (I know some). I believe it's the highest
> fee ever for amateur licenses, and amounts to a profoundly regressive tax.
>
> Based on info from the ARRL NW Div director, who attended our monthly
> meeting last week, the ARRL made strong protests on our behalf. I'm sure
> details are available on their site.
>
> In my opinion, how it will turn out will depend on the motivations behind
> the change. If it's stemmed from a mistaken administrative desire to make
> the FCC and the services they serve pay their own way, it can be worked
> out. However, if it's an effort to squeeze the amateur fraternity, with an
> eye toward more frequency appropriations for commercial services (for whom
> the $50 is a trifle), then that's another matter. A shrinking ham community
> could have truly disastrous consequences as competition for bandwidth
> continues to heat up.
>
> The outcome will be a strong clue. Either they'll say "oops" or "ef off."
>
> When I was a kid back in the early sixties we used to call the FCC
> "Friendly Cousin Charlie" knowing only too well there was nothing friendly
> about it. Hams are today an anachronism. We need to keep the administrative
> barriers to the hobby as low as possible.
>
> 73 Chris NW6V
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:23 PM Hans Brakob <kzerohb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For many years, starting over 60 years ago, I paid license fees and
> renewal fees for my Amateur Radio licenses.  “Free Ham Licenses” is a
> fairly new thing, and I’m surprised it has lasted long as it has.
>
> The proposal of $50.00 for 10 years ($5 per year) isn’t even worth
> mentioning.  Back in 1958 I think I paid $8 for a 5-year license.  In
> todays dollar, the 10-year license would cost on the order of $140.  $50 is
> a bargain.
>
> 73, de Hans, KØHB
> “Just a Boy and his Radio”™
>
>
> *From: *D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1ea at arrl.net>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, November 24, 2020 19:24
> *To: *CW Reflector <cw at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject: *[CW] A Call to Arms
>
> I just received this plea:
>
> *A Call to Arms*
> *Act NOW to save ham radio!*
> The FCC has proposed a *$50 fee* on all new ham radio licenses, renewals,
> upgrades, vanity call signs requests, etc.  Voice your opinion before it’s
> too late!
> The period for *new* comments closed on November 16th, but you can still reply
> to *existing* comments until November 30th
> <https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=20-270&sort=date_disseminated,DESC>.
> Look for comments that align with your views and add your opinion as a
> reply.  *Let's overwhelm the FCC with responses!*
> 73
> DR
> N1EA
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
> CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
> Unsubcribe send email to
> cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> =30=
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
> CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
> Unsubcribe send email to
> cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> =30=
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/attachments/20201125/1fbd3198/attachment-0001.html>