[SFDXA] FCC Fee Opposition - now is the time!

[Kai]

Just for your information about our brethren across the pond:
"Licence Fees:
Online issue/renewal for UK amateurs is free. However postal and other 
applications (including reinstating a lapsed licence) may incur a fee."
see: https://rsgb.org/main/operating/licensing-novs-visitors/uk-licensing/

Kind regards
Kai, KE4PT

On 10/17/2020 11:03, Bill wrote:
> *The amateur radio fee proposal has been published in the Federal Register.*
>
> https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/10/15/2020-21530/schedule-of-application-fees 
>
> */
> /**/Now that it is published, it is time to comment on the FCC website:/*
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=20-270
>
> AND, if you wish, reference the Federal Register, and send your comments
> to your elected representatives and the President.
> *
> **THERE ARE FEWER THAN 30 DAYS TO COMMENT. PLEASE DO THIS NOW!**
> *
> The Priority is getting comments filed with the FCC.
>
> ARRL Washington Counsel David Siddall, K3ZJ, has suggested the following
> arguments
>
> Arguments Against FCC Fees for Radio Amateurs
> 1. Amateurs contribute to the public good. In many areas they provide an
> emergency communications backbone capability at no taxpayer cost. Consistently 
> we have witnessed storms and natural disasters completely
> wipe out internet, cellular, and other means of communication. Radio
> amateurs often fill that void on an unmatched, flexible basis when
> needed. One recent example is the California wildfires. 2. Unlike operators in 
> other FCC licensed services, Amateur Radio
> operators by law – domestic and international -- must eschew using
> their license for any pecuniary interest. Amateurs are prohibited from
> earning or charging any money for any communications activity. The
> expenses for their equipment and activities come out of their own
> pockets, with no opportunity for reimbursement or payment of any kind.
> 3. The United States is experiencing a severe lack of RF engineers and
> expertise at the very time it is needed by the burgeoning wireless
> industries. Amateur radio is helping to meet the deficit, but much
> more is needed and youngsters (High School and College-aged) are least
> able to afford licensing fees. RF knowledge and related digital
> expertise is needed to maintain U.S. leadership in wireless industries. At a 
> minimum, young people (below the age of 26) should be exempt from
> the proposed license fees.
> 4. Amateur radio is self-regulating. (a) Amateur examinations are
> written and administered by radio amateur volunteers. (b) Examination
> results and paperwork most often are submitted electronically to the
> FCC. Electronic submission could be required if there would be a cost
> savings to the Commission. (c) Amateur radio educational classes are
> conducted by volunteers who by-and-large do not charge fees or tuition
> for teaching. (d) The amateur service, in cooperation with the FCC’s
> Enforcement Bureau, has a volunteer corp that monitors the amateur
> airwaves and has programs that try to prevent their misuse before FCC
> involvement might be needed. The amateurs also observe non-amateur
> signals both within amateur spectrum and outside it, and report unusual
> or suspicious signals.
> 5. Amateur radio continues to be a source of significant technological
> innovation that should be encouraged, not discouraged. Some Suggestions
> I do not recommend arguing that the $50. fee every 10 years, which
> amounts to $5.00 a year, will “kill” amateur radio, even though as
> proposed this is for each covered application, which includes upgrade
> applications. Tech-General-Extra could be $150. if exams taken at
> different sessions, a substantial amount. But it “rings” the wrong
> way to say the whole service turns on $5./year for each licensee. If
> that’s all it would take ….
> The Commission argues that the charges are required by the statute. The
> word used is “shall”, which is mandatory, not optional. But the
> statute does not set the amount, nor does it prohibit reasonable
> exceptions – evidenced by the Commission’s proposal to exempt from
> fees administrative update applications based on policy grounds.
> This is not “aimed at amateur radio to kill it.” There is a long
> history and precedent on charging fees for the licensing service
> involved, just as there is for passports, green cards, drivers licenses
> (issued by states), etc. Better to make pertinent arguments on why the
> fees would impair the public benefits of the amateur radio service than
> argue that the whole service might die as a result of a fee that, in
> fact, is less than the fee many of us paid in the 1960’s and 1970’s,
> including myself as a struggling high school and college student (if
> adjusted for inflation).
> For background: this proceeding is being handled by staff unfamiliar
> with amateur radio. It is being handled in the FCC’s Office of
> Managing Director (OMD), not in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
> where the amateur-specific Part 97 matters are handled. The focus of
> OMD is accounting – budgets and the like for the entire Commission. The fee 
> proposals cover every FCC license and service across the board
> and the consideration was directed by Congress. I recommend keeping
> “ham jargon” out of comments, it won’t be understood by the
> intended recipients.”
> 73,
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ARRL Southeastern Division
> Director: Mickey V Baker, N4MB
> n4mb at arrl.org
>
> http://p1k.arrl.org/oo/1e9281ade51dd580c53ad10ce17dcfb9
> ______________________________________________________________
> South Florida DX Assoc. "SINCE 1974"
> SFDXA WebSite: http://www.SFDXA.com
> SFDXA Repeater 147.33+ 103.5 Tone
> To Post: mailto:SFDXA at mailman.qth.net
> To UNSUBSCRIBE/EDIT: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sfdxa
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net