Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 8:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:
If you had to drop it at once, maybe not. But WHO said "all at once"?
It's the most logical way to do it. Vanity call fees are for ten years, all
in
a lump.
It is? Most logical to whom? Most other "professional" fees are for
three or five years.
It's only "most logical" since it's the way things are now.
Electronic fund transfers and ULS make it possible to do this yearly
without any other human interaction, if yearly was the period decided upon.
Part of the reason the FCC license structure is at "10 year" intervals
now is that it's too expensive otherwise.
Yep. And it's been that way for 20 years. Not going to change - in fact, I
would not be surprised if FCC went to 20 year license terms. Or even
lifetime,
with some sort of tie-in with your SSN so they could cancel the licenses of
SKs.
Ten year licenses came about since it was financially burdensome to do the
administrative functions on a radio service that it does not pay fees.
You get all those Amateurs chipping in
$25 a year for license every year and watch how fast they'd change THAT.
I don't think they'd change it at all. Why should they? So they can get
*less*
money?
Less money, Jim?
How can they get "less money" from the Amateur Service than what they are
getting now?
But there are very few people who CAN'T drop $25 right now for some
recreational purpose.
Maybe. But that's not the question. Do you really think FCC would go to
annual
collection? I don't.
OK...then two, three of five.
Again, with the high degree of automation that is occuring, it wouldn't
take a lot of effort to implement a system that "cancels" a license if an
on-line renewal with payment is not received.
Most of us are spending about that much A MONTH for ISP service...More
for broadband...So P L E A S E don't try THAT tact, Master Chief. It's
baseless.
I think you mean "tack".
Thank-you for the correction, but it still doesn't negate the validity of
my assertion...His TACK is baseless.
And there's a difference. ISP service is considered a necessity by many, and
one account is often used by the entire family.
A ham license is specific to one person.
And an adjusted "multiple licensees" fee could be arranged.
As for the "entire family" argument, most of the popular ISP's are around
$21 to $50 a month, depending on whether you have dial-up, broadband , etc.
I'll just go cheap and say it's $25 a month. That's $300/year. Divided
by the typical family of four, that's $75/year.
You're suggesting that (if we assume only one licensee in the family) the
one licensee in the family can't afford an extra $2.08/month? That's a Coke
and a bag of chips once a month for liberal acces to the electromagnetic
spectrum...?!?!
Furthermore, one only need see that the manufacturers seem to be
confident
enough in the financial solvency of the Amateur Radio program in order to do
R&D and subsequently manufacture radios that START a $1500, now as high as
$12,000 or more! And they are right.
You can get a lot of rig for a lot less than $1500.
Sure you can.
But the argument here is that a license fee would preclude folks from
getting involved in Amateur Radio, Jim.
I'm pointing out that the fees we are suggesting (around $20-25/yr) is
inconsequential in the overall scheme of it.
Now...if people can afford alcohol, CD's, cigarettes, XBox's and other
"recreational" pursuits, they can also manage to prioritize $25/year for
Amateur Radio if that's what they want to do.
Maybe. But humans don't always behave that way.
Oh...
OK.
So we are going to trivialize Amateur Radio to the XBox.
About 20 years ago I knew a ham who was a serious smoker. He and his wife
each
went through 2-1/2 to 3 packs a day. These folks bought a couple of cartons
at
a time.
He used to cry the blues to me that he didn't have any money for ham radio,
the
rigs were so expensive, etc. etc.
One day I suggested to him that he cut down on his smoking by a pack a day,
and
put the money saved into a ham radio fund. I didn't say he'd have to quit
snmoking, just cut down.. At 1984 prices, that would have put about $500/year
in his ham radio budget, which, combined with what he already had, would have
built a nice station in a year or two.
He looked at me like I was seriously deranged. No way he'd cut down at all.
His bad, Jim.
So we again trivalize the Amateur Radio service so we can accomodate the
FEW who prefer to toss the monies away on beer, broads and booze...?!?!
That's stupid. People will make the decisons they make based upon thier
own needs, interests, etc. If Amateur Radio "needed" to incorporate
fee-for-service licensure, then there would be SOME Amateurs who would need to
evaluate what was the greater priority.
So far you've not offered anything that would really be a valid impediment
to fee-for-service.
And if THAT is not good enough for you, Hans, we'll get Congress to allow
prorated license fees based on their tax returns.
Who would do all the paperwork?
I answered that already, Jim.
Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue?
Simple: We used to have fees. They didn't go to help amateur radio or the
FCC.
And they wouldn't do it again.
Sure they would.
Just like they enacted and incorporated regulatory changes to accomodate
volunteer examiners, if fee-for-service was deemed a necessity, the feds would
see to it that the necessary changes made it to law.
I'm *not* against a reasonable fee. Say, $25 max for ten years, waived if the
ham is under 21 or over 65 or disabled.
That wouldn't pay for the cost of administering the service on a
pay-for-service system, Jim.
73
Steve, K4YZ