Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "KØHB" ) writes: K4CAP/K4YZ wrote: (about license fees) I think fees in the $25/year range would not be inappropriate. So let's take a poll: Q1: If it cost $250 (plus testing fees) for a 10-year license would you have become a new amateur radio operator? --- or --- Q2: If it had cost $250 to renew your license each time over your ham radio career, would your license have lapsed by now? Here are my responses: Q1: Not a chance. Q2: When raising a family, spending $250 on a discretionary avocational item would have been out of the question. 73, de Hans, K0HB $250 does seem like a lot of money. But then, the issue is that one is expected to pay it in a lump. As I said, we had an annual license fee here in Canada up to 2000, and it was just part of the cost. But if it was that you paid once every ten years, I think it would affect things, maybe dramatically. It's cheaper to require a renewal only every ten years, but that would then require a lump sum, that might be a difficulty to some or many. Of course, an annual fee paid annually would offset the cost of an annual renewal. Of course, an annual renewal has other benefits. Ten years seems a long time, and it doesn't allow for keeping track of the hams. When they dropped the license fee for hams here in Canada in 2000, licenses became lifetime. Not only are we not paying a fee once a year, but even that level of interaction between the ham and the regulatory body has disappeared. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Michael VE2BVW |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
So let's take a poll: Q1: If it cost $250 (plus testing fees) for a 10-year license would you have become a new amateur radio operator? A1: Not at the time I did (age 13, 1967). Maybe not at all. Even if you adjust for inflation, it was a lot of money for me back then. Today I'd spring for it. In the late '60s and early '70s I could (and did) build a pretty good station for less than $50. CW, of course, but capable of worldwide communication. --- or --- Q2: If it had cost $250 to renew your license each time over your ham radio career, would your license have lapsed by now? A2: No. By the time I was 23, I would have spent $250 for a ten-year license. But that question is somewhat academic because without a license in the first place, renewal would not matter. While coming up with $250 in one lump would be difficult, I would simply have saved up for it. -- There's a bit of marketing psych going on here, of course. Asking somebody to cough up seven cents a day or forty-nine cents a week isn't the same thing as asking them to pay $25 a year. And asking them to pay $25 a year isn't the same thing as asking them to pay $250 for ten years, payable up-front. The smart marketer knows that you need to make the initial payout relatively small. That's why there was never any fee for a Novice exam. -- Hopefully, Hans will submit his proposal to FCC before it's too late. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
So let's take a poll: Q1: If it cost $250 (plus testing fees) for a 10-year license would you have become a new amateur radio operator? A1: Absolutely not. At the time I got my first license, I was unemployed - no way I would have been able to justify that kind of an expense at the time. Q2: If it had cost $250 to renew your license each time over your ham radio career, would your license have lapsed by now? A2: No. I first became licensed in 1999, and so I have not had to renew yet. I will say, however, that come 2009 when it's time to renew, if there's a $250 fee to renew, I'm outta here. John Kasupskim Tonawanda, New York Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), SWL/Scanner Monitoring (KNY2VS) Member of ARES/RACES, ARATS, WUN, ARRL http://www.qsl.net/kc2fng E-Mails Ignored, Please Post Replies In This Newsgroup |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message om... There's a bit of marketing psych going on here, of course. Asking somebody to cough up seven cents a day or forty-nine cents a week isn't the same thing as asking them to pay $25 a year. And asking them to pay $25 a year isn't the same thing as asking them to pay $250 for ten years, payable up-front. Marketing psych ? Well, if that's the choice or even if I just had to pay 10 cents per month to renew my ham license, I'd let my callsign lapse. Just not worth it as there are many better things / hobbies to waste money upon besides ham radio. A casual listen to the daily Net 'boredom parade' on 40M will convince anyone of this. Sounds to me like this scatterbrained idea to charge $250 fee for a renewal is almost as bad as the dry-drunks at ARRL which gave us "Incentive Licensing" in the 1960's, from which ham radio has never fully recovered. (even with code requirements being relaxed, you still don't see young people comming into the hobby anymore, this should tell you something....) The smart marketer knows that you need to make the initial payout relatively small. That's why there was never any fee for a Novice exam. Sure, it works everytime. I am in the auto sales business and we have a saying: "For every seat there's an ass, for every wallet there's a credit plan" (These are updates of the original: "There's a sucker born every minute") -- Hopefully, Hans will submit his proposal to FCC before it's too late. yawn 73 de Jim, N2EY The future is he http://****qrz.com |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Mills" ) writes: Sounds to me like this scatterbrained idea to charge $250 fee for a renewal is almost as bad as the dry-drunks at ARRL which gave us "Incentive Licensing" in the 1960's, from which ham radio has never fully recovered. (even with code requirements being relaxed, you still don't see young people comming into the hobby anymore, this should tell you something....) I suspect the majority of US hams were not licensed when incentive licensing was introduced. After all, it's been 35 years, and the various layers of simplification have brought in many new hams. I suspect the whole thing about incentive licensing is overblown. How did incentive licensing damage the inflow of young people to the hobby? It was the already licensed hams who grumbled, and who lost anything. Consider that all the changes made over the 35 years to make it easier for people to come into the hobby (and we've seen similar changes here in Canada in recent years) may have the reverse effect when it comes to young people. Maybe the tests, code and theory, that are so much a burden for the older person coming into the hobby were not an impediment to the young. They thrived on it, and at a young age, it was a boost to be able to pass the test when older people were griping about how hard the test was. When I passed the test in 1972, at the age of 12, it was no drag to be able to accomplish that. It was practically like snapping my finger, because what was in the test interested me, and it was not merely an obstacle to overcome before I could start yacking on the radio. If you're ten (which is when I first set out to learn the code, though I did not go about it properly), or eight, you're young enough that being able to understand a "code" of some sort is picking up a secret language that those around you don't know; that's incentive in itself to learn it. But, all the changes have been made by middle age men, or older, who often seem to have forgotten what it was like to be young and get their first ham license, or who came into the hobby in later years. They are making judgements based on being middle age, which may not reflect what it's like to be young. For that matter, too often the mistake when talking about getting newcomers into the hobby is that quantity is the necessity. If only we can get big numbers, then we're safe. But in trying to lure those numbers, the pool gets watered down. The hobby is no longer a technical playground, it's no longer a place where kids can play and grow up, either into technical pursutes or just adults who have a better than average familiarity with technical matters (a rather important thing, given how much more technology we're surrounded by compared to thirty years ago). There is plenty I learned from amateur radio that have nothing to do with technical matters, but it comes from being part of a not just for children activity when I was still what amounted to being a child. Maybe in watering down the entrance requirements, the hobby is not bringing in those who would benefit from the hobby, as they traditionally would have. "It takes nothing to get into the hobby, what possible appeal could there be?" Once things have started down the slope of making it easier to attract larger numbers, then there is no alternative but to seek even larger numbers, because then the only thing you do have is those large numbers. Gone are the benefits of amateur radio, to the actual hams and to society at large, and there goes any ability to justify the frequencies except by large numbers. And getting back to the middle age men, it is they who keep repeating the mantra "how can amateur radio be appealing in a world where every kid has a cellphone and a computer?". So long as competition with society in general is the pivot point, then of course there can be little appeal to the youngster. Only by promoting the hobby's strengths and uniqueness can one hope to compete with superior forms of communcation. Michael VE2BVW |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: (Michael Black) Date: 8/12/2004 11:27 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: I suspect the majority of US hams were not licensed when incentive licensing was introduced. After all, it's been 35 years, and the various layers of simplification have brought in many new hams. It has. I suspect your suspicion is correct! I suspect the whole thing about incentive licensing is overblown. Morbidly so. Of course the Hatfield's and McCoy's went at it for over a hundred years, so I suspect those remaining few who got caught up in the Incentive Licensing brohouha will keep barkling about it until they are gone. How did incentive licensing damage the inflow of young people to the hobby? It was the already licensed hams who grumbled, and who lost anything. BAM! Hammer hitting nail on the head. BIG SNIP TO.... And getting back to the middle age men, it is they who keep repeating the mantra "how can amateur radio be appealing in a world where every kid has a cellphone and a computer?". So long as competition with society in general is the pivot point, then of course there can be little appeal to the youngster. Only by promoting the hobby's strengths and uniqueness can one hope to compete with superior forms of communcation. Amateur Radio has always appealed to a certain few, and those who are interested in radio for radio's sake...not necessarily as the fastest way to communicate or the most efficient. I imagine it will always be so... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Michael Black wrote:
"Mike Mills" ) writes: Sounds to me like this scatterbrained idea to charge $250 fee for a renewal is almost as bad as the dry-drunks at ARRL which gave us "Incentive Licensing" in the 1960's, from which ham radio has never fully recovered. (even with code requirements being relaxed, you still don't see young people comming into the hobby anymore, this should tell you something....) I suspect the majority of US hams were not licensed when incentive licensing was introduced. After all, it's been 35 years, and the various layers of simplification have brought in many new hams. I believe Mr Black wasn't licensed during the Incentive licensing time. I suspect the whole thing about incentive licensing is overblown. Completely. How did incentive licensing damage the inflow of young people to the hobby? It was the already licensed hams who grumbled, and who lost anything. It didn't. All new Hams are products of the time they become Hams. I don't have any personal experience with incentive licensing or Novice class or 13 wpm Morse code or 20 wpm Morse code. All I have is the experience of going through the ranks from 1999, culminating in being a "Nickle Extra". Consider that all the changes made over the 35 years to make it easier for people to come into the hobby (and we've seen similar changes here in Canada in recent years) may have the reverse effect when it comes to young people. Maybe the tests, code and theory, that are so much a burden for the older person coming into the hobby were not an impediment to the young. They thrived on it, and at a young age, it was a boost to be able to pass the test when older people were griping about how hard the test was. When I passed the test in 1972, at the age of 12, it was no drag to be able to accomplish that. It was practically like snapping my finger, because what was in the test interested me, and it was not merely an obstacle to overcome before I could start yacking on the radio. If you're ten (which is when I first set out to learn the code, though I did not go about it properly), or eight, you're young enough that being able to understand a "code" of some sort is picking up a secret language that those around you don't know; that's incentive in itself to learn it. But, all the changes have been made by middle age men, or older, who often seem to have forgotten what it was like to be young and get their first ham license, or who came into the hobby in later years. They are making judgements based on being middle age, which may not reflect what it's like to be young. I have never failed to be impressed by the ability of middle aged and older men to become *incredibly* angry about so many seemingly trivial things. "The Morse code test is gone, and next we'll be forced to worship Satan and vote Democrat!" ;^) For that matter, too often the mistake when talking about getting newcomers into the hobby is that quantity is the necessity. If only we can get big numbers, then we're safe. Correct. I want good hams, not huge numbers. But in trying to lure those numbers, the pool gets watered down. The hobby is no longer a technical playground, it's no longer a place where kids can play and grow up, either into technical pursutes or just adults who have a better than average familiarity with technical matters (a rather important thing, given how much more technology we're surrounded by compared to thirty years ago). There is plenty I learned from amateur radio that have nothing to do with technical matters, but it comes from being part of a not just for children activity when I was still what amounted to being a child. Maybe in watering down the entrance requirements, the hobby is not bringing in those who would benefit from the hobby, as they traditionally would have. "It takes nothing to get into the hobby, what possible appeal could there be?" Once things have started down the slope of making it easier to attract larger numbers, then there is no alternative but to seek even larger numbers, because then the only thing you do have is those large numbers. Gone are the benefits of amateur radio, to the actual hams and to society at large, and there goes any ability to justify the frequencies except by large numbers. And getting back to the middle age men, it is they who keep repeating the mantra "how can amateur radio be appealing in a world where every kid has a cellphone and a computer?". I hear this, and I wonder how there can be any competition between these? Ham radio is about radios, communications without wire around the world and locally. It's about making radios and accessories and antennas and the like. Cell phones are about ordering pizza and talking to people on the telephone. Computers are things that you buy at circuit city or best buy and plug 'em in and dial up the internet and really aren't technical. The people using computers that are closest in personality to Hams are the young hackers that write scripts and virii. We don't want them, thank you very much! So long as competition with society in general is the pivot point, then of course there can be little appeal to the youngster. Only by promoting the hobby's strengths and uniqueness can one hope to compete with superior forms of communcation. Good and insightful post, Michael. - Mike KB3EIA |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote:
I believe Mr Black wasn't licensed during the Incentive licensing time. DOH! I meant to say Mr Mills! As you know, you are Mr Black! - My bad! - Mike KB3EIA - |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Black" wrote I suspect the whole thing about incentive licensing is overblown. How did incentive licensing damage the inflow of young people to the hobby? It was the already licensed hams who grumbled, and who lost anything. Michael, I am convinced that incentive licensing remains the hands down all time winner of the DAIOTC (Dumb Assed Idea of The Century) award. When a lot of us got started in the hobby the bands were not subdivided like they are today and it seems that we all, regardless of license class, worked together to improve the Amateur Radio Service. I didn't lose any privileges in 1968 because I had been an Extra for several years, but I thought it was a really bad idea at the time, and I remain convinced that it indelibly damaged Amateur Radio in the United States. Back then, it seems that we all, regardless of license class, worked together to improve the Amateur Radio Service. Back then, nobody got a special deal because they could beep faster or remember more electrical formulae than someone else. I got my Extra in 1964, well before disincentive licensing, and it was simply just another personal accomplishment, and did not "elevate" me above other hams. We all shared the same spectrum, worked together to solve the same problems, competed in contests, trouble-shot each others radios, and generally had fun together. If you forgot the numbers for the dipole formula, it was OK to ask someone else. If your Morse speed was 10WPM the speedier guys would slow down for you, not QSY to some specially reserved band segment. The one or two "old timers" on 75 meters who didn't like newcomers ("No lids, no kids, not space cadets") were universally looked down on as poor examples of what a ham ought to act like. The Novice bands were a "cacophony of exuberance" to steal a term that K1ZZ used in a meeting here in Minneapolis. Old hands were on those Novice bands also -- it was not unusual to hear W4KFC or W5ZD patiently working WN4KKN or WV2CNL -- nobody remarked that it was "nice" of them to do that -- it was just part of being a good ham. The notion that you had earned a special band segment never occurred to anyone -- we were just excitedly "playing in the ether", and there was no distinction on the air between Extra, Advanced, General, or Conditional -- elitist special callsign formats to celebrate the fine granulations of your test taking/memorization skills had not been invented. 36 years later we are still sliced and diced into 6 different classes, carefully divided into our own special frequency segments, and Lord protect the Extra who suggests that a new Technician might have something to contribute to our beloved Amateur Radio service. We'll never return to 'back then', unfortunately, and the intervening years have not produced the breed of "superham" which we were promised by ARRL and FCC; quite the opposite --- the technical acumen of the typical amateur of today is many dB lower than it was back then. Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|