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

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/11/2004 9:25 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net

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.

If you had to drop it at once, maybe not. But WHO said "all at once"?

Part of the reason the FCC license structure is at "10 year" intervals now
is that it's too expensive otherwise. You get all those Amateurs chipping in
$25 a year for license every year and watch how fast they'd change THAT.

But there are very few people who CAN'T drop $25 right now for some
recreational purpose.

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.

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.

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.

And if THAT is not good enough for you, Hans, we'll get Congress to allow
prorated license fees based on their tax returns.

Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue?

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue?


I initiated a poll. You may feel free to answer the questions at your
convenience. If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/11/2004 10:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


Or is there some other argument you'd care to pursue?


I initiated a poll. You may feel free to answer the questions at your
convenience. If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian.

But your poll (and comments in other replies in various threads this week)
were in direct response to and in contrast to my suggestion FOR license fees.

Your "poll" was worded in such a way as to elicit a "bleeding heart" reply
over necessary household expenses as opposed to paying for "dsicretionary
avocation" expenses. If that wasn't trying to "pad" the results, I don't know
what was...

Perhaps you'd care to exercise some of your claimed education and reword
your "poll" in such a way so as to elicit more valid responses without being
confrontational?


Steve, K4YZ

I wrote:

If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian.

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote back:

But ...............

PLONK

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/11/2004 10:29 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net

I wrote:

If you want an argument, contact Len or Brian.

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote back:

But ...............

PLONK

Coward....

Steve, K4YZ

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

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?

FCC

Most other "professional" fees are for three or five years.

Are they federal?

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.

Sure - if someone is willing to do the work to set up such a system.

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.

No radio service pays fees direct to FCC. They go into the general fund. That's
not going to change.

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?

Yes.

How can they get "less money" from the Amateur Service than what they
are
getting now?

They get no money now and they'd get no money then.

The difference with $250 in a lump sum is that the feds would get their dough
up front rather than spread out.

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.

Right. Except somebody has to set up such a system.

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.

More complextiy.

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.

Sure.

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...?!?!

Depends on how you ask for it, that's all.

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.

It would have precluded me back in 1967. Some people here would like that ;-)

I'm pointing out that the fees we are suggesting (around $20-25/yr) is
inconsequential in the overall scheme of it.

Depends on how they are paid

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.

No, we're going to look at reality and deal with it. Do we want to attract
newcomers (particularly bright young people) or repel them?

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.

Of course.

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...?!?!

Nope. Just giving an example of how people behave. This guy wasn't stupid or
uneducated.

btw, he's been a radio maintenance person (I don't know the exact MOS) in a
branch of the US military. Took care of RTTY setups and was good at it.

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.

Yep. And in more than a few cases, we'd lose.

So far you've not offered anything that would really be a valid
impediment to fee-for-service.

My fee for that service is....

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.

Who?

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.

How?

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.

Right.

Now write up a proposal to make it happen. Like the one to close the pools.
Then sell it to FCC.

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.

It wouldn't? How much would?

If too much of the fee just goes to collecting the fee, what's the point?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: License Fees --- a poll
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/12/2004 6:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

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?

FCC

You're still trying to avoid the concept that that was based upon servicing
a particular service that is financially non-contributory, Jim.

Most other "professional" fees are for three or five years.

Are they federal?

Some are...some aren't.

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.

Sure - if someone is willing to do the work to set up such a system.

And that would require what...A couple of days worth of some "consultant"
loading the programs and debugging the program, Jim...?!?!? Come on ! ! !

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.

No radio service pays fees direct to FCC. They go into the general fund.
That's
not going to change.

Who says?

The Finger of God has etched this in stone somewhere and I missed it?

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?

Yes.

How can they get "less money" from the Amateur Service than what they
are
getting now?

They get no money now and they'd get no money then.

Again, WHO SAID THIS? WHERE is it written that this could/would NEVER
change?

The difference with $250 in a lump sum is that the feds would get their dough
up front rather than spread out.

Sure they would.

WHO SAID that this was set in stone, Jim? Where is that burning
bush...???

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.

Right. Except somebody has to set up such a system.

Uh huh....

And what bit of science has yet to be developed that could allow this to
happen?

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.

More complextiy.

ULS already allows for the grouping of licenses. Again, Jim, much of the
stuff is already in place for this!

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.

Sure.

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...?!?!

Depends on how you ask for it, that's all.

And you're still insinuating that there's some permanently etched order
from God that makes a 10 year interval the "last word"...

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.

It would have precluded me back in 1967. Some people here would like that.

I'm pointing out that the fees we are suggesting (around $20-25/yr) is
inconsequential in the overall scheme of it.

Depends on how they are paid.

Already answered...Several times....

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.

No, we're going to look at reality and deal with it. Do we want to attract
newcomers (particularly bright young people) or repel them?

So...You are suggesting that kids who can afford $100 for an XBox and
who-knows-how-much for the additional software programs for each game
couldn't/wouldn't spend some unspecified amount for an Amatuer license...?!?!

Sorry Jim, but that's assinine.

If they will spend almost 2 C-notes for a video game "taht they
want"...Why wouldn't they spend $25 (or less for an "under 21 person) for an
Amateur license that they would necessarily have to want also...?!?!

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.

Of course.

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...?!?!

Nope. Just giving an example of how people behave. This guy wasn't stupid or
uneducated.

Sure he was.

He was an addict. He chose his addiction over something else. Are we
supposed to disregard implementing ideas which might exclude those who CHOSE to
spend thier monies on THIER addicitions...?!?!

btw, he's been a radio maintenance person (I don't know the exact MOS) in a
branch of the US military. Took care of RTTY setups and was good at it.

Good for him.

Let's hope his lungs hold up.

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.

Yep. And in more than a few cases, we'd lose.

No, we won't.

So far you've not offered anything that would really be a valid
impediment to fee-for-service.

My fee for that service is....

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.

Who?

Don't go Lennie on me now! This thread's only 10-15 deep...go back and
find it.

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.

How?

With the apporopriate changes in the law, license fees could be re-directed
back to the appropriate agency.

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.

Right.

Now write up a proposal to make it happen. Like the one to close the pools.
Then sell it to FCC.

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.

It wouldn't? How much would?

If too much of the fee just goes to collecting the fee, what's the point?

That's EXACTLY why your suggestion of $2.50/year was ludicrous.

73

Steve, K4YZ