FCC proposes new filing fee structure, new fees for ham radio

I get it. I really do..

I have experienced, as you can imagine, a lot of lessons and swift action against me.

My point is that there are a ton of idiots, like myself, that are motivated into this kind of technology for an entirely different reason than that what is typical.

The amateur license gives to those kinds of folks a chance to tickle the drive for more knowledge, being the art and science of radio, and live in harmony with it in a sociably acceptable way.

Put any obstacles in the way whatsoever will, most undoubtedly, rob a person the opportunity to begin their radio journey legitimately.

Think renegade repeater.... everywhere... because radios are cheaper for the consumer than permission is.

Currently, a lot of prepper types are getting licenses. And being decent folks. The barrier that already exists, in my eyes, is about as hard, and easy as I ever want it to be for someone getting started.

Something else is currently happening.

There are incredibly cheap radios in the wild.

Many of the unlicensed preppers have them too. Many of them that, already will never get a license because of a different kind of investment one must make to get a license.I don't think it is out of the question to believe there are more unlicensed folks having PTT capability that you can imagine.

I'm pretty sure someone could poll the sales numbers of these cheap radios manufacturers in America and come to the conclusion, that easy access to policeable legitimacy is priceless already, and inhibiting that in any way undermines the foundations of its success.

 

I am not for this fee... but I am not against it either. Don't really care either way because I can afford it.

Reading some of these replies leaves me with the impression that a lot of older hams still think it's still 1968... when they got their tickets and $50 was a sizeable wad of cash. It's 2020 now and it cost me almost $50 just to have the kid down the street mow my yard just once. I can't believe people really think that it's an unfair and onerous obstacle to entry into the hobby.

Kids these days have no clue what a safety pin is and think that crystals are fictional things that power magical space ships in the movies. With rare exceptions, they are NOT going to be building their own radios from scratch for pennies or less out of junk they found in dad's workshop like I did when I was a kid... in 1968. No, the ones that want to engage in this hobby will buy radios with their lawn mowing money... nice ones that cost far more than the almost $50 they get for every lawn they mow. Another $50 just to be legal? That's nothing these days.

 

Cost means little when you have the money.

The problem is there are plenty of people in modest circumstances who may NOT be able to afford that fee, and there is no provision to provide an exemption in such cases.

And I think you are being a little unrealistic: there are plenty of young people who do not mow lawns because they live nowhere near a lawn; ham radio has been and is a way out and up for them; and for the last 65+ years, the entry level Part 97 exam has had NO APPLICATION FEES associated with it.

Suddenly, and with no justification (the FCC has no idea what the cost is to process an application--they have no handle on the indirect costs, for example), there is a very real fixed fee for beginner's to apply for a Part 97 license....

The present $50 (nearly) universal fee would penalize those who may not afford it, or are discouraged from pursuing ham radio from the cost.

As pointed out elsewhere, you can get a new HT for less than $25. But the fee will be twice that.

Having a fee is fine, but not anticipating and allowing for exemptions is contrary to the mission objectives of Part 97.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Fifty bucks, five dollars per year for a 10 year license. Seems reasonable to me....

I love it...like learning the morse code used to be a 'lid filter' of sorts....it might help keep some of the riff-raff 'baofeng brigade' out...how 'bout a radio check, whats yer 10-20.....10-4....

And maybe some operators that might be tempted to take chances with the rules....they might be a bit more careful with a license that cost something rather than a freebie from a box of cracker jacks.

 

You need to trademark that one!

 

After being directed by the ARRL to post my comment at FCC gov I decided to take a look at the comments. Attached is a screen shot listing comments by author A -Z. I do not see the ARRL. Am I looking in the wrong place or using the wrong author? I don't think so. What to think????
73

 

When I sorted by Filer/Ascending I got 3 pages of A's, so guessing there is a flaw in your search method.
I haven't found a comment by AARL yet, but they may be commenting under their names instead of as the Org itself.
I'll leaf thru the listings and let you know if I find anything.

 

Thank you. I only have reginfo@arrl.org. I would share emails exchanged but that might pose a problem for some one and they may then make it my problem. So they are not being posted at this time.

It "was" my honest belief that this proposal would have fallen under their role as advocate. I can only go by the information I can get. I was saddened by the ARRL's non responsiveness to my query. But my heart has been broken before and I continue on. I can't see this as anything other than a tax on our charity. It certainly will diminish the number of current and future amateur operators and thereby make this country less prepared in case of emergency and visa vie less safe. Thank you for reading and checking into this. Really
73

 

How about by ARRL?

 

The 'Official' position I last saw from the ARRL was that they are reviewing and plan to file petitions in Opposition.
As you saw there are already over 1000 comments on this new fee, and over 99% are opposed. My statement is among them.
I'm not familiar enough with the Org to know who their directors are and who's names to be looking for on the filings, but I am confident that they know it is in their best interest to oppose these new fees on behalf of their members, and the amateur radio community.

eb

 

The ARRL tends to wait until the closing date for comments. You might assume they will not recommend the global $50 fee, with no exemptions nor allowance for newbies at a zero charge.

The FCC really messed up on this one.

 

Thanks for your keen observation. Show us a screen shot for the ARRL's comment. The fcc gov search is not straight forward as implied. I did find pages of A's listed. If the ARRL plans a comment it is a secret that they were unwilling to share with me. Actually they ignored multiple emails until I told them I could not be associated with them because of their inaccessibility and lack of common courtesy. Faster that I can get a letter delivered locally I had in my mail box their promotional material asking me to renew my membership. I guess, based on my personal experience, the grown-ups have left the building. It is my personal loss.

 

Quote from K3UN
"On Wednesday, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in MD Docket 20-270 which implements portions of the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (or RAY BAUM’S Act), which gives the FCC statutory authority to collect application fees. As a part of the Act, the FCC is required to switch from a fee structure mandated by Congress 20 years ago to a new cost-based system. This change will result in some fees being reduced and in some cases, such as the Amateur Radio Service, new fees are being added."

"SEC.9. REGULATORY FEES. (e) EXCEPTIONS.--
State the following:
"PARTIES TO WHICH THE FEES ARE NOT APPLICABLE.--The
regulatory fees established under this section shall not be applicable to--
"(B) an amateur radio operator licensee under part 97
of the commission's rules (47 CFR part 97); or"

taken from page 738 of (RAY BAUM’S Act.) (not verbatim) pdf uploaded.

My experience with the FCC and other federal agencies is;
They almost always find text that suits them, but never read the next line.
which usually begins with (EXCEPTIONS)
Wayne

 

You may have a point there!!!

 

Yikes! I never thought about it that way... Scary possibility.