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

They are asking for $50 to cover the cost of filing your application. They say it is based on actual direct labor costs. Suppose they said it was $500 or $5000 in labor to file that application, would you be for it then?

 

Well, I can not speak for others. I do have many hobbies not just limited to the HAM radio. They were fees for license or permit, none were over $300 annually for privet sector or local and state government. So $500 or $5,000 is unlikely. But I get what you are saying tho.

Nothing is free. It take something to making things happen. Even if you drop HAM radio altogether and pick up rock polishing as a new hobby, you still need to buy some supplies.

I can see this can hurt for those that love to change their callsign every 18 days..

<----- Yes, it is a vanity callsign and I have it back in 1998 and yes, there was some fee involved, 50 George Washington back then.

Time will tell. In the meantime start putting a dollar in a piggy bank every day.

 

Has anyone noticed how quiet the ARRL is on this subject? I sent them an email asking for their position and to date, I've heard nothing. I would think they would be up in arms over this proposal, unless...

 

I suspect the ARRL is 'reading the mail' on the responses to the NPRM before commenting.

As I pointed out earlier, the responses on this thread are , by weight. diametrically the opposite of that seen on the actual NPRM FCC responses.

The two fatal aspects to the $50 FEE levied for all applications are:

1) This would be the first time in more than 65 years that the FCC has made an application charge for the 'entry' license class. This will actively discourage newcomers, thereby in opposition to the Part 97 mission statement;

2) the global use of such a fee does not allow for exceptions based on an inability to pay.

The FCC needs to be told what to do in this case, given that they will have to charge some fees in some circumstances. We need to tell them when NOT to charge such fees.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Who exactly did you ask?

The ARRL tends to wait until the final few days of comment periods before they file, and then a week or so later follow it up with a news item on their web site. Silence from the ARRL officers and staff in the meantime is not unusual.

However, if you contacted your Division Director, I would expect them to respond in some manner promptly.

 

I doubt it, as the final formulation is as above.

Probably just a get a reply of :'We are aware and preparing a response to the NPRM.' Basically hardly a 'response in some manner'. More of an acknowledgement.

 

Here are some very interesting numbers for everybody. This was actually brought up in another thread on this subject.

In Paragraph 24 of the FCC proposal, they state: "In 2019, the Commission received over 197,000 personal license applications." Note that the personal license applications cover more than just ham radio.

My numbers are actually slightly different, but perhaps I'm leaving out one of the categories of ship (i.e. compulsory vs. non) or aviation, but I get fairly close. I'm showing 175,697 ULS actions for the personal radio services. Amateur radio accounts for 128,170 of those. Total ULS actions in the entire system for every type of license were 321,560.

So we account for 40% of all ULS activity, and approximately 73% of the personal radio service actions. Yet we don't pay a dime, and everyone is up in arms over having to pay. Seriously...what the hell is wrong with us?

 

I just changed my callsign. Back to a previous*. A few days before the FCC threatened to charge.

Got it, as expected. But what surprised me, they "renewed" my license to 10-years from the date of the change.

$0.00 due. Hope I live at least that long, 9/20/2030.

*I was planning on moving to Virginia. Things have changed so much this year, I'm staying in Oregon.

vy 73

 

There is nothing wrong with anyone.

As has been stated clearly, a main issue is why the fee is being globally assessed.

Sure, some folks are unhappy about ANY fees. A compelling vast majority of those on the NPRM responses assert the proposed $50 global fee as unacceptable.

So it would seem that the light needs to be shone on those who want the fee, globally, to spite others (according to an N3FAA post on this thread==post #535).

73 to all,
Chip W1YW

 

Uhhh... Portland!??

Hint: nowadays, its not like the old country song there....

 

The why is because we are apparently accounting for 40% of the entire ULS activity. We should probably be paying for that, I would think.

 

Perhaps they are using the tonality presented in post #535.

Why don't you ask them why and how.

 

You're not making any sense.

 

I am making crystal clear sense. Please do not insult me sir.

You are speculating on their motivations. I am stating the obvious: ask-- them-- to ascertain the facts. That couldn't be any clearer nor common sensical.

Good day.

 

We could pay for our share of the ULS and also pay for the direct labor costs to process the application, but that amount would probably be less than $15, not the $50 that they are wanting.