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

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KU3N, Aug 27, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
  1. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  2. N3FAA

    N3FAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    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?
     
    WN1MB likes this.
  3. K2NCC

    K2NCC Ham Member QRZ Page

    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
     
    N6ATF likes this.
  4. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    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
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Uhhh... Portland!??

    Hint: nowadays, its not like the old country song there....
     
  6. N3FAA

    N3FAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    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.
     
  7. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

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

    Why don't you ask them why and how.
     
    N6ATF likes this.
  8. N3FAA

    N3FAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    You're not making any sense.
     
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
  10. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    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.
     
    WZ7U, K4RZM, N6ATF and 1 other person like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page