FCC releases proposal for new filing fee structure

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by K2IGO, Aug 28, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
  1. N6ATF

    N6ATF Ham Member QRZ Page

  2. WB9YZU

    WB9YZU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't have a difficulty with a fee per se. I paid for original Commercial license & testing fee, my GMRS license fee, and way back when, my Amateur Radio license & testing fee. Currently we pay a VE some amount to proctor the test and submit the paperwork to the FCC (but a renewal costs us nothing). Yes people abuse the vanity call system, but that's life. Like the auto plates, I don't have an issue for people who want a specific call to pay an extra fee.

    However, it seems to me (and this may not be historically accurate but is my opinion) that in the 80's or 90's the FCC was moving away from wanting to deal with non-commercial radio of any kind. They dropped the licensing fee to zero, and the ARRL took over the testing via the Volunteer Examiner program. The FCC just had to register the license and send out the ticket. Now they don't even want to send out a ticket, want us to continue to self test/ self regulate, and now charge us a fee for doing so.

    If the FCC wants to step up, restore services that they delegated to the Amateur Radio Community, then I'm OK with them charging a fee.
  3. KO4GQP

    KO4GQP Ham Member QRZ Page

    You don’t find it even a little bit hypocritical to be scolding others about talking politics OTA when, on a ham radio forum, each of your posts is accompanied by leftist propaganda?
    ND6M and K3XR like this.
  4. K4RZM

    K4RZM XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Short link for comment filing: https://bit.ly/32O7WLi
    Comments just opened today, so if you submitted before 9/1 you probably attached your comments to the wrong proceeding.
    N6ATF likes this.
  5. KR5TX

    KR5TX XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Has anyone been able to find ARRL's position on this and whether or not they are going to lobby this bill?

    All I have been able to find is them sending out information to post comments but not revealing their own thoughts.
  6. K4RZM

    K4RZM XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    "ARRL is reviewing the matter and intends to file comments in opposition."
    From The ARRL Letter for September 3, 2020
    that just hit my inbox.
    K0UO likes this.
  7. NN3W

    NN3W Ham Member QRZ Page

    "ARRL is reviewing the matter and intends to file comments in opposition."
  8. KB9BVN

    KB9BVN Ham Member QRZ Page

    The fee is coming, it's pretty much a guarantee...we just need to argue about how much it needs to be. Since phone ops use the most bandwidth, I propose a microphone tax of $100 a year, per microphone.
    WN1MB likes this.
  9. AC0GT

    AC0GT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Then how would FT8 operators be similarly taxed/rewarded for using less bandwidth than CW? Would there be a per key charge for CW operators?
  10. WN1MB

    WN1MB XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    $200 a year per FT8 "operator"...

Share This Page

ad: cq2k-1