ad: ARR

It's Time For The FCC To Get Back To Enforcement...

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by W8BYH, Sep 10, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: l-assoc
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
  1. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    For the most part, since there's almost never a need to be on the air, it's a non-issue. At least, that's what I've seen since I was first licensed nearly five decades ago. IMO:
    • no matter what, there always have been miscreants.
    • no matter what, there will always be miscreants.
    The best thing to do is deal with it on an case-by-case basis and on an individual level. IOW, when it gets too much, spin the big knob or turn the rig off and do something else. Karma seems to (eventually) deal with it:
    "Time heals all wounds and
    time wounds all heels."
    KA4DPO likes this.
  2. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes, and improved upon it in the process.
  3. KA4DPO

    KA4DPO Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    But not using symbol rate coding, they were doing simple ARQ on RTTY similar to PACTOR but without the full automation aspect.
  4. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Who did?

  5. N2EY

    N2EY Ham Member QRZ Page

    The license tests didn't/haven't kept ALL the bad apples out. No license test can - particularly when the test is a one-time thing that, once passed, can be renewed pretty much indefinitely - at 10 year intervals!

    Heck, look at how many bad drivers are on the roads, even though the testing for a driver's license is, IMHO, more comprehensive and the stakes much higher.

    Oh puh-leeze.....extortion? How much is your radio gear worth? How much do you pay per year to license and insure your motorcycles? $50 a year is chump change.

    But....don't worry. There's no real chance FCC will start charging for Amateur Radio licenses any time soon. IIRC, there was a court case decades ago (not by hams!) which challenged license fees on the basis of economic benefit to the licensee. IANAL, but, as I understand it, the court ruled that license fees had to match the economic benefit to the licensee - which meant that fees for broadcasters and other for-profit radio services were OK, but since amateur radio and some other services aren't, or the profit cannot be figured out, such fees could not be charged.

    The vanity call fee was OK because it was for a special service (but it's gone now). The VE fees go to the VECs, to offset their costs - and they're a fee for the test, not the license. FCC set a maximum on the VE fees, but not a minimum - some VEs charge less, some even do it for free (actually, out of their own pockets).

    I'd gladly pay $100 a year if it resulted in real enforcement - but that's very, very unlikely.

    Enforcement is largely a matter of resources. That's why there has been so little since the 1980s: not enough resources.

    Americans wanted "small government" and "deregulation". The bad apples on the bands are the result.
    WU8Y and WD4IGX like this.
  6. SM0AOM

    SM0AOM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Personally, I would like to see a return to the 1960's regime:
    • Difficult tests
    • Background checks (criminal record, general behaviour and trustworthiness)
    • Licence fees
    • Extensive "peer pressure", both on the air and in the clubs. You were supposed to report any infractions to the Authorities.
    • The knowledge that the amateur bands were under H24 survelliance by both Government radiomonitoring,
    • military SIGINT as well as the Security Police
    • The possibility to fine a miscreant, as well as revoking a licence on short notice
    The net effect of this became that "bad on the air behaviour" was almost unheard of.

    Less or non-existent enforcement is one of the consequences of deregulation.
    When the "market" is supposed to take care of all relations between the actors,
    you always will get what you pay for; no payments = nothing.

    Paying customers will on the other hand always
    have their interests defended by the Government. Higher payments = more protection and influence.

    Also, expect to get the "bad hand" when spectrum real estate is auctioned off.

    N2EY likes this.
  7. KY5U

    KY5U Subscriber QRZ Page

    Anyone buddy-buddy with a congressman or senator? Record the mayhem on a few of the worst frequencies, take them to your senator/representative and set specific goals for the FCC. Then let him meet with the FCC Chairman and ask for the specific goals to be met on a short term basis. No nebulus "get back to enforcement" but specific goals like clean up xxxxkhz, target specific hams like k1lem and corral at least two QRMers to send a message. The goal must be complete in max 6 months and work with FCC on a convenient time for them.
  8. W3WN

    W3WN Ham Member QRZ Page

    It doesn't matter if the FCC starts charging fees again, or how much.

    Unless legislation is passed that permits the FCC to retain those funds AND use them specifically for enforcement, any fees collected go straight into the US Treasury. The FCC does not get any of it back, directly.

    So even if the FCC was able to collect, say, $50M in additional funds, without said legislation, NONE of that will go back to them. None.

    If memory serves, that was one of the issues in the aforementioned lawsuit regarding license fees. Since there is no direct correlation between fees collected and the FCC's budget, the purpose of the fees was solely to collect revenue for the government.
  9. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    That may be true, BUT... Amateurs used an existing protocol and IMPROVED upon it, and the improved methods were then adopted by industry. Does anyone in the professional world still use "plain ol'" X.25? Or they now using AX.25?
  10. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    My point (and I hope yours) was that "PC" did NOT apply JUST to the IBM Personal Computers (or compatible PC/MS-DOS computers.)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: UR5CDX-1