VHF+ Spectrum: Our Future (a new approach)

Discussion in 'VHF/UHF - 50Mhz and Beyond' started by W2EV, Oct 10, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-2
  1. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    I take it from the above comment that it is not clear that Congress has given the FCC the authority to implement such a "surcharge" or tax.

    The ham radio population represents less than 1% of the US population. Subtract from that the number of hams who do not possess equipment for the band(s) in question and therefore would not be entitled to any form of compensation for their gear. See below from the original post.

    The legal aspect of using government resources to facilitate the transfer of funds from a private corporation(s) to a small group of private citizens would make for an interesting interpretation of the law.
     
    PU2OZT and K7JEM like this.
  2. W2EV

    W2EV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hi Steve,
    It's really nice to reconnect with you again! The VHF Group just celebrated 70 years of activity with a bang (bringing home ARRL gavels for January, June and September in the same year). I'm happy to pass along your greeting to them.
    Cheers,
    Ev
     
  3. W2EV

    W2EV Ham Member QRZ Page

    The proposal is to establish a mechanism for the surcharge. I'm not sure how that was somehow unclear.

    If you don't have equipment in the spectrum, you get no compensation. Again, I'm not sure why that is somehow an issue. The added component of this approach is that any remaining funds (and there will be plenty) would be used to build the VHF+ knowledge and activity beyond that of repeaters...something that over half of our licensees would directly benefit from well into the future.

    There is precedent for using government resources to facilitate funds transfer ... and across many aspects of life (not just telecommunication issues).

    What we need is a new approach. The old one doesn't work. This one is quite viable, but needs the support and leadership of an organization with the resources to pursue it. Folks...send a link to this thread to your ARRL Director and Vice Director.

    There is nothing to lose through such action. There is plenty to lose through inaction.
     
  4. K7JEM

    K7JEM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't think any of your proposal is viable on any level.

    First, the FCC probably can't impose a tax, and if they receive money from an auction, it has to go to the purpose that has been established for those funds. That isn't going to change easily.

    Second, a 501c3 isn't going to be able to just get those funds. There would be a process, probably through a grant allocation, if this was to ever happen. That process might have a lot of different entities clamoring for the money. The FCC (and no federal agency) can just "give" money away to some pre-chosen entity, without making that money available to basically anyone who qualifies.

    Third, if the idea is to compensate hams who are displaced from the bands, just let the auction winners do that directly for the people in their statistical area. It would be a lot cheaper to do that. Have everyone that thinks they are entitled to a claim fill out the appropriate paperwork and file it with the carrier. The carrier could ask for the equipment to be returned to them, and the people could get paid. This would weed out a lot of people making false claims.

    Fourth, it is not the responsibility of the FCC auction to promote some sort of ham radio education. That is just something that will not happen.

    Fifth, the amount of raw money collected from a 1% tax on the auction would be staggering. For example, the recently closed auction of 70MHz in the 3550 to 3650 band brought in $4.5 billion. 1% of that amount would be $45 million, which is way more than needed to compensate users to move to another band.
     
    K3XR likes this.
  5. W2EV

    W2EV Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't think any of your proposal is viable on any level.

    If true, then it would be good to not assist a cause that you don't believe in. Lol. Interestingly, even if you don't personally have a "dog in the hunt" (equipment for this particular band or an interest in educating our licensees) if this were to get traction it could easily set precedent for a time in the future when you may. There is no down-side to pursuing this approach to see how far it can go. The present approaches aren't working any longer.​

    First, the FCC probably can't impose a tax, and if they receive money from an auction, it has to go to the purpose that has been established for those funds. That isn't going to change easily.

    ...and...

    Second, a 501c3 isn't going to be able to just get those funds. There would be a process, probably through a grant allocation, if this was to ever happen. That process might have a lot of different entities clamoring for the money. The FCC (and no federal agency) can just "give" money away to some pre-chosen entity, without making that money available to basically anyone who qualifies.

    The word "tax" is mine, and used to help others to understand a concept. Nothing more. As I have said earlier in the thread, an organization (the ARRL in this case) can...and does...lobby legislators. thanks to their "Spectrum Defense Fund". They (legislators) can legislate this concept into reality if properly informed and guided.

    Just because changing something (in this case: how received funds are directed and used) isn't easy shouldn't deter an attempt to do so. It is how progress is made.​

    Third, if the idea is to compensate hams who are displaced from the bands, just let the auction winners do that directly for the people in their statistical area. It would be a lot cheaper to do that. Have everyone that thinks they are entitled to a claim fill out the appropriate paperwork and file it with the carrier. The carrier could ask for the equipment to be returned to them, and the people could get paid. This would weed out a lot of people making false claims.

    Compensating displaced private citizens for personal loss is only one component of the proposal. The other is noted in the proposal. The proposal avoids suggesting the 501c3's course-of-actin as it would be an unimaginable rabbit-hole to navigate at this stage. However, I agree that the 501c3 will need to come up with a good method to assure proper and defensible disbursement of those funds.​

    Fourth, it is not the responsibility of the FCC auction to promote some sort of ham radio education. That is just something that will not happen.

    I'm not sure how this was misunderstood. The proposal does not place the FCC in that position. It places a 501c3 in that position ("education" is the other goal, after compensating displaced band users).​

    Fifth, the amount of raw money collected from a 1% tax on the auction would be staggering. For example, the recently closed auction of 70MHz in the 3550 to 3650 band brought in $4.5 billion. 1% of that amount would be $45 million, which is way more than needed to compensate users to move to another band.

    You clearly don't know how much money that existing band-users have invested and "staggering" is a relative term. Lol. Kidding aside, focus instead on establishing sorely needed funding with a 501c3 to both compensate privately funded band users and establish a viable and funded education and outreach program. This alone could easily benefit us much, much more broadly into the future.​

    Again, there is nothing to lose by taking this approach and much to gain both now and in the future. Please, forward a link to this thread to your ARRL Division Director and Vice Director and ask for their support.
     
  6. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Great to hear you're still active on the higher bands, Ev.

    I remember working you, and K2OS, and WA2WVL and lots and lots of the RVHFG guys on the VHF-UHF bands easily back when I was in NJ.

    350 mile very obstructed path, but it always worked, every day. For me, same beam heading as Toronto and they had a lot of VHF-UHFers on the bands then, too.

    I've been in L.A. for 32+ years now and it's not as easy here (too many mountains that are very high and all over) from a typical home station so a lot of the activity is "portable" and "rover" stuff. The only national award I've taken in recent years was in the ARRL UHF contest (August, 2010) where I somehow achieved #1 high score in the country in the "low power" (<150W) category -- and that was in great part thanks to a whole lot of rovers who were equipped through 10.3 GHz and operated from various hilltop locations all over the place.:p

    Keep up the good work!:)
     

Share This Page