Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: New license fee proposal open for comments  (Read 652 times)

K6CPO

  • Member
  • Posts: 839
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2020, 12:05:41 PM »

I suspect most hams paid $50 for their foot switch. Or double that for a microphone. While some may oppose it for some frivolous stated reason like emcom, it’s opponents are likely doing so only as a principle matter because it’s a government fee to which they are opposed rather than any financial consideration.
The NPRM indicates that the proposed “nominal” fee is supposed to reimburse the FCC for their “costs” in administering new and renewal license processing.

OK.  What costs? 

Who does all the work for new licenses?  The VECs.

Who does all the work for renewal processing?  Either the VECs or the Amateurs themselves when directly renewing via the ULS.  How much work does the FCC do again?

The ONLY reason specifically stated in the NPRM for the proposed $50 fee is... that’s what they currently charge for GMRS licenses, so if it’s good enough for one, it’s good enough for all.  Now, I don’t know how much work the FCC actually does for GMRS tickets... if its a lot, that may justify the fee.  Amateur license processing, with as much is either automated or handled by third parties, can’t possibly cost anywhere near that.

And another $50 for a mailed license?  Really?  Talk about a rip-off.

I do not object to a reasonable license renewal fee.

I do object to being gouged.

I do not understand how someone who becomes an amateur radio operator and is able to master the intricacies of some of the modern HF rigs can't figure how to access the ULS and download a copy of their license to print themselves.  I think the FCC would love to eliminate the mailing of physical licenses altogether.
Logged

K3NRX

  • Member
  • Posts: 3641
    • HomeURL
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2020, 02:05:20 PM »

Why not just pay it?

Because it's an onerous tax....time to stand up to government BS....Lord knows we had enough of that this year!....

Logged

W3WN

  • Member
  • Posts: 1127
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2020, 06:42:17 PM »

I suspect most hams paid $50 for their foot switch. Or double that for a microphone. While some may oppose it for some frivolous stated reason like emcom, it’s opponents are likely doing so only as a principle matter because it’s a government fee to which they are opposed rather than any financial consideration.
The NPRM indicates that the proposed “nominal” fee is supposed to reimburse the FCC for their “costs” in administering new and renewal license processing.

OK.  What costs? 

Who does all the work for new licenses?  The VECs.

Who does all the work for renewal processing?  Either the VECs or the Amateurs themselves when directly renewing via the ULS.  How much work does the FCC do again?

The ONLY reason specifically stated in the NPRM for the proposed $50 fee is... that’s what they currently charge for GMRS licenses, so if it’s good enough for one, it’s good enough for all.  Now, I don’t know how much work the FCC actually does for GMRS tickets... if its a lot, that may justify the fee.  Amateur license processing, with as much is either automated or handled by third parties, can’t possibly cost anywhere near that.

And another $50 for a mailed license?  Really?  Talk about a rip-off.

I do not object to a reasonable license renewal fee.

I do object to being gouged.

I do not understand how someone who becomes an amateur radio operator and is able to master the intricacies of some of the modern HF rigs can't figure how to access the ULS and download a copy of their license to print themselves.  I think the FCC would love to eliminate the mailing of physical licenses altogether.
Irrelevant.

First, the FCC says right in the NPRM that they prefer to eliminate printing tickets.

Second, the point was that under the fiction of covering costs for a “nominal” fee, the FCC proposes to gouge us.  $50 for an automated process that costs under $2 if that.  Really?

I do not object for reasonable fees to cover actual costs.  I do object to being ripped off.
Logged
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati.
Ban The DH!
זאל ס גיין באַקס!

N2EY

  • Member
  • Posts: 5698
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2020, 07:11:26 PM »

I suspect most hams paid $50 for their foot switch. Or double that for a microphone.

I didn't.
Logged

N2EY

  • Member
  • Posts: 5698
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2020, 07:48:13 PM »


Second, the point was that under the fiction of covering costs for a “nominal” fee, the FCC proposes to gouge us.  $50 for an automated process that costs under $2 if that.  Really?

I do not object for reasonable fees to cover actual costs.  I do object to being ripped off.

There's an old saying:

"Ask for the sun, accept the moon"

Consider the possibility that FCC may have intentionally set the price at $50, knowing they'd get a ton of opposition. They can then reduce the fee to, say, $20, and everyone pays up. And they look good.

But if they'd originally set the price at $20, there'd still be at ton of opposition, and they'd have to play hardball to keep it there.

It would not surprise me if that's exactly what's going on. So the best approach is to offer them alternatives, and request an explanation of why it costs $5 a year to administer a license where almost everything is automated.

The Big Problem is that we really don't know how they compute the actual costs. And you can bet they're not going to tell us.

----

An observation:

I have always been a bit mystified at the use of the phrase "fixed income" when someone is retired. Most working people are also on a "fixed income" - if they're lucky! Sure, anyone can ask the boss for a raise, but good luck getting one in "hard times" - and it seems that for most employees, it's almost always "hard times".

There may be a few employees today who are paid by the hour who can take on more hours to get more pay. But there aren't many.

Social Security payments are automatically increased, by law, in accordance with the CPI-W Consumer Price Index. This happens every year. Workers do not automatically get increases every year.


73 de Jim, N2EY



Logged

W9FIB

  • Member
  • Posts: 3501
    • HomeURL
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2020, 03:57:03 AM »

An observation:

I have always been a bit mystified at the use of the phrase "fixed income" when someone is retired. Most working people are also on a "fixed income" - if they're lucky! Sure, anyone can ask the boss for a raise, but good luck getting one in "hard times" - and it seems that for most employees, it's almost always "hard times".

There may be a few employees today who are paid by the hour who can take on more hours to get more pay. But there aren't many.

Social Security payments are automatically increased, by law, in accordance with the CPI-W Consumer Price Index. This happens every year. Workers do not automatically get increases every year.


73 de Jim, N2EY
Never thought of it that way, but it is logical.

My wallet has always said that too!
Logged
73, Stan
Travelling the world one signal at a time.

W9IQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 8866
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2020, 05:26:36 AM »

Consider the possibility that FCC may have intentionally set the price at $50, knowing they'd get a ton of opposition. They can then reduce the fee to, say, $20, and everyone pays up. And they look good.

I don't believe that to be the case, Jim. The FCC, 5 years ago, stated in writing that it costs them in excess of $25 to collect a fee. The law that is compelling them towards this recent action requires that they examine fees with the objective of cost recovery. So the level at which they stop generating costs and start recovering them is north of $25.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged
- Glenn W9IQ

God runs electromagnetics on Monday, Wednesday and Friday by the wave theory and the devil runs it on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by the Quantum theory.

W3WN

  • Member
  • Posts: 1127
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2020, 03:30:15 PM »

Consider the possibility that FCC may have intentionally set the price at $50, knowing they'd get a ton of opposition. They can then reduce the fee to, say, $20, and everyone pays up. And they look good.

I don't believe that to be the case, Jim. The FCC, 5 years ago, stated in writing that it costs them in excess of $25 to collect a fee. The law that is compelling them towards this recent action requires that they examine fees with the objective of cost recovery. So the level at which they stop generating costs and start recovering them is north of $25.

- Glenn W9IQ
You may be right, Glenn.

But consider... if these fees come to pass, in one form (or amount) or another, who is actually going to collect and process the fees?

For new tickets... the VECs.

For renewals... some by the VECs, some by the FCC online via the ULS. Online processing OUGHT to cost, at most, about a buck.

So if the FCC does the bulk of it’s license processing electronically, either directly or via authorized 3rd parties (ie the VECs), the actual cost to them OUGHT $5 or less.
Logged
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati.
Ban The DH!
זאל ס גיין באַקס!

W9IQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 8866
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2020, 03:39:59 PM »

I understand what you are saying but the FCC cost was for electronic processing. I am sure every business person is shaking their head at this notion but the Federal Government is a specialist in inefficiency.

- Glenn W9IQ

Logged
- Glenn W9IQ

God runs electromagnetics on Monday, Wednesday and Friday by the wave theory and the devil runs it on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by the Quantum theory.

W3WN

  • Member
  • Posts: 1127
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2020, 06:22:23 PM »

I understand what you are saying but the FCC cost was for electronic processing. I am sure every business person is shaking their head at this notion but the Federal Government is a specialist in inefficiency.

- Glenn W9IQ
Even so...  $50 per license, when the real cost to process the entire batch file, of dozens if not hundreds of license records, is under $5?

That’s more than Government inefficiency.  That’s price gouging.  That’s criminal, or should be.  If you or I did it, we’d be exposed for fraud on the 6:00 Evening News.  Shrugging that off by saying “well, it’s the Government” doesn’t make it any less so.
Logged
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati.
Ban The DH!
זאל ס גיין באַקס!

K6CPO

  • Member
  • Posts: 839
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2020, 11:44:10 AM »

Consider the possibility that FCC may have intentionally set the price at $50, knowing they'd get a ton of opposition. They can then reduce the fee to, say, $20, and everyone pays up. And they look good.

I don't believe that to be the case, Jim. The FCC, 5 years ago, stated in writing that it costs them in excess of $25 to collect a fee. The law that is compelling them towards this recent action requires that they examine fees with the objective of cost recovery. So the level at which they stop generating costs and start recovering them is north of $25.

- Glenn W9IQ
You may be right, Glenn.

But consider... if these fees come to pass, in one form (or amount) or another, who is actually going to collect and process the fees?

For new tickets... the VECs.

For renewals... some by the VECs, some by the FCC online via the ULS. Online processing OUGHT to cost, at most, about a buck.

So if the FCC does the bulk of it’s license processing electronically, either directly or via authorized 3rd parties (ie the VECs), the actual cost to them OUGHT $5 or less.

As a VE team leader, I will categorically refuse to collect fees for the FCC.  They can do it the same way they do the qualification question.  The applicant takes the examination and if they pass, then they have to provide information to the FCC.  they can do the same thing.  Once the applicant passes, then they send the fee to the FCC and then the license is issued.
Logged

N2EY

  • Member
  • Posts: 5698
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2020, 04:45:17 AM »



As a VE team leader, I will categorically refuse to collect fees for the FCC.  They can do it the same way they do the qualification question.  The applicant takes the examination and if they pass, then they have to provide information to the FCC.  they can do the same thing.  Once the applicant passes, then they send the fee to the FCC and then the license is issued.

This brings up a question about VECs and fees.....

Suppose someone attends a VE session, takes a test and fails. Will the FCC still expect to collect the fee even though no license nor upgrade resulted?

In the bad old days (1964-1975), FCC got their fee whether you passed or failed. BUT, in those times it was FCC conducting the exams.

Will they expect their cut even though no license nor upgrade results?

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged

W9IQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 8866
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2020, 04:48:56 AM »

In your example, Jim, the VEC has not entered anything into the FCC computer. So there would not be an FCC fee as the FCC isn't even aware of the failed test. Much like the old days, the VEC usually collects their fee whether or not the applicant passes the test.

Now if the FCC decides to have a fee in order to get your FRN, then that may be another matter...

- Glenn W9IQ
« Last Edit: September 16, 2020, 04:53:59 AM by W9IQ »
Logged
- Glenn W9IQ

God runs electromagnetics on Monday, Wednesday and Friday by the wave theory and the devil runs it on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by the Quantum theory.

N2EY

  • Member
  • Posts: 5698
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2020, 04:57:27 AM »

I understand what you are saying but the FCC cost was for electronic processing. I am sure every business person is shaking their head at this notion but the Federal Government is a specialist in inefficiency.

- Glenn W9IQ

Is it really inefficiency or the way they do their books?

We've all heard the stories about the "$800 hammer". The reality is that the "$800 hammer" is the result of two things:

- Capturing and documenting all the related costs of the hammer, from the initial specification to the time everyone spends on hammer acquisition and storage.

- Paying for "black projects" that are so secret they do not officially exist. Nothing is really secret if one can follow the money!

In any event, if it really does cost $25 to collect a fee, the principle I mentioned earlier applies: Ask for $50, be bargained down to, say, $35.

----

I suggest that everyone comment to FCC - and ask some hard questions:

- Why $50 for even a simple renewal that is done electronically?
- Will the money be spent on more and effective enforcement?
- Will a failed test still require the fee?

Also suggestions:

- Discounts or no fee for first licenses and those under 21
- Upgrades get an automatic renewal if the license is not redlined for review
- Vanity calls be more expensive so that other fees can be lower
- Fancy printed license documents available from FCC for a fee (pure profit)
Logged

N2EY

  • Member
  • Posts: 5698
Re: New license fee proposal open for comments
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2020, 05:03:46 AM »

BTW.....there is a work-around for the fee.....at least for now.

When the FCC collected fees for vanity calls, a new vanity call would generate an automatic renewal regardless of where the license was in its term. This was done to avoid having to pro-rate the fee.

When the FCC stopped collecting fees for vanity calls, this practice continued.

So.....

Suppose someone with, say, 2 years left on their license requested a vanity call today - say, a 2x3 call they once held, or a call nobody has ever held, etc.

Then as soon as the new vanity call is issued, they decide they don't like it and ask for their old call back. As a former holder of that call, they get it right back.

And in the process, the renewal date is now 10 years away.

----

Not that I would do anything like that. Oh no, not me - my call was sequentially issued in 1977, anyway.

Just asking for a friend.....

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up