Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: New Licensing Fee Proposal  (Read 511 times)

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
New Licensing Fee Proposal
« on: October 28, 2020, 03:14:21 PM »

I've just skimmed through the document. It makes a great deal of sense in terms of government cost-efficiency.

Amateur provisions are a most minor part of the overall proposal.

I would suggest that those who think paying any sort of additional fee(s) for amateur licensing keep in mind the overall purpose of the proposal. It's aimed towards bureaucratic support and improvement. Effective arguments (those to be taken seriously by bureaucrats and electeds) will need to address the overall purpose of the proposal.

Simply to state that any amateur fees are "unfair" or "too high" will impress no one and such commentary will doubtless be ignored.

What commercial licensees and other interests have to say will, of course, be much more important as a matter of course and comments will be prepared by legal staffs who know how
to attract positive interest and to argue effectively. Seems to me that the proposed fees are not particularly high for such parties and my guess is that the comments from the significant commenters are likely to be positive and supportive.

Bottom line: whining won't get you very far.
Logged

TMA34

  • Posts: 140
    • HomeURL
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2020, 04:02:52 PM »

Pay it and relax.
Logged

NC0L

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2020, 04:18:12 PM »

Pay it and relax.
...and this is coming from a ham radio operator?  Are you the same one that doesn’t use his call sign because of a concern over privacy?
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2020, 04:18:36 PM »

Pay it and relax.

Huh? Pay what?

No fees have yet been established!

And I'm not at all opposed to the proposal. I said, to repeat for poor readers, "it makes a great deal of sense..."
Logged

TMA34

  • Posts: 140
    • HomeURL
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2020, 04:20:34 PM »

Pay it and relax.

Huh? Pay what?

No fees have yet been established!

And I'm not at all opposed to the proposal. I said, to repeat for poor readers, "it makes a great deal of sense..."

Pay the fee.
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2020, 06:28:44 PM »

Pay the fee.

Hey pal--THERE IS NO FEE!

Nothing to pay. No bills. Nada. Niente.

There is a PROPOSAL for a fee.

Look it up. Read.

You are probably asking "what is a proposal?"

Dum da dum dum.
Logged

KA4GFY

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2020, 07:53:44 AM »

In nearly all Federal agencies, fees collected by the agency do not go back to the agency that collected them.  Those fees, taxes, fines, etc go directly to the US General Fund, where Congress can do whatever they want them.

So, the idea that FCC is collecting fees to offset their expenses doesn't make sense.

FCC is just doing what Congress is telling them to do.  Write your Senators and Representatives and tell them the idea doesn't make sense because the funds will not be available to FCC unless Congress appropriates it.  FCC is an agency funded by appropriations.  There are a few agencies funded by user fees, and FCC isn't one of them.

I am a Certified Public Accountant with 34 years of Federal government accounting and auditing.  I know how the system works.

Rich, KA4GFY   
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2020, 08:49:43 AM »

Fees collected by the agency do not go back to the agency that collected them.

The idea that FCC is collecting fees to offset their expenses doesn't make sense.

I know how the system works.
I don't doubt your knowledge or dismiss your perspective. Not at all

As a political argument, however, quite apart from where fees actually are collected or distributed, fees can be justified as significant contributions to the Federal budget.

Politics is all about selling an idea, not whether or not it is actually useful.

My point in posting was to show the political reality so that hams who oppose
fees can comment effectively rather than in a way that guarantees administrative or political rejection.

Federal administrations of certain types, which may include the current one, tend to want to appear to reduce government expenses so the budget can be "balanced." Of course it never is.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 09:02:44 AM by W6MK »
Logged

KA4GFY

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2020, 09:15:08 AM »

I agree with you.  Saying a fee is "unfair" or will impose a financial hardship isn't the way to make the case against fees.  Nor is saying hams provide a public service or it will discourage people from becoming hams.  Yes, it WILL decrease our numbers.  The legislators and FCC appointees don't care.

I was making the point that collecting fees to offset FCC's costs may be misguided because the money does not go directly to FCC.

Rich, KA4GFY. 
Logged

KA4GFY

  • Member
  • Posts: 72
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2020, 09:24:50 AM »

One more point, back when the FCC charged a fee for taking an exam, you took the exam in front of an FCC person.  That hasn't happened since 1984.  When I took my Technician and General exams, it was before an FCC engineer.

So, the idea of collecting a fee to offset their costs is bogus.  There is NO FCC staff involvement in processing a new license, renewing a license or modifying a license.  That is all done by the VEC's or the license holder themselves.  The only FCC involvement is in processing a vanity callsign application, where somebody has to make the decision of which application to approve.

73,
Rich, KA4GFY
Logged

K1VSK

  • Member
  • Posts: 1950
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2020, 09:37:45 AM »

I agree with you.  Saying a fee is "unfair" or will impose a financial hardship isn't the way to make the case against fees.  Nor is saying hams provide a public service or it will discourage people from becoming hams.  Yes, it WILL decrease our numbers.  The legislators and FCC appointees don't care.

I was making the point that collecting fees to offset FCC's costs may be misguided because the money does not go directly to FCC.

Rich, KA4GFY.
While generally correct, many Executive Branch agency fees can and do revert directly to special funds administered by the collecting agency and FCC does have numerous special accounts specifically authorized for their use.
While the NPRM doesn’t speak to this issue, Congress and the FCC are both well aware of how fees are collected and where they deposit. Simply pointing that out to them is stating the obvious.

And saying any fee will “decrease our numbers” seems fashionable, it has no basis in fact, can’t be demonstrated, isn’t relevant to the funding issue and they know all of that too.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2020, 09:42:27 AM by K1VSK »
Logged

KM1H

  • Member
  • Posts: 11155
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2020, 05:01:43 PM »

Quote
Hey pal--THERE IS NO FEE!

He IS NOT getting thru to you; read a few times and think it out
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2020, 06:20:24 PM »

He IS NOT getting thru to you; read a few times and think it out

Yep. Still makes little if any sense.
Logged

KM1H

  • Member
  • Posts: 11155
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2020, 09:11:16 AM »

Quote
Yep. Still makes little if any sense.

Somehow Im not surprised, you would fail miserably in an actual debate.
Logged

W6MK

  • Posts: 4095
    • HomeURL
Re: New Licensing Fee Proposal
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2020, 11:48:34 AM »

Somehow Im not surprised, you would fail miserably in an actual debate.

One of the abuses that will get you immediately expelled from a debate is the argumentum ad hominem.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up