Manager


Manager - N2MG
Manager Notes

Survey Question

Question

Would you be willing to pay an annual fee ($5-$10) on your ham license if the money went to pay for tougher FCC enforcement of the amateur bands?

Results (2677 answers)

Take this Survey

Please Login (above) before taking this survey.

Survey Comments

We already pay them to enforce the laws...

... and they don't.

The FCC is paid with general fund taxes. If they need incentive, let them fine the hell out of the violators, and the fines go to pay the FCC salaries.

With a little incentive, the bands would be clean in a few months.
Posted by K2BK on 2005-11-21

I will pay!

With ARRL's push to "dumb down" the standards, we will have an inrush of CBers. With them will come the CB attitude toward IGNORING rules. We will need additional enforcement, and I would pay a few bucks to support it.
Posted by W9WHE-II on 2005-10-27

Confusion cleared

We hams pay a fee for our license and for renewal, and extra fees for a vanity call to cover the cost. This is one matter. Enforcement is an entirely different matter. If government ever had a clear purpose, it is enforcement of law. I would not want to pay the police additional fees to enforce driver's license violations, and I do not want to pay the FCC additional fees to enforce ham license violations. Let's be clear on these important issues.
Posted by AI2IA on 2005-10-22

No more fees

This is just another example of the Rebublican leadership "cutting" taxes, then finding ways to take the same money from us.
Posted by N4PEQ on 2005-09-22

Funds needed to stop New CBers

Now that Ham licenses will be like opening a Cracker Jacks Box for the trinket we will need more enforcement to crack down on the invasion of CB mentality and big mouth idiots. In the mean time the Ham equipment manufactures have gotten exactely what they wanted through massive bribes of FCC executives. This is a joke! WA2NRC
Posted by WA2NRC on 2005-09-06

No More Taxation

.
Isn't it time to get our high class Reps off of welfare and let them go and get a job like the rest of us.

I say NO to supporting a den of thieves.
.:
Posted by W6TH on 2005-09-02

Funds to FCC Enforcement

The FCC is a department of the government. All forms of income the government receives goes into the general fund no matter what the purpose for which it was collected. That inculdes Social Security. There is no Social Secruity fund and never was one. It all goes into the general fund. I will not give one cent more to the government that what is required of me. All a fee would amount to is an annual tax on our ham license.
Posted by KB2VCI on 2005-08-23

no if they want the the Ham Bands let them Have them I would not give 1penny ,
Posted by KD4MXE on 2005-08-13

Posted by K4UUG on June 25, 2005

K4UUG says......Yes I would support a fee for tighter FFC Enforcement of all Amateur bands provided Morse Code is removed as licensing requirement for any class of Amateur Radio license.

KB4QLZ says..... Cry me a freaking river, would ya...

And BTW, why did you send me a BOGUS eQSL Card wanting to CONFIRM an Echolink contact that YOU KNOW NEVER HAPPENED. Did ya miss taking some of your meds, or did KF4VGX put you up to that seeing how he has now been BANNED, like YOU, from posting in the QRZ forums.... Why don't ya fill me in, tough guy.

KB4QLZ





Posted by KB4QLZ on 2005-07-13

What a joke

K4UUG would pay for enforcement ONLY IF THE FCC DROPS THE CODE?

Sounds more like a bribe than an enforcement issue.
Posted by KA5FAP on 2005-07-13

What a joke

K4UUG would pay for enforcement ONLY IF THE FCC DROPS THE CODE?

Sounds more like a bribe than an enforcement issue.
Posted by KA5FAP on 2005-07-13

What a joke

K4UUG would pay for enforcement ONLY IF THE FCC DROPS THE CODE?

Sounds more like a bribe than an enforcement issue.
Posted by KA5FAP on 2005-07-13

$5-10 ANNUAL Fee

Wouldn't mind a $5-10 fee covering the 10 yr license period. Think $5-10/Year is a bit excessive. That's why I voted NO.
Just my $.02
Denny WA8SHC
Posted by WA8SHC on 2005-06-25

FCC enforcement

Yes I would support a fee for tighter FFC Enforcement of all Amateur bands provided Morse Code is removed as licensing requirement for any class of Amateur Radio license.The hobby/service needs to grow in the direction of electronics theory ,the mode attitude needs to go!,The Morse code requirement serves as an advancement barrier to many otherwise qualified knowledgable individuals.I believe the mode attitude is the Achilles Heel of the Amateur Radio Hobby/service.Changing your attitude towards change and new comers and strict enforcment of all amateur bands is a key part of growing amateur radio in the future. Remember code will not make anyone a good operator the FCC Enforcement Letters prove that case majority of problems are on the HF Bands not FM Repeater systems and VHF & UHF bands.Also Too many Dead beat Amateurs who dont support their local clubs repeaters but use them every day need to pony up the cash and support their local clubs first off before crying about a $5 fee!I think a $5 fee every year would give the FCC the funds to have enforcement teams in each state to investigate any violations.

Posted by K4UUG on 2005-06-25

Funds for FCC enforcement

Very BAD idea! It is the miscreants that should pay fines, NOT the law abiding who operate in accordance with the regulations. I am opposed to giving the government any more money or any more tax money. They will squander it!
Posted by K4RAB on 2005-06-24

Hell NO!

How about they use the fines they collect from the miscreants that infest the lower bands to prop up their enforcement arm!

What we need to do is keep the stupid administration (not just this one, all of them are stupid) from cutting the FCC's funds even more.
Posted by AC4FS on 2005-06-21

Funds for enforcement

Let the fines they collect pay for more enforcement. This could provide all they need. The more they enforece and clen up the bands the more money they get to do the job.
Posted by NA5XX on 2005-06-21

Funds for FCC Enforcement

Yes, if the funds were specifically designated for
enforcement. If the funds go into a general fund they will
never be applied to enforcement because some
administrator will figure out a use for additional funds.
Posted by W0LD on 2005-06-20

FEES FOR ENFORCEMENT

Since the government takes most of my hard earned money...I'll give the rest to the FCC....Maybe they will allow me to call CQ on 20M...
Posted by W4EGG on 2005-06-20

NEXT TOPIC, PLEASE

This one has gone on long enough...
Posted by KI4GPX on 2005-06-19

Put your money in the Box!

Everbody's got their hand out!

Put your money in the box! That's what you hear everywhere you go!

Enough is enough! Absolutely not a single dime!

Whoever came up with this great idea? Shoot 'em!
Posted by W1CAL on 2005-06-18

A better idea!

I've got a better idea.

Let's file this idea of paying for our ham license under 'Fertilizer'!
Posted by W1CAL on 2005-06-18

Enforcement has harmed the hobby!

If anything, we ought to cut the enforcement budget. Enforcement has supported the takeover of the hf phone bands by chit-chat groups that contribute little to the hobby while building the new image of ham radio as a bunch of uneducated bumpkins. Also, the central control of all enforcement at the federal level has been compromised. Giving authority to states, regional repeater coordinators, and local groups or control operators, which links to FCC enforcement actions has begun a process which will ruin the hobby within a few years. When the FCC threatens an operator on the basis of rules set by a local repeater, that enforcement officer is way over the line.

The hobby had some real bad apples who have been weeded out by the fine work of the FCC in recent years. Enforcement actions did not stop there. They have become a problem themselves. The worst error was when they condoned telephone complaints directly from one ham to another.

Let us keep their budget tight so they cannot cause undue trouble. 73,
Posted by K8NQC on 2005-06-18

Enforcement has harmed the hobby!

If anything, we ought to cut the enforcement budget. Enforcement has supported the takeover of the hf phone bands by chit-chat groups that contribute little to the hobby while building the new image of ham radio as a bunch of uneducated bumpkins. Also, the central control of all enforcement at the federal level has been compromised. Giving authority to states, regional repeater coordinators, and local groups or control operators, which links to FCC enforcement actions has begun a process which will ruin the hobby within a few years. When the FCC threatens an operator on the basis of rules set by a local repeater, that enforcement officer is way over the line.

The hobby had some real bad apples who have been weeded out by the fine work of the FCC in recent years. Enforcement actions did not stop there. They have become a problem themselves. The worst error was when they condoned telephone complaints directly from one ham to another.

Let us keep their budget tight so they cannot cause undue trouble. 73,
Posted by K8NQC on 2005-06-18

Good Idea

We would have some flat broke folks on 80 meters!
Posted by KD7XXX on 2005-06-16

the old hams will to get rid of the new hams

I think that the older hams will pay this
just to get rid of the younger hams or the newer hams that they do not want on the air.

i get it all of the time
I have a 706 witl oly aobut 1 hour of usageon it because every where I go on the hf bands the
old timers and clicks do not want you to join there groups

like dayton what is the use of going, no one to see or not many from over seas
they see that it is not worth it eather

Posted by N0ZU on 2005-06-14

start at $5 and then go up every year by $5

i can see it now
they start at $5.00 then
go up $5.00 every year becasue they
kow they can do it and then get
away with it.

also just think
you think the ham radio operator
numbers are down, and we need more
operators.

will become
NO OPERATORS
NO HAMS
and
NO BANDS!!!

The FCC WILL JUST TAKE THEM ALL!!
you see
I and alot of others can not affored it
I make under $20,000 a year
Lets see he ones that make $50,000 or better
Live on that,
I bet they could not


Posted by N0ZU on 2005-06-14

Funds to FCC Enforcement


If every ham gives $5 per year, that would be about $3,000,000 total per year. Assuming the standard private/federal business model, about 2/3 of this amount will go toward administrative costs, leaving about $1,000,000 for actual enforcement salaries. Assuming average salaries between $50,000 and $100,000 per year (generous on my part), this $1,000,000 can fund 10-20 FCC enforcement officers for ham radio.

Will that make a difference?

73, Nick N3AIU
Posted by N3AIU on 2005-06-14

Enforcement Fees

I am certain if we all gave in and started paying ANY amount of "extra" money to the FCC for enforcement on the amateur bands the funds would me misappropriated and abused just like all the other money we pay into the abyss.
Posted by N8NSN on 2005-06-14

VAP1DW

He is not listed for a reason, my guess is he has people looking for him.
Stanley, do you really think you can hide ?
I will post your information if people ask.
Posted by KC9CEW on 2005-06-13

KC9CEW

Go ahead dude, show your ignorance, post away.
But then you need to realize that turnabout is fair play.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-13

chump = stanley

HAHAHA, my info is open to the public, you chicken shizzle.
Me no hide, no reason too, why do you hide like a little girl ?
Posted by KC9CEW on 2005-06-13

KC9CEW

Then go ahead, what do you have to lose?
Post my stuff, I dare you.
Wonder what my resources can dig up on you? Now you got me curious. Let's play our little game, shall we?
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-13

No way - not if ARRL HQ is in the mix

Don't we pay taxes already? Why should we pay more for the FCC to do their JOB? Is HAM radio being DISCRIMINATED upon by the FCC?

The problem is having the ARRL HQ evalauting OO findings and only subimtting those that will get the ARRL HQ the most PR splash. Having the ARRL HQ incharge of the OO program is a conflict of interest - the ARRL is in promoting HAMdom (staff salaries) thus reeping the rewards of increased membership. It does not increase membership for the OO program to do their job. Big brother ARRL HQ cannot be everthing to everyone!
past LA Section OOC
past WI Section OOC
Posted by N6JSX on 2005-06-13

No way - not if ARRL HQ is in the mix

Don't we pay taxes already? Why should we pay more for the FCC to do their JOB? Is HAM radio being DISCRIMINATED upon by the FCC?

The problem is having the ARRL HQ evalauting OO findings and only subimtting those that will get the ARRL HQ the most PR splash. Having the ARRL HQ incharge of the OO program is a conflict of interest - the ARRL is in promoting HAMdom (staff salaries) thus reeping the rewards of increased membership. It does not increase membership for the OO program to do their job. Big brother ARRL HQ cannot be everthing to everyone!
past LA Section OOC
past WI Section OOC
Posted by N6JSX on 2005-06-13

No way - not if ARRL HQ is in the mix

Don't we pay taxes already? Why should we pay more for the FCC to do their JOB? Is HAM radio being DISCRIMINATED upon by the FCC?

The problem is having the ARRL HQ evalauting OO findings and only subimtting those that will get the ARRL HQ the most PR splash. Having the ARRL HQ incharge of the OO program is a conflict of interest - the ARRL is in promoting HAMdom (staff salaries) thus reeping the rewards of increased membership. It does not increase membership for the OO program to do their job. Big brother ARRL HQ cannot be everthing to everyone!
past LA Section OOC
past WI Section OOC
Posted by N6JSX on 2005-06-13

Not listed by QRZ isn't such a bad thing ...

He's got a post on this site where he explains (kinda) what happened at QRZ.com. And I've got to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.
I've not used my regular callsign when posting here, or anywhere else for some of the same problems with the management of QRZ & some other websites.

Apparently, this guy would like nothing more than to have somebody come to his house so he can start a fight, and then try to cook them a steak afterwards. I guess it takes all kinds, just not my cup of tea.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-11

would you pay for increased FCC action

absolutely not! They already have more than enough budget to do what they're supposed to do. "what are they doing with what they already have??" What about the money from the frequency autions??
I say let them do what they're already paid to do!
Richie K8JX
Posted by K8JX on 2005-06-11

would you pay for increased FCC action

absolutely not! They already have more than enough budget to do what they're supposed to do. "what are they doing with what they already have??" What about the money from the frequency autions??
I say let them do what they're already paid to do!
Richie K8JX
Posted by K8JX on 2005-06-11

KC5CQD...

You gotta wonder why he's "Not listed by QRZ"...or maybe not.
Posted by N3EG on 2005-06-10

$5 - $10

"Last time I checked, this is still a republic, and we elect those who represent us."

That was true, until the first George W Bush election. Didn't you watch "Fahrenheit 911"?



Posted by FORMER_AF0H_RH on 2005-06-09

Funding FCC

For K6AJR I ask: Who was it that "gave" them this responcibility?

That being said, I think Ham radio would be more secure if we paid a much healthier "fee" for licensing.

When I first got licensed it was $25.00 bucks, then went to $4.00, and is now "free".

I think we would have a better voice if we paid more. How many don't think 'Ham radio is worth the money'?
Posted by WA6BFH on 2005-06-08

Funds for the Feds

WHEW...............

That's all I have to say.
I know someone will comment on the WHEW!

Oh Well....
Posted by W4TAI on 2005-06-07

More funds for Amateur Radio Law Enforcement

Hi from Canada. I live in the metropolitan City of Greater Vancouver on the West Coast with about three million inihabitants and exactly two (2) radio inspectors. I would gladly pay money to get some more help with the LIDs on HF, the jammers on two meters (with filthy mouths), constructively help me with any RFI problems I might have with the neighbours, etc. Here they have "gone away" and deemed Amateur Radio as "Self Policing". I would not mind spending the funds so that when I phone the Radio Inspector(s), there is someone "in" and they are not always "away"
Posted by VE7ALQ on 2005-06-07

KC5CQD

Damn dude, you're wrong about everything.
And now flip-flopping on the crap you said previously.
All I can say, is try to stay on your medication, you really need it!
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-07

FCC License Fee

It always has surprised me that an amateur radio license is essentially free. Amateur radio is a privilege granted to us by the government which has been given the responsibility to allocate the available radio spectrum. I see no problem with earning that privilege through testing for my license and then paying a fee for it.


Posted by K6AKR on 2005-06-07

Stupid comments

I will not be part of the ignorance. If you read you can see clearly who has any intellect or not.
Posted by N2WEC on 2005-06-06

Very interesting

I find it interesting that even with all the bitching and moaning about no money and the waste of government and taxes, the YES answers still are way ahead in this poll..wonder why??

Dan
Posted by N0FPE on 2005-06-06

$5.00 _ $10.00

All i can add beside's i believe the no's show more understanding of the Goverment than the Yes voter's is when was there any time the Goverment lived within there budget with out raising taxes. So if you belive that once you approve for the Goverment to take $5.00 - $10.00 per annum from you i'll bet you any amount your willing to bet within a very short period of time they will raise the amount and you'll still be demanding they do something about our problem's.
Posted by FORMER_K0PD on 2005-06-05

$5 - $10

I would very much like to see more enforcement, but I believe the "$5-$10" would never remain at $5-$10. As an analogy, how many states have avoided increasing their sales tax percentage over the years? I say we keep Pandora's Box closed.
Posted by W0EKS on 2005-06-05

"You're nothing more than one of the daily bus riders and lack the intellect or freedom of thought to understand a separatist philosophy.

Go drop your hook in the water elsewhere. This is one fish that you lack the I.Q. to catch."

ROTFLMAO! No, I've got the picture, you've told me pretty much everything I need to know about you and your alleged "escape from the bus"; I don't need or want to catch you!

But, I dare you to renounce your citizenship in this public forum.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-05

Stay at $10.00?

Yes, I can see where it may not stay at $10.00. After all, the vanity fee started at $50 or $100, then it was knocked down when complaints started coming in, but its going right back up with the excuse that it costs more to administrate the vanity program. After all, it costs $$$ for a computer to cough out a license renewal, vanity or otherwise. The only reason it costs more is the extra piece of the program that tells the computer whether the fee has been paid or not!
Posted by K1CJS on 2005-06-05

FEE ,TAX

iTS NOT THE MONEY ITS THE ADMINISTRATION THAT CONTROLLS US, WE HAVE NO REPERSENTATION IN THE HOUSE OR SENNAT NOW BUT FOR 5 BUCKS i TRY ANYTHING ONCE
Posted by W0EME on 2005-06-04

Funds For Additional Enforcement

No way would I give the government an extra dime. It would go into their coffers and used for everything BUT what it was intended for. After watching how long it took for them to do something to Gerritsen, no way!
Posted by AB6MH on 2005-06-04

No fee

I wouldn't give the government another penny for anything. They are just a bunch of unecessary, overpaid, wasteful bureaucrats.
Posted by K5JJ on 2005-06-04

Funds to FCC Enforcement

.

The FCC and Congress are not going to put the money to good use.

Congressmen, our government and the FCC are a den of thieves.

73 W6TH
.:
Posted by W6TH on 2005-06-04

Funds to FCC Enforcement

.

The FCC and Congress are not going to put the money to good use.

Congressmen, our government and the FCC are a den of thieves.

73 W6TH
.:
Posted by W6TH on 2005-06-04

What a bunch of ...

To all those who commented that the American government is untrustworthy and against us ...
Last time I checked, this is still a republic, and we elect those who represent us.
I guess Churchill was right, "The best argument against democracy is 5 minutes spent talking to the average American." Not that hams could be considered average or even normal.
I don't see you doing anything to change what you lament as a bad situation. You make me SAD that we are the same nationality.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-04

FCC Fee

No matter what you call it, a fee would be another tax. We should be thankful now that we don't get all the government we already pay for.
Posted by KD5VVK on 2005-06-04

Did it come to a complete stop?

Ok, I'm curious about this one: How exactly did you "get off the bus"?
You punched the button, it pulled to the side of the road and opened the door? The driver said, no more taxes, no more healthcare worries, no more safety & security issues for you?
Did it come to a screeching halt on its side after you shot the driver in the back of the head and you climbed out and are now livivg in a cave somewhere?
If I'm thinking right, and this is my question: you've been able to opt out of all the great social problems of our time by some means, I wanna know how you did it.
Or, are you saying that you just don't give a crap anymore?
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-03

A good idea

I think it is a good idea. And maybe totally not towards enforcement either. Maybe other things. Like advertising ham radio. Radio ads, TV ads, and banners on GMRS/FRS pages.

73 de KCØKBH
Posted by KC0KBH on 2005-06-03

Another Tax?

Do you really think that additional monies paid to the government will go to enforcement? You must be kidding! Our administration refuses to control the borders, spends too much money on social engineering, and our children cannot complete a sentence. Yea . . . let's throw money at the problem . . . it has always worked so well in the past!
Posted by K1GLJ on 2005-06-03

Read My Lips

No more taxes!!!
You dumb bunch off a**holes. You think giving more money to the government is going to solve anything?
If you believe that, then then I got some waterfront property on the Moon to sell ya...
Posted by NA4RA on 2005-06-03

Read My Lips

No more taxes!!!
You dumb bunch off a**holes. You think giving more money to the government is going to solve anything?
If you believe that, then then I got some waterfront property on the Moon to sell ya...
Posted by NA4RA on 2005-06-03

C'mon guys...

Bush has nothing to do with the current limp-wristed FCC. This has been a trend that started while Clinton was in - but I am not blaming him, either.

The FCC is full of lawyers, there are few technical people left. Commercial and Public Safety radio is a MESS, created by a dumbed-down FCC. The 800 mHz spectrum has been trashed, mostly by Nextel - again, thanks to a non-technically competent FCC.

I wish we had an FCC more like the IRS, but it isn't gonna happen...
Posted by WR8Y on 2005-06-02

FCC Enforcement

I'd pay the extra if they would really put some teeth in the law. However, that's not going to happen. Traffic and immigration laws are not enforced, our schools have become disaster areas, major areas of many cities are ruled by gangs, and on and on. Our governments are thoroughly corrupt at all levels and our society is going to "permissive" itself to death led by the ACLU, touchy-feelie shrinks, idealists, judges, and teachers. Stop the bus, I want to get off.
Posted by WB7DCV on 2005-06-02

Jail 'em.
JAIL them all!
Posted by W6EZ on 2005-06-02

WB7DCV.....

I got off the bus a long time ago. That's why I'm no longer a popular guy. I call things the way I see them with no regard for what's considered to be "appropriate".

Take it from me, WB7DCV.....NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR REALITY!!! It upsets their little fantasy world. You know, that world wherein there's a benevolent old man that sits in the sky and watches over us. The world wherein the government actually gives a damn. The world in which of all us are "basically good" and we all truly give a damn about one another. The world in which money isn't always the bottom line.

I bailed off that bus some twenty years ago and never looked back and I must say that afterwards my life improved ten-fold.
Posted by KC5CQD on 2005-06-02

NO...NO...NO Anyone who would agree to give ONE more dollar to our government or pay more taxes has no clue to what is going on. The wasteful spending and misuse of funds is costing us billions as taxpayers. The problem is in how are so called "public servants" decide to spend it. Maybe they should take some of the 10's of millions of taxpayer dollars that is already being used to pay for foreign "diplomats" to come over here for free ride vacations....:-(
Posted by WALLY on 2005-06-01

Another Fee???

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't the FCC
already have the responsibility of "enforcing
communication laws"? They're doing a very lousy job of it
now...why pay them more to do less? I don't care how
much lipstick you put on that pig...it's still a pig!!!
Posted by K6ZZZ on 2005-06-01

Freeloaders, Mad dogs & Englishmen

"Anyone who would agree to give ONE more dollar to our government or pay more taxes has no clue to what is going on."
Anyone who says stuff like that should go join the Peace Corps. & live in Nairobi for a year.
It's real simple, I pay a fee for the goods & services I receive, part of that is the fee for government programs and services. I also contribute to Social Security & medicare & medicade - would you like those services removed from your available options? Also, we live in a republic where you can work to change the things you don't like - if it bothers you so much that there is government waste, work to be part of the solution, and not just some guy on a streetcorner with his hand out yelling: "this sucks" and "pity me".
There are ways to do constructive complaining, this isn't one of them.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-01

So whats $10? if it helps enforce some of the rules then great.


Posted by KE1MB on 2005-06-01

Highly political FCC funs

We already pay federal income tax to the Federal Reserve Bank from which Congress disburses funds to the FCC among others. Enforcement funds are then disbursed by the FCC making it an internal issue. Since we're not getting what we already pay for (Gerritsen, Baxter et al) I see no reason to throw good money after bad. Rather the FCC should reorganize priorities and give AMATEUR enforcement a bit more attention.

They lack no funds when it comes to broadcast and other services, we as always are lowest priority because we don't have million dollar interests at stake and we can least afford "meaningful" contributions. Yes, that means a licensing fee is peeing in the ocean, would acomplish nothing but drain our wallets further.

One last thought, you can't compare vanity callsign fees, they go directly to administration costs not incurred by the computer that automatically spits out a callsign or change when you enter the data into the ULS yourself. Think "operating cost", with vanity calls you're paying someone else to do it and more.
Posted by KB2VXA on 2005-06-01

Highly political FCC funs [sic]

Ok, so you're saying that everything should come out of the general fund from receipts from our income taxes? That everyone in America should pay a part of everything, from the goods and services that are used by most all the way down to the goods and services that only are of benefit to a few hundred thousand? And, yeah, I know what's coming next, you'll say: Amateur radio benefits everyone in times of emergency -- which is total BS.
The reason that no funds seem to be lacking for enforcement of commercial operations, is because they go farther in paying the cost incured in administration and enforcement.
The fact is, you can't compare the fees for any part of the Amateur radio service to a self sustaining program. Even a database and data entry application that is primarily self serve, incurs storage, backup, administration and maintenence fees. Not to mention those who have to check the integrity of the information entered.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-01

Stan

Dude your reading and comprehension needs work.
I already pay taxes, and look for no free ride, and since you voted yes, go wright a check and send it off.
And far as offended, only by your arogance, jerk.


Posted by KC9CEW on 2005-06-01

Now there's an intelligent remark, at least I can spell.
As far as reading & comprehension, I can form complete sentences and argue with some valid reasons rather than resorting to name calling.
Maybe I should just write (not wright, dumb ass) a check; why do I think you might be more worried about stronger enforcement activities than relieved by it!
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-01

STAN = AHOLE

So it's a spelling contest ?

Another uptight ahole, good job.
Posted by KC9CEW on 2005-06-01

Yep, that's it, and that's all it is - life's a spelling contest, and ya know what else -- you lose!
I gotta remember to keep this short, since of all my points, you only managed to make something of the very first line.
They've got that 1-800-ABC-DEFG, I don't think they can teach you Morse, but at least you'll be better equiped for multi-line posts and multisylabic words.
Oh, and by the way: All your base are belong to us!
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-06-01

It's just not that easy, folks.

Again, I believe that the FCC is doing their most "cost-effective and legal" best. Tracking down and prosecuting an "offender of the airwaves" is not a cheap or easy thing to do. The FCC would need as many field agents as there are soldiers in the Army to fully enforce their laws.

I've mentioned this story before but got no feedback from anyone as to the specific facts but I'll tell it again. Maybe someone will remember it.

Back in the early to mid-nineties there was some guy that lived down in Florida that was wreaking havoc on twenty meters. After enough complaints, the FCC started watching(listening) to this guy and his antics. After quite some time and even more money, they tracked him to his house, kicked in his door, confiscated his equipment, revoked his ham ticket and took him to court. The guy obviously had himself a good attorney because after a year or two in court he got his license and equipment back. The reason being; The FCC couldn't prove that it was actually him at the control point of the radio. You have to actually SEE the person committing the offense!

Now after that fiasco, do you really think the FCC is eager to go chasing down radio pirates?

You would need 500 field agents per state and an army of savvy attorneys to win anything. It's just not cost effective. I think the FCC probably feels that the number and frequency of violators/violations just isn't worth the cost and effort to go after them.
Posted by KC5CQD on 2005-06-01

A couple of points:
1. Gerritsen didn't just interfere with stuff on amateur frequencies, he also assaulted Commercial and Marine communications, and at least in one instance, tried to disrupt emergency communications between the Coast Guard and a disabled vessel. Had he only interfered with the Amateur radio service, I doubt the enforcement actions would have come this swiftly, if at all. Still, I'm glad he's gone, and would be willing to pay for more enforcement for interference.
2. I don't use code now, but have had to pick it up again several times, and will tell you that I find it easier to re-learn than to initially learn. In the case of learning Morse code, I think its a case of desire, rather than ability. However, I don't look down on those who haven't learned Morse code. I do look down on those who hold it over others to suborn them.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-05-31

Fee for FCC Enforcement

I have to vote NO. The FCC is already government funded and has the responsibility of enforcing the rules on the amateur bands. The FCC directs most of its resources to other areas and expects us to regulate ourselves most of the time. How could we be sure that our $5 or $10 would be used for amateur enforcement and not for other areas. Also, do we really want more FCC regulation. Personally, I prefer self-regulation with the FCC stepping in only when needed.
Posted by WA3ELQ on 2005-05-31

I VOTED HELL NO!

We already pay taxes and taxes and more taxes. Now, some of you think we should buy our license from the government we are already subsidizing with tons of tax money. When the government convinces me, a 31-year military retiree who has seen gross waste and abuse up close and personal, that I am getting the most bang for my hard-earned tax dollar, I will agree to pay extra...and not one second sooner.

Instead of blindly forking over your hard earned money without so much as a whimper, get off your butt, get out of the shack, and insist the existing enforcement group performs to its limits.
Posted by KG4NZR on 2005-05-31

I VOTED HELL NO, TOO!

I agree that this is just another way to get more of your money. They should be able to do this already with what they have. Just because you give them more money doesn't mean that you will see any change. I mean, come on, isn't nearly every tax proposal said to help "educate our kids" and "give teachers a pay raise"? The money NEVER gets to where it needs to be! It always goes to some professional (used loosely) football team or something (the New Orleans Saints). I'll keep my money thank you!
Posted by K4SGT on 2005-05-31

I VOTED HELL NO, TOO!

I agree that this is just another way to get more of your money. They should be able to do this already with what they have. Just because you give them more money doesn't mean that you will see any change. I mean, come on, isn't nearly every tax proposal said to help "educate our kids" and "give teachers a pay raise"? The money NEVER gets to where it needs to be! It always goes to some professional (used loosely) football team or something (the New Orleans Saints). I'll keep my money thank you!
Posted by K4SGT on 2005-05-31

NO FRICKEN WAY !!!!!!!!

I don't think so, Government already takes to much of our monies.
Let the rich ones that voted yes, wright a check and mail it off today.
Posted by KC9CEW on 2005-05-31

NO FRICKEN WAY !!!!!!!!

I don't think so, Government already takes to much of our monies.
Let the rich ones that voted yes, wright a check and mail it off today.
Posted by KC9CEW on 2005-05-31

There it is!

I knew sooner or later ... "Let the rich pay for it". What is it about the U.S. that breeds the idea of entitlements and being so easily offended? That it's God's will or somebody else's fault.
Sounds like a case of sour grapes. If you think that government is too expensive, and that the rich are somehow oppressing you or holding you back, why don't you find somewhere you like it better? I'm sure there are still a few Pacific islands that still have a job opening for dictator you could apply for!
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-05-31

I am amazed any right thinking person would want more Goverment..If you think it's a problem now just turn more control over to the Goverment and it will guaranteed get worse......I VOTED HELL NO!!!!
Posted by FORMER_K0PD on 2005-05-30

More Government or More Enforcement?

Nobody absolutely has to have a license to talk on the radio, but it seems like everyone gets so bent out of shape because now someone might pay less or have to work less for something than they did. Is that not at least a large part of the animosity you see on these forums? And, for what? There's nothing I can do about the conditions of my code and theory test; the fact that I didn't have to sit in front of some government official at some FCC field office after walking 26 miles, in the snow, uphill, both ways is not the way it was done when I was old enough to get a license and it was my turn.
The most fair thing we can do is:
1) Retest everyone.
-or-
2) Shut down the ARS.
if it gripes you that much that I had it any easier.
Let's put it this way, I believe in a scorched earth policy particularly when someone ostracizes me for going thru a process that is ultimately out of my control. Do you think I might be able to start some web sites, call some representatives and make some valid points that Amateur radio has outlived its usefulness and should be abandoned because it's more trouble than its worth?
Amateur radio is not a must have for me, but I do enjoy some aspects of it.
I'm a strong advocate, or your worst nightmare -- your choice.
Posted by VAPIDW on 2005-05-30

How about Gerritsen??

To those who say enforcement won't work, have you been reading the news about this jammer? He (Gerritsen) did his worst, and now he's paying for it. It seems that enforcement does work.

Those who say no fees are the very ones who want something for nothing. They can go out and buy radios that cost a lot more than any fee, but they bit*h about paying for the license to use that radio. Those who have a vanity callsign are already paying a fee for that. It seems that $100 every ten years plus the vanity call fee if you want a vanity call is not unreasonable. If you can afford the radio you can afford the fee--or are you one of those something for nothing individuals?
Posted by K1CJS on 2005-05-30

Re: More Government or more Enforcement

I wonder how many of those who now hold a license with the code endorsement would pass the code test now? How many have forgotten the code or just plain don't use it anymore?
Posted by K1CJS on 2005-05-30

aa3jg

if the 5 words of code goes say good by too amateur radio.it will be just like cb radio all screwed up. just intenet will be left to talk on e-mail etc.
Posted by AA3JG on 2005-05-29

A PREDICTION FOR HAM RADIO


How about this: I predict that soon you will see in the works a fee for using the airwaves for any reason. Consider this: If you have a cell phone, you pay for using it. You pay for the use of the internet. You pay for any use of the airwaves, except for Ham Radio. I forsee that there will come a day when you will receive a "bill" for the time you spend on the air. It can't be done you say... think again. They have the means of identifying your transmitter now. Every transmitter has it's own unique footprint. And there is (available now) the technology and equiptment to identify any one of the millions of transmitters on the air, your voice print etc. Once you get on, and give your callsign.. They have your voice print, and your transmitter footprint, who you talked to, their voice print, transmitter footprint..etc. Your bill will include the time you spent on the air, where you were at the time, and your personal identity. You will have to register (another fee) your transmitter's model, serial, etc. If you should happen to sell it, or give it away, the registration will have to be changed or else, you will be billed for the time someone else uses it.
In case of failure to register, or failure to pay, there will be penalties, that will include fines, jail time, and forfiture of equiptment. In this day and time of super computers, satellites, etc. this is not too far fetched. The goverment is in the red, and must have more of your money NOW!!!...
The mindset of the Gov. is to be constantly searching for new ways to tax us citizens in the name of national security, or whatever. We have very little privacy now, and they wish to take what is left away from us. I personally hope it never happens, but there is a possibility. Two things are for certain death, and taxes. (fees)

Posted by AE4TR on 2005-05-29

$10 Fee? To do What?

Crime would not pay, if the government ran it! Start THIS idea and we will soon be experiencing the kind of success we have witnessed in the government's "war on drugs". Until some of the older generation dies we will get more and more of this government we don't want or need. What government employee EVER worked himself out of a job? This is a recipe for MORE not LESS trouble.
Posted by KD4IEJ on 2005-05-29

FCC Enforcement Fee

With the crap we have had to cope with during the past couple of years here in Southern California, your dam right I would pay a fee for the ridding of the former KG6IRO. IT will be interesting as to how much his trial will cost us taxpayers.
For any other reason, HELL no.
Posted by WA6BOB on 2005-05-28

Voted No on FCC Enforcement

Hello to all ham's out there, Well I also voted no to the poll because i am disabled and have been since birth . Ham radio is a good hobby for people with special need's. so join me in Voting No to the FCC Enforcement fee.
Posted by KF4BOG on 2005-05-28

No Fee

In my opinion, NO.
Honestly, should we pay more for something they should already be doing?
Posted by KC2ODX on 2005-05-28

How do you enforce it?

Even with millions upon millions of dollars, exactly how do you enforce the FCC laws? How do you track down one person in a city of millions or in the middle of nowhere and then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it actually was him/her at the control point of the radio at the time of the infraction? And let's say that you track that person and then a court does find that person guilty. What then? A $500.00 fine? You honestly don't think that you can lock someone up for using the "f" word on the air or operating a thousand more watts than they were authorized, do you? No. You fine them. But do the fines even come close to the expense it took to catch that ONE radio pirate? Not even.

The FCC is doing the best that they LEGALLY can, folks. In the world of crime, pirate radio just isn't much of a threat to the general public or national security. It may piss you off but in the grand scheme of things......these guys/gals really aren't bothering much of anything.


Posted by KC5CQD on 2005-05-28

$5 Fee

Yes, but . . . .only if it funded a death penalty for violation. Let's get serious!
Posted by KE5BCG on 2005-05-27

Fee for enforcement

So ridiculous it begs the sanity of the ops who voted in the affirmative. FCC is a government agency and laws are on the books for which the Commission is responsible to enforce. It is not the responsibility of honest amateurs to fund yet another government program when adequate penalties and remedies currently exist. Increasing fines of violators would accomplish far more!
Posted by W2DAP on 2005-05-27

Fees

I pay $110 every five years to renew commercial licenses that I don't eve use. The money is not the problem. The problem is the absolute certainty that it will be embezzled out of the FCC budget and spent on vote buying pork.
Posted by W6AJ on 2005-05-27

Balance

Blame Michael Powell. A Clinton appointee. Therfore it's B.J. Clinton's fault. :-)

The money would go into the general fund where Congress would spend it to study "the growth of corn in the urban environment".
Posted by WA2E on 2005-05-26

Why not $50 to $100 a year? That I am sure would get things cleaned up. Isn't that the way to fix things, throw money at it? I can't believe the yes votes!!!!!
Posted by K0IMJ on 2005-05-26

Fee for Enforcement

Iam totaly suprised at the yes votes,not that all the no votes cannot afford the extra along with myself,Im allmost positive all of us can BUT this money will not be used for the intended purpose not in a million years,Just look at the DNR,and everything else we have to pay for PAY<PAY Pay and once it is enacted it will never go away even if the problem would be solved the tax would never in a million years go away just would keep going up and up look at all the stats on things like this Politicians are as Crocked as a menards 2x4.
Steve KC9FUT
Posted by KC9FUT on 2005-05-26

Dumbfounded

I am new to this ham stuff and am totally surprised to find so many people naive enough to think that giving the government more money ever fixes anything. I thought you had to be smart to be a ham. I guess I was wrong.
Posted by JOLLYFE on 2005-05-26

FCC Enforcement Fee

We already pay them to do that - hello???
Posted by K5TTY on 2005-05-25

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Sorry, but I am all out of $. The Guvment done took it all!
If the bands aren't being policed well enough without the "airwave police tax", then deregulate, pass out the free tickets, and let the fun begin....Sounds like 11 meters.
Have fun, but play nice. It is a public place.
W4ABX said that.
Posted by W4ABX on 2005-05-25

No Way

This would be just a TAX.

We have too many taxes.

Several TV channel frequecies are soon going to be reused for other telecommunications, pay for it with all that bandwidth autioning.
Posted by N9RGX on 2005-05-25

No Way

This would be just a TAX.

We have too many taxes.

Several TV channel frequecies are soon going to be reused for other telecommunications, pay for it with all that bandwidth autioning.
Posted by N9RGX on 2005-05-25

VERY FOOLISH IDEA

I just can't believe the "yes" votes...we already pay for this, and the politicians will use the money just like they use social security funds, and other funds. It never gets where its is supposed to be funded to. This theory is just plain stupid, and if you voted yes,,well,,that makes you that way also...sorry.
Posted by K7NNG on 2005-05-25

The big lie

Do you honestly believe that your government agencies(such as the FCC) really care about enforcing the law as much as you do? As a government employee I can tell you that most(but not all) government employees care only about finding ways to get more of your tax dollars into their personal checking accounts while at the same time diminishing their work loads.

If you wish to live in a fantasy world believing, "My government cares about me and my rights." then go right ahead. I'm surrounded by government-employee-attitude five days a week and trust me, they don't give a flip about the taxpayer. Your annual donation to the FCC would merely be divied up by its employees, placed in their bank accounts in the form of a pay raise and nothing more than is done now would be done about illegal radio operations.
Posted by KC5CQD on 2005-05-25

The big lie

Do you honestly believe that your government agencies(such as the FCC) really care about enforcing the law as much as you do? As a government employee I can tell you that most(but not all) government employees care only about finding ways to get more of your tax dollars into their personal checking accounts while at the same time diminishing their work loads.

If you wish to live in a fantasy world believing, "My government cares about me and my rights." then go right ahead. I'm surrounded by government-employee-attitude five days a week and trust me, they don't give a flip about the taxpayer. Your annual donation to the FCC would merely be divied up by its employees, placed in their bank accounts in the form of a pay raise and nothing more than is done now would be done about illegal radio operations.
Posted by KC5CQD on 2005-05-25

No! We pay for it in service

The FCC is funded by our taxes now. They have sold us down the river already, giving them more money is like giving a drunken sailor money - it will not get spent for what it was intended. What did they do with the money they got for 220MHz?
We pay for our license with our public service. I spend more money on items just to provide communication for local events then $5-$10 per year now.
Posted by KA1VT on 2005-05-24

Fee hikes

$5 - 10.00
It's funny that the survey quotes this amount. Clubs (ARRL and W5YI in particular) are constantly jacking up fees to "meet" the rising cost of supplies for QST mag, testing, etc...
The FCC will start this $5 - 10.00 fee, and within three years will hike it to $15, then $20, then $30, and the excuse will be "pay for more manpower".
Posted by W5LJM on 2005-05-24

Funds to FCC Enforcement

In a perfect world the instigators' radio equipment would be confiscated then donated to Handi-Hams.

*wistful sigh*
Rich, WF7A
Posted by WF7A on 2005-05-24

Fcc --tough on rule breakers

If this goes into effect, the FCC should be TOUGH on rule - breakers. Mandatory loss of license on first offense. Mandatory loss of all amateur related equipment on first offense including towers, beams, rotors, etc. Hit a few hard, the rest will get scarce, sell out or straighten up. Mandatory means within no less than a week of getting caught...no "years & years later " stuff.
Posted by AI4EP on 2005-05-24

What about Taxes?

The government charges so much mone has it is. We should have to pay to use the airwaves that we are licensed to use. Some of us paid to test (others got the advantage of the few free VEC's). Other then licensing fee the license in America is free, and should stay that way.

+Steve
Posted by KD5OWO on 2005-05-24

Funds to FCC Enforcement

Why should we pay for something that funding is already there for. We are suppose to be
a self policing group.
KR4OW
Posted by KR4OW on 2005-05-24

Free?

Used to be able to own your own land, now you have to "rent" it with property tax.... used to be able to own your own car, now you have to "rent" it with property tax... used to be able to receive television paid for by commercials, now the cable companies get your "rent", and you still have to live through commercials... internet anyone?... AH! Ham Radio, the FINAL FRONTIER, it's only a matter of time.
Posted by N0LIC on 2005-05-23

Stupid comments

The question was whether to pay extra for "better" FCC enforcement. Not a question about politics. Go bitch about politics somewhere else. Just stay on subject and off your soapbox for a minute and answer the frigging question, you idiots.
Posted by W1BAK on 2005-05-23

NO!!! I Would NOT!!!

I don't understand the bile from the poster who said the question was not about politics. I fully agree with the statement from N0LIC and others who are against such an idea. Politicians are the ones who impose idiotic taxes and fees which we rarely see good benefit from and therefore it is ALL about politics! I liken anyone who would want to pay this fee with those naive and gullible souls who vote for local option penny increases in sales tax and really believe that it will result in a real or lasting decrease in their property taxes! NEVER give a politician permission to raise or add taxes. They WILL be permanent and they WILL cost you more as time goes by without benefiting you.
Posted by DAILYREGULARITY on 2005-05-23

It would end up for something else
Posted by SFD301 on 2005-05-23

NO!!! I Would NOT!!!

I don't understand the bile from the poster who said the question was not about politics. I fully agree with the statement from N0LIC and others who are against such an idea. Politicians are the ones who impose idiotic taxes and fees which we rarely see good benefit from and therefore it is ALL about politics! I liken anyone who would want to pay this fee with those naive and gullible souls who vote for local option penny increases in sales tax and really believe that it will result in a real or lasting decrease in their property taxes! NEVER give a politician permission to raise or add taxes. They WILL be permanent and they WILL cost you more as time goes by without benefiting you.
Posted by DAILYREGULARITY on 2005-05-23

Wise Money?

FCC enforcment isn't what needs funding...Protection FROM the FCC (ie: BPL, spectrum restructuring, unlicensed devices like RFID etc.)is the real fight that needs support!

I'd gladly give money to an EFFECTIVE party that had real clout to keep the FCC policies & the ridiculous ARRL spectrum restructuring from happening! Fat Chance though...
Posted by KT0DD on 2005-05-23

I'm not giving anymore to the government. Local ,state, and federal already have their hands in my pockets. Why should I give more?
Posted by AC7KZ on 2005-05-22

Funds

I chose "YES" but if implemented I am sure that in a few years the money would be used for something else.
Posted by N1IX on 2005-05-22

No No No

I think NOT. The FCC makes these rules (Part 97 and then some) and it's their job to enforce them. They recieve more than enough funding from the US government. Now they need to get to work.
Posted by W5LJM on 2005-05-22

Not that important

I just don't see it as a very big problem. I rarely hear any
rule breakers on the air. Get over it already. It's just a
hobby for Christsake..
Posted by KC8ZNW on 2005-05-22

What?

No. Pay more money to an ineffective bureaucracy, who already told us WE are responsible for enforcement of our own bands? The same F.C.C., who is bringing us their highly-touted, world-conquering answer to high-speed internet service? The worst RFI trojan horse (BPL) the planet has ever seen?

Pay attention to that sucking sound as the bills fly out of your wallets.

73 KG5JJ (Mike)


Posted by KG5JJ on 2005-05-22

No Fees

I remain totally against the concept. From what I have seen, the rules are the rules. I pay plenty in Federal Taxes (which go in part to pay for the FCC!). Those who willingly and repeatedly violate the rules do stand out like a "sore thumb" - and can be observed on a regular basis at little or no REAL COST to the FCC.

I have seen well meaning folks start the fee for other good causes - pretty soon the cost of the "fee" radically outweighs the benefit and its just another TAX without anything in return. Avoid the whole problem - by refusing to communicate with the clowns who break the rules. Peer pressure can often do things that government agencies cannot.

Just my 35 cents worth ... Thanks for reading this ... David, Ai2A
Posted by AI2A on 2005-05-22

Survey Results

Well I can see the YES's have it over the NO's. I guess there are a lot of people out there with extra money. You can send me some if you have it to through away. Every bit of money that the government collects always ends up somewhere else other than where it should. I feel that the government gets enough of my money. I work from pay day to pay day. I have to jungle bills around just to make ends meet. I don't need another fee of any kind added to my already strained wallet. The enforcement so far has help. In my 8 years as a Amateur Radio Operator I have seen some big chances on the HF bands. The bands have cleaned up a lot already. Yes there are still those who get on there and cause troubles but there day is coming. Also, us as Amateurs need to know when to stay out of a trouble spot. If your in QSO with someone and another person comes in trying to start something whether verbally or by tuning up, keep your cool and ignore them. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.

I do not want to pay anymore than I have to right now for this hobby. And if such a fee was imposed I feel you will start to see more numbers of hams dropping out of the hobby.

This is my opinion and my two censt worth.
Posted by _OLD_WD8WV on 2005-05-21

Geeze.....

If you can not afford $10 bucks a YEAR for something like your hobby I feel for you. Heck almost everyone spends $10 a year on crap. Buy one less soda or pack of smokes a month. Save your pocket change. If you live so close to the edge the $5-10 bucks will push you into starvation or homelessness then you need to rethink/revamp your life as a whole.
While I dont really want to give the government more of my moneies I would be willing to NOT buy the large can of peanuts and only ONE 12 pack of beer for a few weekends, IF I knew for sure that the cash was used for enforcement. Of course money like that kinda gets lost in the government pocket!!!!

IMHO.

Dan/NØFPE


Posted by N0FPE on 2005-05-21

FCC Enforcement Fee

NO! The FCC already has enough funds budgeted. But, being a bunch of political fat cats most of their money is directed to commercial interests who pay big fees for services rendered. For Hams to have to pay fees too would only give them an excuse to give themselves a fat pay raise. I would liken it to paying the highway patrol an annual fee to urge them to stop more speeders and drunk drivers. Imagine that.

Posted by WA4IXN on 2005-05-20

It is Not about Money...

I believe FCC now has enforcement capability/budget and has Chosen their path of priorities... IF you think the FCC has Amateur Radio 'enforcement' as a priority over commercial and lobby interests, you need to emerge from your cocoon and smell the roses.... 73 es God bless, murf/wv4r.
Posted by WV4R on 2005-05-20

No BAD operators?

[I think the statements about bad operator behavior are exagerated. I frequently tune around the HF bands and the type of bad operating described here is rare to me.
I agree that extra money should be spent on FCC resuming the proctoring of ham examinations. Posted by K5UJ on May 19, 2005 ]

Have you ever listened on 75 meters at night? I won't EVEN go there! Johnny, W4XKE

Posted by W4XKE on 2005-05-20

Agreed

What he said...


>>>>>I believe FCC now has enforcement capability/budget and has Chosen their path of priorities... IF you think the FCC has Amateur Radio 'enforcement' as a priority over commercial and lobby interests, you need to emerge from your cocoon and smell the roses.... 73 es God bless, murf/wv4r.
Posted by WV4R on May 20, 2005 <<<<<


Posted by N3ATS on 2005-05-20

self policing

if we self police the ham bands how come we have to put up with all the garbage on 80 meters? who is self policing who???
Posted by N8HDJ on 2005-05-20

Possible logic....

Perhaps we all feel somewhat bothersome with our current complaints to the FCC, because we are a non-paying service. But...if we put some money where our mouth is, we can firmly say that WE PAY FOR THIS SERVICE! Now clean it up!

73, Sir William of Hanover - WA8MEA
qth.com/dwm - just for fun.....
Posted by WA8MEA on 2005-05-20

Please read and answer the question

The question is a hypothetical one. It makes certain
assumptions and asks you to make a decision based
on those assumptions. The question reads, "Would you
be willing to pay an annual fee ($5-$10) on your ham
license if the money went to pay for tougher FCC
enforcement of the amateur bands?"

The "... if the money went to pay for..." part is important.
Is is the major assertion for the hypothetical. Simply
complaining that you don't agree with the assumption
isn't answering the question.

I'm not naive. I understand the assumption is a stretch.
But it would be nice if we could pretend, just for a
moment, that some of us wished to have a calm, rational,
thoughtful conversation about this interesting notion.

Or I'm wrong (again). It happens.

-- Scott (NE1RD)
Posted by NE1RD on 2005-05-20

Actual Reality...

I haven't seen a post yet that goes to the actual problem with enforcement. As ex- Official Observer for the Arkansas section, I can tell you first hand that the FCC isn't the problem. Look at it this way...if the FCC cannot legally enforce TV, Radio, and Internet smut and foul language, they don't stand a chance enforcing violations by Hams because few seem to understand how the system works. The ARRL is right on this one, but nobody seems to pay attention. If Hams would look on the Internet and find out who the closest Official Observers are and send them the pertinent information, the system can begin working. Yeah, I know, OO's can't do anything, but if no one ever contacts them, how does anybody know if they work or not?

The Law requires rock solid documentation of dates, times, and frequencies as well as multiple recordings of infractions in order for the system to convict offenders. Otherwise, like it or not, legally, you're looking at hearsay. There are higher standards of evidence when you try to prove something legally, and the FCC's attorneys are just like other attorneys in that they don't want to take a case to court unless they feel like they have a good chance of winning.

An FCC Ham license is a privelege. I wish the burden of proof for at least suspending someone's license wasn't as high, but on the other hand, we know how petty and smarmy some people can be. I think if we weren't so lazy, we could be getting the documentation together against the offenders and use the system the way it was intended to work. Are we too lazy?
Posted by N5XM on 2005-05-20

NO! We already pay for this

If we pay a second time, it would amount to double taxation only on hams. Enforcement of ALL laws is already paid for when you pay your taxes. If the laws aren't being enforced to your liking, then you should contact your local representatives and senators and ask "WHY NOT?". I'd be willing to bet that many reps don't know beans about amateur radio, and may be inclined to assist in a plight if only they were informed about it. -KR4WM
Posted by WY3X on 2005-05-19

Revamp testing

I think the statements about bad operator behavior are exagerated. I frequently tune around the HF bands and the type of bad operating described here is rare to me.
I agree that extra money should be spent on FCC resuming the proctoring of ham examinations.
Posted by K5UJ on 2005-05-19

How much?

I see alot of people who say that we already pay for enforcement. Being informed individuals, could someone tell me how much money is allocated to enforcement in the current, or any recent budget?
Posted by N4RLL on 2005-05-19

No they already do their job

I vote NO, why should we pay the FCC with something they are charged to do already?

Unless you have a Vanity License, your license is already free. So what? We are talking $100 for a 10 year license? Plus another $ 20 for a Vanity call . $ 120 ?

We have debates here about bemoaning the loss of potential new hams to the internet.
And we are going to charge $ 100 to $ 120 for a non commercial license?

You have two hams in a household and they both have to renew, $200-$240 for renewal?

Yep another way to keep potentially new hams away from our hobby. Or to keep some hams from renewing. We need more people in this great hobby...not less!

This is one of the worst proposals I have ever heard regarding ham radio.



Posted by W4KYR on 2005-05-19

N-O

The FCC should actually DO the job that is already mandated for them. We don't need more money thrown at the problem. We NEED enforcement of the rules and laws already in place -- for TV, radio and the amateur bands.

Money doesn't resolve problems. Determination and action solve problems.
Posted by KI4GPX on 2005-05-19

And then some...

Seriously...I'd be willing to pay even a little more if it would clean up the bands, keep the CBers out of the 10 meter lower portion and so on. However, until I know where BPL stands with this hobby I'm afraid I haven't shelled out much money for anything. When I know BPL is a dead issue I'll cough up the money..otherwise it's like throwing money out the car window.
Posted by AE4X on 2005-05-19

Just a tax on us.

There required to do that now. What makes you think a few extra bucks to a bloated government agency would make it perform any better? Look at the problems with other FCC licensed services that do require a fee and you see the same problems we have. All that would be accomplished by this is adding a tax to your amateur radio license. Then look at the problems caused by unattended "legal" Pactor mode mailboxes, which would continue unabated and if left up to the ARRL even more of them turned loose in the phone section of the bands. No thinks, the hobby has become marginal at best these days. Adding a tax would only serve to purge the part time or inactive hams from the hobby making our "on paper" numbers even smaller.
Posted by N4ZOU on 2005-05-19

Mo' money?

You really think any money collected this way will go toward enforcement? All money collected goes to the general fund. From there, it can wind up paying for anything, such as auctioning our bands to commercial interests, or funding certification of BPL operations. I'm not buying the bullets to shoot myself in the foot.
Posted by N3EG on 2005-05-19

I Already Paid

I PAY TAXES! WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY MORE TO HAVE THE LAW ENFORCED?
Posted by KG4OOA on 2005-05-19

enforcement fee

no matter what it is, some ham has a reason to complain.
Posted by K6SGH on 2005-05-19

Funds

Self-policing is the key. The more we involve the FCC the more of a burdon we are placing on a burocracy that would rather 'de-regulate' the service... or eliminate! $10 per year for 600,000 hams would not create sufficient funds to change the way the FCC operates towards one of its lessor important services.

Personally, I'd rather pay more to the ARRL for increased legal assistance to hams who are fighting CC&Rs and utility-derived interference problems. These are far greater threats to amateur radio in my opinion.
Posted by KG6TT on 2005-05-18

No more govt involvement

The government is already too involved in our everyday lives. we don't need any more rules. we need to police ourselves and if an idiot gets on the air ignore him. What are they going to do talk to themselves? The profanity is stupid. I can't understand why anybody would use it.

Lastly, How did Bush get into this thread??

Tim, KE5BHF
Posted by TIMOTHIUS on 2005-05-18

Why?

There are such few problems, why would I waste my money? The notch filter and VFO knob take of the remaining minor issues.
Posted by KG6AMW on 2005-05-18

If

The key word is "if". To vote yes, you have to be able to believe that the government could and would do as they promise. The problem is this: if the idea is sufficiently popular, then the government will ask for the money in advance - on the questionable promise of results.

A "yes" vote is taking the easy way out, which is why the "no" voters dominate the comments.

What is really clear from this survey is that the vast majority do want the regulations enforced. This is good.

It is obvious that FCC enforcement is lacking, and that the DOJ is dysfunctional. That is WHY the ham community MUST continue to self-enforce.

I would probably be willing to pay the government some amount (in arrears) for positive results actually achieved, but I also think violators should pay the lion's share of the cost of enforcement.
Posted by KC0RRS on 2005-05-18

Convenience

I am willing to pay (assuming most of the money goes for enforcement), but I am not willing to pay every year. Too easy to forget. I would prefer to have the cost appended to any license renewal cost. Also, I hope the enforcement actions could extend to a little diplomatic hassle for countries that openly tolerate ham band operation by anyone.

I expect that a dedicated fee, such as suggested here, is the only way there will be consistent enforcement efforts. Comments such as "the FCC should do its job" ignore the realities of the current world.
Posted by W2WO on 2005-05-18

funds for fcc enforcement

Why pay the fcc extra money for something they should already be doing. Ham radio is no major concern to the fcc. Good ridden to the Powells.
Posted by KD5GGF on 2005-05-18

I would be willing to pay "IF" there were a sunset law on it to review if the extra money was beneficial. If not then repell the extra money.
Posted by K0AMZ on 2005-05-18

fees?

there was a time, oh so many federal judges ago, that the FCC's amateur activities were self supporting.
Posted by OBSERVER11 on 2005-05-18

i choose no , because we already pay for this enforcement , what we need is great accountabiliy for spending & better management of funds. big wages eat up enforcement funds. wheres the reallity in govt spending ???.......... the is not much.
Posted by K8FLY on 2005-05-18

Incentive To Enforce!

I for one am opposed to the idea of charging Amateur Radio operators to perform a function the FCC is currently are failing miserably at. To date I am not convinced the problem is due to lack of funding, instead I believe the root of the problem is gross mismanagement.

That being said, let’s assume there really is a shortage of funds to be used for FCC Amateur Radio enforcement. I think a more novel approach is to generate the funds from the very people whom break the rules.

For instance, we all know that 75 meters has been a trouble spot on the ham bands. This is no secret, if you don’t believe me, just plug a modest antenna into any receiver and look for some of the biggest signals on the band. Nine time out of ten I am sure you will find the same idiots on the same exact frequency every night, cursing, scaring anyone away that is within 5 KHz of “their frequency”, broadcasting music, ranting racial slur’s, indulging in sexually deviant conversations, and the list goes on!

The funny thing I have found listening to these stations is that they all seem to have one thing in common. All of them have spent a large fortune on Amateur Radio equipment. To me, this presents a real opportunity for the FCC to cash in. Not only could the FCC fine these habitual rule breakers, but they could also confiscate their equipment and sell it to help generate required funds to continue their enforcement activities. To me this would be the true incentive behind enforcement, “the more bad guys I catch; the more funding I will receive”.

The concept I mention above has actually worked in the United States Navy. In the Navy if you where found guilty in Captain’s Mast one would typically be restricted to the command for some length of time, and lose part of you wages as a fine. Those wages which were confiscated from the sailor would be directly applied to the commands MWR (Military Welfare and Recreation) Fund. MWR would then turn around and provide services to the deserving sailors whom where not misfits. Typical services would range from free telephone calls home, to command picnics.

I guess the bottom line of all this is, why should Amateur Radio Operators whom are providing public service, and keeping their nose clean be punished or made to pay a fine for the few bad apples that have been plaguing our hobby? It seems that there are a sufficient number of these stations that break the rules that the FCC could cash in on them to help finance their enforcement efforts. Then again that would require the FCC to get off their hind parts, and actually do some work.

73

Rich Miller
AJ3G

Posted by KO4NX on 2005-05-18

subsidizing enforcement

First, lets see the commissioners serve WITHOUT remuneration...this agency is funded and mandated by statute to enforce the communications act...I have SERIOUS reservations that we should foot the bill for a job they should be doing!
Posted by K4JPF on 2005-05-18

FCC Enforcement Fee

SO how many of you guys that posted here, with comments about the government actually VOTED in the last election.

I think if you don't vote , you can't complain.

if your wife asks what you want for dinner and you say...oh anything is ok... don't complain when you get Mac & cheese with cut up hot dogs.....
Posted by N6AJR on 2005-05-18

Gov't confiscation

KO4NX's suggestion makes perfect sense on the surface, BUT, you have to heed the law of unintended consequences. A more infamous gov't agency which confiscates individuals' property ran amok for many years, targeting and raiding those with the most expensive collections rather than those who were breaking laws.

I will, as a rule, vote NO on giving the gov't more power, more money, more opportunity to abuse, etc.,
Posted by AB8UJ on 2005-05-18

Testing Too

Not only for enforcement but license exams too.
Posted by AC3P on 2005-05-18

We the People.

Laws governing radio benefit all taxpayers. The FCC rules and regs are the PEOPLE'S laws. The people should pay for enforcing the the laws that they, through their representatives, established.
Posted by K9FH on 2005-05-18

MO-Money

Well the FCC not got off there ENDS Yet so why give them Mo-Money.What a dumm question! Must be kind to the Bush!

Posted by N2BR on 2005-05-17

Marvelous

I would agree to this provided that prosecution of offenders could be accomplished in less than 'years'.

Confiscation of equipment should be optional on a first offense and mandatory on subsequent offenses. Mandatory fines should occur on the second offense with mandatory jail time on the third or subsequent offenses.
Posted by KG4RUL on 2005-05-17

Mo-Money....

Yep, It's BUSH's Fault!!... You must be a Vegitarian Demi-Crat?.. NOBODY in the Govenments Employ seems to work "REAL" hard.. If they start Charging for Amateur licenses, I'd let mine Run out and sell the gear!.. Don't we do enough of the Government work and help, Then charge us for it?.. Think we should clean house and start over, It's past out-of-hand.. Back to the Porch I go!..
Posted by N8NOE on 2005-05-17

Fault

This is NOT Bush's fault!

The deaths of thousands in Iraq, based on lies, the trashing of environmental protections, the deficit, the ongoing erosion of our personal freedoms - now, THOSE are Bush's fault.
Posted by K3ESE on 2005-05-17

Band obsenity? Bad!!!

You can't use 75 and sometimes 40 anymore with company in the shack because of the obsenity and foul language. Stick up for your license, Lord knows it was hard enough to get and were at risk of loosing the privelage if it continues. Maybe a few license removals would start the perverts thinking. Wake up and lets be nice again.!!!!Jimbo
Posted by W4EPA on 2005-05-17

Would you be willing to pay an annual fee ($5-$10) on your ham license if t

HEY!!! DON'T BLAME ME!!73's +88's Don BUSH- WA2TPU
Posted by WA2TPU on 2005-05-17

funds to fcc enforcement

we all know the money would not go to what it was intended for. it would go to Bush's war effort, or to fund illegal people from the south.
Posted by K7NNG on 2005-05-17

"IF"

The key operative is "if."

Because the Amateur service generates little revenue for the FCC's WTB, why should the FCC spend time protecting our interests outside of allocating spectrum for our use? Commercial licensees pay big money for their chunks of spectrum and therefore bring money into the coffers of the FCC. Were we to have the clout of $5-10/year times the 700,000 plus amateur licensees, that would bring in $3.5 to $7 million. Not only could it be put towards enforcement each year, but it would give the Amateur Service the clout needed to leverage actions against those we are unable to self-police and against those outside the service causing harmful and malicious intereference inside our bands.

Legislation could be enacted to ensure that the several millions of dollars coming in would be set aside for enforcement activities. Otherwise indeed it could be reappropriated within the FCC.

I disagree with some of the viewpoints expressed here by some people who want "something for nothing." I share the viewpoint of N0MUD that it's impossible to do a job with limited funding, and demands to do more with less sometimes become "do everything with nothing."

Serving in the U.S. Navy, I have "been there and done that."
Posted by N4RLL on 2005-05-17

No Fee

The proposed fee is far too high and would drive people out of the service.

This fee would have to be deposited in the general fund. I don't think Congress can be persuaded to permit FCC to have an earmarked account for a low priority service such as ours. This money would end up going to something they feel is more important.

I think $50 to $100 is not in line with an amount FCC could be encouraged to expend on our service. They are attempting to move as much of the administration of our service to our care as possible. We already administer examinations and they have indicated a need for streamlining our regulations to relieve them of more of the enforcement burden.

Please, I don't trust them to do anything to improve enforcement. We will have to shoulder more of the burden whether a fee is charged or not.
Posted by AE1X on 2005-05-17

FCC

Living in Illinois, we have seen our taxes skyrocket on everything. Makes you want to pull up stakes and move somewhere else. The increase in "fees" for everything from license plates to software sales is just another form of "tax" to burden us. Too many fat cats in government as it is. I vote "NO" !!!!!! I like to see violators caught and punished. I agree on confiscation of equipment and harsher penalties for rule breakers. Let them pay for it!
Posted by N9GZ on 2005-05-17

FCC Fee

I don't understand why anyone votes "yes" to have their taxes raised. Politicians and Bureacrats NEVER EVER EVER put these new taxes to use as they promise. The FCC already has too much money. They don't enforce because they choose not to enforce. Don't volunteer any more of your money to be controlled by an irresponsible bureacracy.

71 (I'd say 73, but the other 2 went to taxes).
Posted by K0BAY on 2005-05-17

FCC

The Feds would only use it towards something like BPL. Now there was a technology with lots of thought and research. What makes anyone think they care about the ham bands as it is with the introduction of BPL?

Posted by W0LC on 2005-05-17

Incredible...

Let's put partisanship aside, shall we? The President has absolutely no place in this discussion.

That having been said, my answer is no and hell no. I'm not going to pay more for the FCC to do what it's already supposed to be doing. We may not generate any money for the FCC, but we all pay our taxes and they're getting plenty of money from their big-business interests - they should perform their duties with that money. Lord only knows where the money really goes.

I'm an old-school conservative. When I give money to the government, I expect results. The government doesn't produce adequate results as it is, so why should I pay more? If anything, we ought to pay less - let the government figure out how to make good use of its funds! (Haha, there's a good one...)
Posted by KA9INV on 2005-05-17

FCC Enforcement

I'm unaware of any problem needing more money.
Posted by K3DWW on 2005-05-17

Enforcement fee

I voted no for this reason. The FCC is paid by our taxes to do this job. Why should amateurs pay double for something the FCC is supposed to already do? The FCC makes the rules, and is supposed to enforce those rules. I see no reason why we as amateur radio operators should pay the feds not only in taxes, but annual fees to do its job. Besides, the money would get misused in typical government fashion and spent on everything but what its supposed to anyway!
Posted by KE4ZHN on 2005-05-17

U.K. pay $30 :(


Hams in the U.K. cough up $30 per annum to OFCom for their licence :O

This may change with a ' Free Licence ' proposal which may be something of a carrot for future ' Deregulation ' of the hobby :O
Posted by G3SEA on 2005-05-17

Fund Help for the FCC

It's interesting to note that though the yeahs lead the Nays by almost 50 points better than 90+% of the comments are from the NO votes. Kinda weird :)
Posted by WB2TQC on 2005-05-17

Not Bush's Fault

Yes. What K3ESE said.
Posted by NT4XT on 2005-05-17

Like another said, the big word is "IF". Yeah, I'd pay to see the scum on 75 meters fined, and then use those fines to further enforce the regs and laws. Yes, the FCC should be doing it now, but they aren't. I doubt things would change if a fee was imposed. But IF they would change....
Posted by WB4M on 2005-05-17

NO!

You have got to be kidding!

Ham Radio is almost dead, replaced bt the Internet.
Is any one really listening?
Posted by AA9NN on 2005-05-17

Funds to FCC Enforcement

I have to agree with KE4ZHN The FCC ought to be enforcing the regulations but don't. and hes right the FCC is paid by the taxpayers. I say throw all the politicans out. Put someone in there that knows what the heck they promise they would do.
Posted by N0SZE on 2005-05-17

Your kidding

The FCC is now trying to regulate business to business faxes. Forget Ham radio enforcement. Buy a nice pair of wire cutters with your $10 instead!
Posted by N0AH on 2005-05-17

Only if THEY do the work

I'd pay a license fee if it meant that the FCC did the leg work to catch these bums. As it stands now, we do the leg work, turn it over to the FCC, and the Dept Of Justice decreases the fine to next to nothing if the bum claims he doesn't have the money to pay the fine. The problem is not the FCC, it's the DOJ. But if paying the fee meant the FCC did the work of finding these morons, I'd gladly pay it.

The FCC has one guy doing amateur enforcement, and that's Riley. Given what he has to work with I think he's doing a good job. If some funding would make it even better, then I'm for it.
Posted by N8AUC on 2005-05-17

Only if THEY do the work

I'd pay a license fee if it meant that the FCC did the leg work to catch these bums. As it stands now, we do the leg work, turn it over to the FCC, and the Dept Of Justice decreases the fine to next to nothing if the bum claims he doesn't have the money to pay the fine. The problem is not the FCC, it's the DOJ. But if paying the fee meant the FCC did the work of finding these morons, I'd gladly pay it.

The FCC has one guy doing amateur enforcement, and that's Riley. Given what he has to work with I think he's doing a good job. If some funding would make it even better, then I'm for it.
Posted by N8AUC on 2005-05-17

No!!

I think the FCC would take the money and things would stay the same. I don't trust the FCC would do their job.
Posted by AL7B on 2005-05-17

Fault?

Why blame Bush? Blame the jerks that can't follow FCC rules! These are the ones who need to have their licence revoked, so the rest of us can use our privilges honorably and be the professionals we are trained to be.
If and when the FCC goes after these abusers and enforces the strict laws they say they "enforce", I stand by my no vote until such changes take place.

Posted by KE7DRT on 2005-05-17

Funds to FCC Enforcement

Well I chose "NO" because I have a vanity call sign and I paid $50.00 for it for the first time. It is now down to $20. and change. So let the others comment and see where it takes us. It might be a good idea if the money or a good portion of it goes to the FCC Enforcement action. And, I do know what it's like to not have enough money for enforcement as I am a Retired Police Officer, Disabled, Retired US Navy, and a Disabled VET.
Posted by N0MUD on 2005-05-16

FCC Enforcement Fee

Why would anyone want to pay a surcharge to enable the FCC to do what it should already be doing? That makes about as much sense as having to pay an extra fee on your property tax to have your local police investigate burglaries as well as homicides.
Posted by K7UNZ on 2005-05-16