Hello Ria and Mike, The majority of that thread of discussion supporting the $50 application fee seems to follow the narrative on a few social media platforms. Personally, I do think that a $50 application fee will make it far more difficult to get younger people interested in obtaininga license. The careful reading of the Ray Baum Act of 2018 (115-HR4968) does show that the amateur radio exemption only applies to the Regulatory Fees and not to the Applications fees. 73, Kermit W9XA
>>>>>> Excerpts from the 115th HR4986>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<Application Fees>(1) PARTIES TO WHICH FEES ARE NOT APPLI-1CABLE. -The application fees established under this section shall not be applicable to- (A) a governmental entity; (B) a nonprofit entity licensed in the Local Government, Police, Fire, Highway Maintenance, Forestry-Conservation, Public Safety, or Special Emergency Radio radio services; or (C) a noncommercial radio station or noncommercial television station. <Regulatory Fees> (e) EXCEPTIONS. (1) PARTIES TO WHICH FEES ARE NOT APPLI-11CABLE. —The regulatory fees established under this section shall not be applicable to— (A) a governmental entity or nonprofit entity; (B) an amateur radio operator licensee 16under part 97 of the Commission’s rules (47 17CFR part 97); or (C) a noncommercial radio station or noncommercial television station. On Tuesday, September 1, 2020, 6:45:43 PM CDT, rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kermit. The feedback I get is similar, but many have the idea that the $50 fee buys us more enforcement. If we are to support the fee we should make sure that people know this isn’t us paying $50 to hire more FCC resources to police the amateur bands. RiaN2RJ On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 6:58 PM Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: Hello Mike et al, I have heard far more Central Division members supporting this fee than those who appose. Personally, I am apposed generating about $9M per yearfor the Federal Treasury. What I am hearing, in a wide majority of Central Division members is that $5 per year is a nominal amount and we should not appose this. The response I am seeing is not what I expected. I understand that minor changes such as change of address will be providedfor free but renewals will be $50. My question is; will there really be a $50 'application" fee for unsuccessful applicants who fail an examination ? We do need to send a clear unified message, right now there is none.Perhaps Mr. Siddall could give us some background about this proposal. 73, Kermit W9XA On Tuesday, September 1, 2020, 1:18:12 PM CDT, Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote: OK, you guys have caused me to offload about this now. It's been brewing since last week, and I'm glad somebody else brought it up. When I read the press release that HQ put out over the fees last week, I noticed something important missing in the message: The "here's what YOUR ARRL is doing about it" part. The press release was just a fact sheet telling members pretty much what they already knew. IMHO there should have been something there that at least said that we are studying the proposal and would be providing a response to the FCC. What a missed opportunity to remind members that part of our "value add" is fighting for them, whether it be spectrum defense, or in this case, fees that might cause some to wonder if $50 is worth it. The people that are working and have jobs will see this as "it's only $5 a year! Somebody not terribly active and living on social security or disability may wind up making a choice of whether to spend that $50 on food or medical care, or renewing their ham license. For new hams the $15 fee for VE services will $65, and that will be a barrier for some. We need to defeat this. 73; Mike W7VO On 09/01/2020 9:50 AM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: I agree. ARRL needs to be driving the message. And again all I’m hearing is silence. I’m not even sure what our position is on this. Ria N2RJ On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 11:50 AM Matt Holden < mtholde@gmail.com> wrote: I have given a few club presentations and they are asking "what can we do?" Can ARRL HQ generate talking points the members can include in their personal comments to the FCC? 73, Matt Holden KØBBC Director, Dakota Division, American Radio Relay League On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:59 PM Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net> wrote: It was the primary discussion on a big club Zoom meeting I attended last night, and this morning my in-box was full of "what is the ARRL doing about this?" e-mails from members. The message to the membership should be forceful, and show we are on top of it. 73; Mike W7VO On 08/28/2020 7:10 AM Shelley, Barry, N1VXY (CEO) < bshelley@arrl.org> wrote: It’s in the works. Should be posted today assuming EC review. --Barry, N1VXY From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Mark J Tharp Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 9:33 AM To: david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30827] Re: Proposed Amateur Radio Application Fees Barry, are we putting a story together for this? I see QRZ and most all of the social media outlets have already done so. Would be best to be first, but I hope we at least officially address it on the web. Mark, HDX On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:52 PM david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote: All, Yesterday the FCC did release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it proposes to overhaul its application fee structure. Since so many services use the same ULS system, the effect on amateurs if adopted as proposed would be to charge amateurs the same amounts as those in other radio services for similar actions. Specifically, for the amateur service, the FCC proposes a $50. fee for (1) new or renewal applications; (2) vanity call applications; (3) license upgrade applications. Administrative changes to a license – such as change of address – would continue to be free. There will be the standard opportunity to comment and lobby the Commission, as in most proceedings. Deadlines for doing so have not yet been established. Obviously we will be discussing this, including the Executive Committee when it comes time to comment. The FCC proposal in its entirety can be viewed here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-116A1.pdf. Paragraphs 24-30 address applications in the amateur service (with GMRS and other similar licenses). 73, Dave David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690 Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you. From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 12:41 PM To: ODV <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30821] New amateur radio application fees? This report says there is going to be a nee $50 fee for amateur radio license applications. I thought we discussed this already and there was not going to be a fee. https://recnet.com/node/3182 Comments? Probably would be a good thing for david Siddal to look into. 73 Ria N2RJ _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
