I have received a limited number of comments on this issue.Like Kermit's experience, a small minority are favoring the $50 fee, but those seem to have derived their argument from a common source...based upon the similarity of their e-mails.I too, think the proposed fee will seriously impinge upon newcomers to the hobby, especially financially strapped young folks.Further, despite the several statements that "...it is only $5.00 a year...", no one sets that money aside as a reserve for license renewal.So the $50 is an immediate expenditure - and after listening to the complaints of the $49 for ARRL membership renewal, I suspect those same arguments will apply to the FCC fees. I remain steadfast that the FCC should continue its no-fee policy for any and all amateur radio related licensing.As many of us recall, they did away with the amateur radio related fees several years ago because it was allegedly more time consuming and costly for them to handle those fees than the money actually contributed to the Commission. I strongly believe the proposed $50 fee will be no different. Further, I suspect that with the personnel turnover at the FCC, there are few, if any, staffers who remember those earlier issues, and that has contributed to the situation we face today. As many constituents have stated, we contribute our own equipment, time and resources to community service, improvements in technology and international good will, we should not have to pay a fee to do that. 73, Dale WA8EFK On 9/1/2020 9:28 PM, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv wrote:
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 obtaining a 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.
Ria N2RJ
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 6:58 PM Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto: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 year for 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 provided for 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> <rjairam@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://davidsiddall-law.com> <david@davidsiddall-law.com <mailto:david@davidsiddall-law.com>> *Cc:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org <mailto: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 <http://davidsiddall-law.com> <david@davidsiddall-law.com <mailto: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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+++++++++++Washington,+DC+20006?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*Washington, DC 20006 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+++++++++++Washington,+DC+20006?entry=gmail&source=g>*
*direct: +1 202 559 4690*
Default Line
*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 <mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org>> on behalf of "rjairam@gmail.com <mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>" <rjairam@gmail.com <mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>> *Date: *Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 12:41 PM *To: *ODV <arrl-odv@arrl.org <mailto: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.
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 <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto: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