[arrl-odv:32527] Fwd: The new FCC fee structure
This is making the rounds. Is it, or is it not true? And if not, we need to ensure that the message is clear. 73 Ria, N2RJ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eric Russell <ericprussell@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:59 AM Subject: The new FCC fee structure To: nparc@mailman.qth.net <nparc@mailman.qth.net>, SPARCclub@groups.io <SPARCclub@groups.io>, rrc <rrc@arcsquared.org>, NJElmers@groups.io <NJElmers@groups.io>, Joel Haberman <jihaberman@aol.com>, Ria Jairam <n2rj@arrl.net>, Ed Efchak <eefchak@gmail.com>, Bob Kasprak <bkasprak@aol.com> During Field day, I had an interesting chat with a fellow Ham. It seems the FCC's new fee schedule has to be cleared through Congress. That means that your Congressperson and Senators have the final say on whether they can implement it. Our best shot at stopping them from putting the schedule into effect is to write and talk to our representatives. Although the FCC charges "Service Fees," they provide no actual services. The ARRL does all of the work, including enforcing the laws on amateur radio operations. It gets no funding from the government for this. The FCC passes information from ARRL about all business relating to licenses through a computer and does nothing else. I believe the data are put into the computer by the ARRL. We provide a service, they don't; why should we have to pay to volunteer? The amount of the fee is not a relevant question. Their proposal has amateurs and professionals paying the same amount for their licenses. If our representatives hear nothing, they will assume that everything is alright and, in this case, will rubber stamp the proposal. Pass this to others around the nation. The wider our input, the better our chance of stopping it. See you on the air. 73 Eric KD2ONY
Ria It isn't true. And I agree it needs to be corrected. I suggest we obtain David Siddall's input on a message to be sent to the addresses on the email. As the email was sent to you, it could come from you as Director and/or it could come from the Board. ______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office:512-445-6262 Cell:512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *______________________________________* On 6/30/21 9:02 AM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
This is making the rounds.
Is it, or is it not true?
And if not, we need to ensure that the message is clear.
73 Ria, N2RJ
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eric Russell <ericprussell@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:59 AM Subject: The new FCC fee structure To: nparc@mailman.qth.net <nparc@mailman.qth.net>, SPARCclub@groups.io <SPARCclub@groups.io>, rrc <rrc@arcsquared.org>, NJElmers@groups.io <NJElmers@groups.io>, Joel Haberman <jihaberman@aol.com>, Ria Jairam <n2rj@arrl.net>, Ed Efchak <eefchak@gmail.com>, Bob Kasprak <bkasprak@aol.com>
During Field day, I had an interesting chat with a fellow Ham. It seems the FCC's new fee schedule has to be cleared through Congress.
That means that your Congressperson and Senators have the final say on whether they can implement it.
Our best shot at stopping them from putting the schedule into effect is to write and talk to our representatives.
Although the FCC charges "Service Fees," they provide no actual services. The ARRL does all of the work, including enforcing the laws on amateur radio operations. It gets no funding from the government for this. The FCC passes information from ARRL about all business relating to licenses through a computer and does nothing else. I believe the data are put into the computer by the ARRL.
We provide a service, they don't; why should we have to pay to volunteer? The amount of the fee is not a relevant question.
Their proposal has amateurs and professionals paying the same amount for their licenses.
If our representatives hear nothing, they will assume that everything is alright and, in this case, will rubber stamp the proposal.
Pass this to others around the nation. The wider our input, the better our chance of stopping it.
See you on the air.
73 Eric KD2ONY _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv .
Thanks John. I've contacted David separately. Preferably if there is a release I could send out via e-mail in our division newsletter, with an easy to understand explanation this would suffice. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:22 AM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ria
It isn't true.
And I agree it needs to be corrected. I suggest we obtain David Siddall's input on a message to be sent to the addresses on the email. As the email was sent to you, it could come from you as Director and/or it could come from the Board.
______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
______________________________________
On 6/30/21 9:02 AM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
This is making the rounds.
Is it, or is it not true?
And if not, we need to ensure that the message is clear.
73 Ria, N2RJ
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eric Russell <ericprussell@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:59 AM Subject: The new FCC fee structure To: nparc@mailman.qth.net <nparc@mailman.qth.net>, SPARCclub@groups.io <SPARCclub@groups.io>, rrc <rrc@arcsquared.org>, NJElmers@groups.io <NJElmers@groups.io>, Joel Haberman <jihaberman@aol.com>, Ria Jairam <n2rj@arrl.net>, Ed Efchak <eefchak@gmail.com>, Bob Kasprak <bkasprak@aol.com>
During Field day, I had an interesting chat with a fellow Ham. It seems the FCC's new fee schedule has to be cleared through Congress.
That means that your Congressperson and Senators have the final say on whether they can implement it.
Our best shot at stopping them from putting the schedule into effect is to write and talk to our representatives.
Although the FCC charges "Service Fees," they provide no actual services. The ARRL does all of the work, including enforcing the laws on amateur radio operations. It gets no funding from the government for this. The FCC passes information from ARRL about all business relating to licenses through a computer and does nothing else. I believe the data are put into the computer by the ARRL.
We provide a service, they don't; why should we have to pay to volunteer? The amount of the fee is not a relevant question.
Their proposal has amateurs and professionals paying the same amount for their licenses.
If our representatives hear nothing, they will assume that everything is alright and, in this case, will rubber stamp the proposal.
Pass this to others around the nation. The wider our input, the better our chance of stopping it.
See you on the air.
73 Eric KD2ONY _______________________________________________ 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
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ODV, As stated by the FCC in its Report and Order, the fees "will not take effect until the requisite notice has been provided to Congress, the FCC’s information technology systems and internal procedures have been updated, and the Commission publishes notice(s) in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of such rules." The Congressional Review Act requires, among other things, that a copy of adopted FCC rules be sent to each House of Congress. In this instance, it has been determined that the FCC fees rule is a "minor" rule, and therefore permitted to go into effect upon submission to Congress and completion of any other statutory requirements, unless both the Senate and House, by passage of a Joint Resolution, disapprove it. (Lawyers among us wishing to see the actual applicable law can view it here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/801.) In this case, the fees derive directly from a statute. I do not know when notice was submitted to Congress, but normally it would have been when submitted to the Federal Register or soon thereafter. The above procedure is ministerial in nature and does not provide a viable path to blocking the fees. 73, Dave K3ZJ 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. On 6/30/21, 10:02 AM, "arrl-odv on behalf of rjairam@gmail.com" <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org on behalf of rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: This is making the rounds. Is it, or is it not true? And if not, we need to ensure that the message is clear. 73 Ria, N2RJ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eric Russell <ericprussell@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:59 AM Subject: The new FCC fee structure To: nparc@mailman.qth.net <nparc@mailman.qth.net>, SPARCclub@groups.io <SPARCclub@groups.io>, rrc <rrc@arcsquared.org>, NJElmers@groups.io <NJElmers@groups.io>, Joel Haberman <jihaberman@aol.com>, Ria Jairam <n2rj@arrl.net>, Ed Efchak <eefchak@gmail.com>, Bob Kasprak <bkasprak@aol.com> During Field day, I had an interesting chat with a fellow Ham. It seems the FCC's new fee schedule has to be cleared through Congress. That means that your Congressperson and Senators have the final say on whether they can implement it. Our best shot at stopping them from putting the schedule into effect is to write and talk to our representatives. Although the FCC charges "Service Fees," they provide no actual services. The ARRL does all of the work, including enforcing the laws on amateur radio operations. It gets no funding from the government for this. The FCC passes information from ARRL about all business relating to licenses through a computer and does nothing else. I believe the data are put into the computer by the ARRL. We provide a service, they don't; why should we have to pay to volunteer? The amount of the fee is not a relevant question. Their proposal has amateurs and professionals paying the same amount for their licenses. If our representatives hear nothing, they will assume that everything is alright and, in this case, will rubber stamp the proposal. Pass this to others around the nation. The wider our input, the better our chance of stopping it. See you on the air. 73 Eric KD2ONY _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT To be clear, the rules went to Congress and any time for Congressional disapproval undoubtedly has expired. This has to be true because portions of the same rules went into effect on April 19, and the fact that the fees collection portions did not is for unrelated reasons that would not affect the period for Congressional review. 73, Dave K3ZJ On 6/30/21, 11:06 AM, "arrl-odv on behalf of david davidsiddall-law.com" <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org on behalf of david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote: CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ODV, As stated by the FCC in its Report and Order, the fees "will not take effect until the requisite notice has been provided to Congress, the FCC’s information technology systems and internal procedures have been updated, and the Commission publishes notice(s) in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of such rules." The Congressional Review Act requires, among other things, that a copy of adopted FCC rules be sent to each House of Congress. In this instance, it has been determined that the FCC fees rule is a "minor" rule, and therefore permitted to go into effect upon submission to Congress and completion of any other statutory requirements, unless both the Senate and House, by passage of a Joint Resolution, disapprove it. (Lawyers among us wishing to see the actual applicable law can view it here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/801.) In this case, the fees derive directly from a statute. I do not know when notice was submitted to Congress, but normally it would have been when submitted to the Federal Register or soon thereafter. The above procedure is ministerial in nature and does not provide a viable path to blocking the fees. 73, Dave K3ZJ 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. On 6/30/21, 10:02 AM, "arrl-odv on behalf of rjairam@gmail.com" <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org on behalf of rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: This is making the rounds. Is it, or is it not true? And if not, we need to ensure that the message is clear. 73 Ria, N2RJ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Eric Russell <ericprussell@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:59 AM Subject: The new FCC fee structure To: nparc@mailman.qth.net <nparc@mailman.qth.net>, SPARCclub@groups.io <SPARCclub@groups.io>, rrc <rrc@arcsquared.org>, NJElmers@groups.io <NJElmers@groups.io>, Joel Haberman <jihaberman@aol.com>, Ria Jairam <n2rj@arrl.net>, Ed Efchak <eefchak@gmail.com>, Bob Kasprak <bkasprak@aol.com> During Field day, I had an interesting chat with a fellow Ham. It seems the FCC's new fee schedule has to be cleared through Congress. That means that your Congressperson and Senators have the final say on whether they can implement it. Our best shot at stopping them from putting the schedule into effect is to write and talk to our representatives. Although the FCC charges "Service Fees," they provide no actual services. The ARRL does all of the work, including enforcing the laws on amateur radio operations. It gets no funding from the government for this. The FCC passes information from ARRL about all business relating to licenses through a computer and does nothing else. I believe the data are put into the computer by the ARRL. We provide a service, they don't; why should we have to pay to volunteer? The amount of the fee is not a relevant question. Their proposal has amateurs and professionals paying the same amount for their licenses. If our representatives hear nothing, they will assume that everything is alright and, in this case, will rubber stamp the proposal. Pass this to others around the nation. The wider our input, the better our chance of stopping it. See you on the air. 73 Eric KD2ONY _______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
david davidsiddall-law.com -
John Robert Stratton -
rjairam＠gmail.com