[arrl-odv:30824] Proposed Amateur Radio Application Fees
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
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*
[image: 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> 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.
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
I agree. I’m also disappointed that we didn’t catch this until the “blogosphere” (to use a term coined by a former colleague) got a hold of it. Ria N2 On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 9:33 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <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*
[image: 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> 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.
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
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
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<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 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<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. 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<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
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 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
Washington, DC 20006
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 https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
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*
[image: 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> 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.
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
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 <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*
[image: 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> 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.
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
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
How about we start with arguing our cost savings to the Commission because of the volunteer examiner services hams provide, as well as volunteer monitoring services while we are at it? It is all about costs recovery in the proposal. So maybe we start there. They would like hams to pay the same as other personal radio (part 95) services which are distinguishable on a public benefit return basis. It’s a start – at least for a reduction. We all paid fees back in the day. Adjusted for today’s dollar, I wonder how much the increase really is. And just how much could we justify if the new source of revenues actually went into enforcement? I realize that is not what they suggest they are recovering. Maybe only other than basic services should require a fee. Maybe vanity calls could justify something and be a compromise. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv On Behalf Of rjairam@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2020 12:51 PM To: Matt Holden <mtholde@gmail.com> Cc: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org>; Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Subject: [arrl-odv:30833] Re: Proposed Amateur Radio Application Fees 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@comcastnet <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-lawcom <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> <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 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. 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 <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 <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Reinstatement of the vanity fee would have the effect of also making callsign hoarders pay a lot of money for their expensive hobby of hoarding callsigns. With that said it may be a good compromise position - make basic assigned calls free and vanities incur a fee. Ria N2RJ On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 1:38 PM Bob Famiglio, K3RF <RBFamiglio@verizon.net> wrote:
How about we start with arguing our cost savings to the Commission because of the volunteer examiner services hams provide, as well as volunteer monitoring services while we are at it? It is all about costs recovery in the proposal. So maybe we start there. They would like hams to pay the same as other personal radio (part 95) services which are distinguishable on a public benefit return basis. It’s a start – at least for a reduction. We all paid fees back in the day. Adjusted for today’s dollar, I wonder how much the increase really is. And just how much could we justify if the new source of revenues actually went into enforcement? I realize that is not what they suggest they are recovering. Maybe only other than basic services should require a fee. Maybe vanity calls could justify something and be a compromise.
*Bob Famiglio, K3RF*
*Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division*
*610-359-7300*
www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF
*From:* arrl-odv *On Behalf Of *rjairam@gmail.com *Sent:* Tuesday, September 01, 2020 12:51 PM *To:* Matt Holden <mtholde@gmail.com> *Cc:* arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org>; Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> *Subject:* [arrl-odv:30833] Re: Proposed Amateur Radio Application Fees
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@comcastnet <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-lawcom <http://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 <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*
[image: 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> 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.
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
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 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: davidhttp://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+++++++++++W...
https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+++++++++++W...
Washington, DC 20006 https://www.google.com/maps/search/1629+K+St.+NW,+Ste+300+%0D%0A+++++++++++W...
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
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
Hi all: Mike, Iagree we could have done better on the web article. We could have at leastmentioned that we anticipate filing comments at the appropriate time, in other wordsfighting it. Recall theemail Dave Siddall sent ODV last Thursday (ODV:30824) reporting on the proposedrulemaking and that the comment period is not open yet and that he plans to providesome comments and guidance. We don’t knowat this point what policy and strategy the Board wants to seek on this matter. Consequently, we are limited in response to membersother than we are reviewing the matter, are discussing options, intend onfiling comments when the comment period opens. Once we decide on our position and the comment period opens, then we can provideour members better guidance on how to respond. By the way,as a reminder so we don’t get crossways, the Directors Workbook, item 2.2 inpart states: “Boardpolicy prohibits the filing of comments in FCC proceedings by members of theBoard, either on their own behalf or on behalf of other organizations. Thispolicy is not to be construed prohibiting Board members from encouraging thefiling of comments by others in support of League positions, or from contactingtheir own elected government representatives to gain support of Leaguepositions.” I’d heardthat some on ODV were planning to file comments so it’s worth remindingeveryone of the policy. 73, Rick – K5UR -----Original Message----- From: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Sent: Tue, Sep 1, 2020 1:18 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:30836] Re: Proposed Amateur Radio Application Fees 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
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
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> 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> 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 <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*
[image: 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> 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.
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
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
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
Thanks Dale for your view of this issue. I fully agree with your comments and that of others with regard to the $50.00 out of pocket expense for young future amateurs. Hope ARRL can get the FCC to eliminate or dramatically reduce the fees. Lynn Nelson ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director From: Dale Williams Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2020 7:48 AM To: Kermit Carlson ; rjairam@gmail.com Cc: arrl-odv ; Michael Ritz Subject: [arrl-odv:30846] Re: Proposed Amateur Radio Application Fees 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
participants (12)
-
Bob Famiglio, K3RF -
Dale Williams -
david davidsiddall-law.com -
James Tiemstra -
k5ur＠aol.com -
Kermit Carlson -
Mark J Tharp -
Matt Holden -
Michael Ritz -
rjairam＠gmail.com -
Shelley, Barry, N1VXY (CEO) -
W0ND