Discussion in 'Trials and Errors - Ham Life with an Amateur' started by W7DGJ, Jan 29, 2024.
Sorry again, Dave... it is what happens when I've too many windows open!
73 KQ1V Hank
There are a few. AOPA has a PAC. While not strictly a hobby, many private owners are hobbyists.
AOPA boasts these achievements:
And while general aviation is not strictly a hobby, sometimes ham radio does non-hobby things as well.
Hobbies that are regulated and require licensing can benefit the most.
In my state the local association, ANJRPC, has been doing great work.
Opinion: Biggest threat to Amateur Radio has been regulation by bandwidth. Associated with this is the move since 2008 to have wide band data on current voice frequencies. The specific goal is to use faster modems to send email for sail boats and RVs. When the ARRL speaks about preserving AR, look for this alternative motive.
VERY interesting. I want to be certain that I understand fully. I interpret this as there being some FCC rule applied to compensate existing spectrum users because of their being displaced. Is this right?
There was no compensation required if the auction winners were content to wait out the ten years for the incumbent path licenses to all be cancelled by FCC action. As I said before, the compensation was a mechanism for the carriers who were anxious to promptly deploy their extra frequencies to reach agreements for voluntary early license termination by the incumbents.
There WAS a rule, policy or some such FCC language to guide the agreements. It might have been in a Report and Order and not codified in 47 CFR Part 101. Being retired, I don't have the resources to quickly find the language again.
Don't quote me, but I think that I recall the 2100 MHz migration window was Nov 2006 to Nov 2016. I'm pretty sure I remember November, but not the years. The ten-year incumbent license cancellation clock started on the day the first spectrum auction winner in the band got a license (or construction permit?) granted by the FCC anywhere in the country.
Some of the appendices to the migration contracts were copies of the license cancellation filings. In some cases, the new paths used the same callsigns, and the licenses were just modified to delete 2100 MHz paths. The cancellations or license modifications were required to be submitted before any cash compensation was remitted.
Legally, the carriers owned the legacy equipment being bought out, but in my experience the carriers all just abandoned the old equipment in place once it stopped transmitting.
But the bottom line as it affects hams is that the FCC will "kick out" incumbents on occupied spectrum, and therefore my opinion is that keeping the status quo is a win.
Though my approach/opinion differs, I agree that "maintaining" in this environment is a win. I simply like to look to ways to change the environment. Here's what I mean...
Back when we were about to lose 3.3Ghz, the Rochester VHF Group (I was Chairman at the time) attmpted to lobby ARRL Directors to take a less conservative approach. We proposed that they put forth a proposal to the FCC whereby a 1% "tax" be placed on the winner(s) of auctions that included amateur radio assigned spectrum and granted to an amateur radio based 501(c)3 for the purpose of furthering their educational goals.
After hearing all of the reasons they couldn't do so, I sat back and watched as an obscene amount of money and future leverage passed us by. I'm hoping that it was a lesson learned.
Now, before anyone thinks I'm bashing the ARRL I am not. My respect for it and its officials and officers runs deep. I am simply suggesting that it takes time for many to think more creatively (and energetically) to reach one's goals. I'm hoping that the next time we face spectrum loss, we are one step closer to having more creative and energetic approaches.
Excellent thread. I've taken away many useful thoughts.
Thanks Evhen! Your comment is very interesting. I would have liked to see those kinds of $$ come our way. perhaps to the ARRL and to support future spectrum defense and/or the amateur radio publications we know and love. Too bad it didn't work out. I realize your post is very much a helpful post and not an ARRL bash as so many threads seem to do across social media. Thanks for the input, Dave (W7DGJ)
I have always wondered why amateurs are unwilling to pay a fair share for vital services and privileges to support their hobby. As a VEC for many years and teaching ham radio classes, I can tell you that the expense of volunteering is getting expensive for many. This is not complaint, as I voluntarily paid tens of thousands of dollars for my hobby.
The FCC is not run by volunteers and are hard working employees that are underfunded for what they do and they deserve better! Appealing the $35 license fee is not the right answer. The FCC is not Fast Food Enterprise and should be allowed to collect fees for processing and maintaining millions of records, while managing the air waves too.
As a retired business person, my largest expense is labor followed by overhead and the cost of money. Are you starting to see the picture. Ham radio is mostly for your enjoyment and sometimes to provide emergency communications when necessary.
I would not have any concerns if the FCC increased the license fee to the same amount for a Disneyland ticket. Just think, my Ham ticket allows me to visit and ride the airwaves for 10 years before I have to buy another ticket.
It seems to me that the threats take several forms:
1) Loss of use of frequencies by reallocation to other services or sharing with other services who are not good neighbors.
2) Loss of use of frequencies due to residential high noise levels due to FCC not enforcing RF noisemaker rules and/or setting the limits too high.
3) Loss of use of frequencies due to inability to put up reasonable antennas and lack of amateur-radio-friendly housing.
4) Lack of adequate enforcement of FCC rules, including Part 97.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Great set of comments Jim. We have all but given in on #2 -- I haven't heard much about this for years and it's a continuing (worse) problem with all the small electronics, switches, controls and wall warts from China that no one checks for RF noise. #3 is being worked on by all major players, and hopefully will someday be resolved, and #4 is our own issue and we could use more respect for FCC rules by some oddballs in the field, Dave W7DGJ
I agree with you on the price of a ham ticket. It's a bargain at $35 for ten years. It was used in Ria's story as an example of how ham-related items can sneak into unrelated legislation. It's not something that anyone is trying to appeal. Thanks for posting! Dave, W7DGJ