Re: USFS proposal to charge for repeater sites.
|
Daniel J Mattingly, N0FQN
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýHi Jim; ??? ??? ?? My two cents from the soap box. Trying to explain to
hams that what they have applied for is, indeed, a service is next
to impossible. Many still believe it to just a hobby and nothing
more. If they read the FCC rules completely they would see it is
service. If they dig deeper they will see what the government is
allowed to do under this agreement. When you apply for a ham
license and pass the testing you placing yourself and, any
equipment you procure, in servitude to the government. In
actuality, if the government were to ever choose to do so, they
could confiscate your equipment. This would be under very rare and
extremely severe conditions but, possible. We are a service,
period. Anyone applying for a license to broadcast, in any way,
shape or form, is subject to this. Having worked in broadcast
radio, I talked extensively with several FCC field agents. After
some prodding they admitted that this, in fact, is true. We are
bound to work with FEMA, Homeland Security and other agencies of
the government(s). IMHO this is the political side of the story.
I'm fully in agreement with you that it is an uncomfortable
position to be in but, a necessary evil, so to speak. Looking at
the USFS they are a typical government entity. Wasting money is
one of the prime requirements. Thus, the need for more. FCC is
proposing a fee for our license, anyone? I've never seen a
governmental department use common sense yet, have you? 73 Dan N0FQN On 12/28/2021 4:15 PM, Jim English,
WO7V wrote:
|