4 ms·

Administering ham bands does cost, especially when you're dragged into internal ham enthusiast politics - source, worked for our radio spectrum regulator.

dmix 7y ago
Even better. The state could easily take the non commercial nature of the operation into consideration compared to the intention of the existing fee system. A whole lot of the internet lives off this idea of commercial users subsidizing, while also getting much in return, from the volunteer subset. I’m curious though, does the cost also come from internal conflict or just from outsiders like local/state regulators?
- EdwardDiego 7y ago
  We (NZ) do reduce licensing fees for the ham freqs. But they can be a rich source of complaints when someone takes an internal club dispute onto the airwaves, and then you've got to send out the radio engineers to locate the offending signal(s), then begin enforcement action if needed. CB bands are even worse for the petty politics on air because you access them via a GURL (general user radio license) which means anyone can buy a CB and go wild. We also don't see much payback mainly because the types of comms ham operators can provide are incorporated into our existing emergency and disaster agencies.
  - philpem 7y ago
    I think you've hit the nail on the head with the 'types of comms hams can provide' comment. UK perspective -- there isn't much hams can offer here either. An emergency response team wants a local repeater, you can't set it up on a ham ticket (at least not without an NOV and the cooperation of the RSGB ETCC). But the rescue squad can get their own equipment, a local radio supplier might subsidise the cost, and all they need to use it is an Ofcom Business Radio licence (£70 for - I can't remember if it's three years or five). Police, fire and rescue are largely kitted out with Airwave radios anyway these days. So why are the hams needed? Emergency response is a hollow-as-heck argument, the training and experiment side is a far better one. (ObFD: licensed UK ham, de M0OFX ex M6OFX/2E0OFX)

dmix 7y ago

Even better. The state could easily take the non commercial nature of the operation into consideration compared to the intention of the existing fee system. A whole lot of the internet lives off this idea of commercial users subsidizing, while also getting much in return, from the volunteer subset. I’m curious though, does the cost also come from internal conflict or just from outsiders like local/state regulators?

EdwardDiego 7y ago
We (NZ) do reduce licensing fees for the ham freqs. But they can be a rich source of complaints when someone takes an internal club dispute onto the airwaves, and then you've got to send out the radio engineers to locate the offending signal(s), then begin enforcement action if needed. CB bands are even worse for the petty politics on air because you access them via a GURL (general user radio license) which means anyone can buy a CB and go wild. We also don't see much payback mainly because the types of comms ham operators can provide are incorporated into our existing emergency and disaster agencies.
- philpem 7y ago
  I think you've hit the nail on the head with the 'types of comms hams can provide' comment. UK perspective -- there isn't much hams can offer here either. An emergency response team wants a local repeater, you can't set it up on a ham ticket (at least not without an NOV and the cooperation of the RSGB ETCC). But the rescue squad can get their own equipment, a local radio supplier might subsidise the cost, and all they need to use it is an Ofcom Business Radio licence (£70 for - I can't remember if it's three years or five). Police, fire and rescue are largely kitted out with Airwave radios anyway these days. So why are the hams needed? Emergency response is a hollow-as-heck argument, the training and experiment side is a far better one. (ObFD: licensed UK ham, de M0OFX ex M6OFX/2E0OFX)