THE "FEE CONUNDRUM" IN FCC DOCKET WT-10-119 by Corwin Moore, PRSG Administrative Coordinator KAB0220 / WB8UPM; June 25, 2010 In Docket WT-10-119, the proposed new GMRS Rules propose eliminating all licenses and callsigns completely. However, in discussion the FCC asks about increasing the length of a new or renewed GMRS license term from five to ten years as a potential alternative. The FCC is limited by laws which allow the Commission to change only those matters that it has first given notice to the public and taken comment about. The NPRM does not discuss the way in which the FCC actually calculates the fees themselves. Since the amount of the fees is not proposed to be raised in WT-10-119, the FCC cannot legally change them in this Docket. In separate prior proceedings, the FCC did propose to change this calculation -- and to lower the GMRS fee -- years ago, but never did. That proposal is still in limbo. From a review of the early comments filed by GMRS users, it is apparent that many people are not familiar with how the FCC calculates GMRS licensing fees. Commission staff members sometimes refer to the sum of these fees (currently $85) as "the application fee." However, the FCC actually charges two fees from most GMRS licenses; 1) An application (processing) fee, currently $60 per application; and, 2) A regulatory (usage) fee, currently $5/year for a 5-year license. Comments filed with the FCC so far seem to indicate that people believe that the FCC can just extend GMRS license terms to ten years but keep the sum of the two fees the same, $85. But that is not the case. The Notice does not propose any change to how the FCC calculates the fees. The total fees would increase for a ten-year license to $110 ($60 for the application (processing) fee, and $50 for the regulatory (usage) fee [$5/year for each of the ten years of the license]). This is undoubtedly NOT what most commenters understand. SO WHAT SHOULD THE FEES AND THE LICENSING TERM BE? PRSG believes that the GMRS licensing term should remain at five years. People move, and a renewal process on a five-year basis is a reasonable requirement to keep track of where GMRS licensees can be contacted. GMRS repeater operators deserve the ability to identify and contact users of their stations. People suffering interference or needing to contact other GMRS licensees for cooperating and coordinating in the selection and use of the frequencies, as the FCC Rules have long required, need access to reasonably up-to-date information. Keeping the current five- year licensing term will keep the fees lower also. In today's world, we believe that GMRS licenses will continue ONLY if we pay for them. The chance of "free licenses" from the government is extremely remote. The same is true for FCC enforcement of GMRS rules. The regulatory (usage) fee would help to fund this enforcement. The problem is the currently onerous application (processing) fee. It was originally set to be the same as that for the Part 90 services (business band, industrial, police, fire, local government, etc.) and other services that all used the same FCC Form 574. When the FCC changed the GMRS application process to use the vastly simpler FCC Form 605 instead, the FCC's cost to process GMRS applications substantially decreased. However, the FCC failed to reduce the application (processing) fee to reflect this change in cost. What is the FCC's actual cost of processing the Form 605? They've never said, but it would probably be in the $5 to $10 range apiece, max. Even if the FCC's cost is in the upper range ($10), the fee total for a five-year license should be about $35 ($10 for processing the application, $25 for the regulatory fee). For a ten-year license, a total of $60 ($10 application-processing fee, $50 for the regulatory fee). WHAT TO SAY IN YOUR COMMENTS TO WT-10-119 The FCC has suggested that delicensing GMRS may be appropriate due to large numbers of "bubble-pack" FRS users not getting licenses but using GMRS channels anyway. Do you think most FRS "bubble-pack" users stay just on the FRS channels (1-14)? We believe that the increased unlicensed use of GMRS-only channels is due to the current, unreasonable cost of a GMRS license. In the prior consideration of lowering the GMRS licensing fees (mentioned above), even FCC staff recognize this problem. But the solution is NOT to punish properly licensed GMRS users for the misdeeds of FRS users. Instead the FCC needs to address the problems created when (contrary to lengthy legal precedent) the FCC allowed (unlicensed) FRS and (supposedly licensed) GMRS capabilities in the same radios. GMRS licensees need to express that they want and need licensing to continue, but that the sum of the current application and regulatory fees needs to be brought down to a reasonable level. The FCC should not extend the licensing term with the current fee sum total. (And there is an advantage to retaining the current five-year term to assure the freshest possible information in the FCC licensing database and lower fee total.)