Why do we pay such a high cost of license

[VK4GHZ]

... I WILL POST NO MORE ,GOOD LUCK.

?

[VK2ZRH]

Where's that damned LIKE button

73, Roger Harrison VK2ZRH

[VK2AAH]

The sad thing about this whole "debate" is that if more time was spent operating, and even trying to enjoy operating, less of us would still complain about "value for money". Three of us just returned from camping out for the Trans Tasman contest and what a great way to enjoy the hobby- fresh (very fresh) air, great company, a fun night on the radio, and we even learn something as a bonus... Those who still complain should try it... $73 a year? I spent $50 on diesel for the night so $73 for a whole year is nothing...

Cheers

Richard
VK2AAH

[VK2ZRH]

Hear, hear

73, Roger Harrison VK2ZRH

[VK2JDH]

I, to even Mars chocolate bars being 4x more expensive than the UK.

Is that on a straight exchange rate conversion or a PPP?

[VK4WDM]

There is a very detailed explanation of the licence fee structure by the Phil Wait VK2ASD, the WIA President in the August AR.

Among other things he points out is that we do have legal "interference protection" under the present payment sytem, whereas under a no payment class system we could end up being classified with "remote controls and garage door openers" with no protection at all.

73

Wayne VK4WDM (retired on a war veteran's pension plus a bit of super).

[VK7ZGK]

I can't believe that that this subject has cropped up all over again and all about a paltry $74 per year. If whoever object about the cost perhaps they should move to a Country where the license is free and stop moaning.

[VK2XSO]

And we have a new club member today. He did his standard exam at the club today.
I fell off my chair when I saw how much he had to pay just to get into the hobby.

$70 for EACH exam. (x3) = $210
$20 to pick is callsign
$73 for licence

$303 to walk in off the street ?

Is anybody expecting this hobby to improve while this continues ?
It's rotten to the core and I'm now considering what it would cost me personally to put a business proposal to the ACMA to compete directly with the WIA for licence testing.

[VK5TX]

So if the assessors don't get paid and the volunteers at the wia don't get paid where does the $70 for each exam go???

It's cheaper to sit for your car licence and everyone there gets paid!!!!

Ben

[VK4TI]

And we have a new club member today. He did his standard exam at the club today.
I fell off my chair when I saw how much he had to pay just to get into the hobby.

$70 for EACH exam. (x3) = $210
$20 to pick is callsign
$73 for licence

$303 to walk in off the street ?

Is anybody expecting this hobby to improve while this continues ?
It's rotten to the core and I'm now considering what it would cost me personally to put a business proposal to the ACMA to compete directly with the WIA for licence testing.

I hear what you are saying but if you want a fright try gaining a new diploma in something , the tutors do get paid modestly so there is serious profit to the Tafe's and rto's
Thats a system I wont want to see taking over the Ham permits

[VK4WDM]

Barry is right. When the new exam system was first discussed, the use of TAFE or another RTO to administer it was explored, but the cost was much higher than the WIA bid.

Having said that, there should be a rethink on the cost of entry to AR, especially for the new foundation licence members.

As well as the cost of the exams and license there is the cost of a radio - there are not a lot of 10w-capable radios out there at a reasonable price. My suggestion when the FD was first mooted was to be able to use commonly available 25w land mobile or marine radios with 80 and 40m crystals and a VXO (with the sunspot predictions, they won 't need to worry about 15 and 10m).

Perhaps the topic for another thread?

73

Wayne VK4WDM

[VK3YE]

Having said that, there should be a rethink on the cost of entry to AR, especially for the new foundation licence members.

Agreed.

There must be a solution that cuts entry costs yet meets all admin costs etc.

We're not talking much money either - bumping up everyone's licence fees by $5 or $10 may cover it (*).

(*) Assuming 15 000 amateurs and 300 - 600 entrants each year. Use any spare change to cross-subsidise Standard and Advanced upgrades to increase skills and spread activity.

As well as the cost of the exams and license there is the cost of a radio - there are not a lot of 10w-capable radios out there at a reasonable price. My suggestion when the FD was first mooted was to be able to use commonly available 25w land mobile or marine radios with 80 and 40m crystals and a VXO (with the sunspot predictions, they won 't need to worry about 15 and 10m).

This problem may well fix itself.

The Chinese have already grabbed the low cost VHF handheld market. They've also produced some decent QRP CW rigs. We'll soon be seeing more QRP SSB rigs that would be ideal for Foundationeers, priced in the low hundreds. Software defined radios have also cut costs, especially if you only need 5 - 10w.

Then halve those costs once the secondhand market matures (though my guess is that SDRs will depreciate more than stand-alone radios if they're tied to a computer's operating system and tablets etc take over). The real costs of equipment have shrunk enormously and should continue to do so.

[VK7DR]

In truth, such arguments are only valid when discussing something which is rightfully anyone's to claim.
The problem is that holding an amateur licence is not a right, but a privilege. Ergo economic factors are irrelevant to the licensing procedure.

That said, only an "in house" procedure could be utilised to reduce the burden of cost upon new members. That is, it would be up to amateurs to subsidise the F-call and upgrade costs.
As Peter suggests, a subsidy paid on the licence fee might work, but it would have to go to the WIA, separately.
Of course, if all amateurs were law bound to be members of the WIA, then the problem could be easily addressed via membership fees.

(Ah, I can hear the screaming already.)

My personal view is much simpler, if you can't pay for it, you can't have it. (I know, this goes against the entire gen Y economic model, but it is an old and established truth.)

[VK4WDM]

"My personal view is much simpler, if you can't pay for it, you can't have it. (I know, this goes against the entire gen Y economic model, but it is an old and established truth.)"

Sorry Robert, but that argument makes absolutely no sense at all.

Who are the "target groups" who we are trying to encourage into the hobby? As I recall, the idea of a foundation licence was to appeal to: older children and teenagers, retirees and older people who are looking for a new interest. A lot of these people, or their parents, don't have much in the way of disposable income to spend on a hobby.

What is the use of making it easier to enter it by way of the foundation licence and then encourage them to up-grade, if the fees are too high?

I am now living on a fixed income - a war veteran's pension with some supper. If I was considering entering the hobby now and had to pay the fees that Trash mentions, plus buy a radio and accessories, and pay a WIA sub, I think I would look at another hobby that costs less.

I don't have any argument about the licence fee, but I do think that the exam and callsign application fees need to be looked at.

It is well-established fact that the gap between the rich and the poor is rapidly widening in Australia. Robert, I am sure that you will agree that it would be a pity to see AR confined to the rich.

73

Wayne VK4WDM

[VK3YE]

My personal view is much simpler, if you can't pay for it, you can't have it. (I know, this goes against the entire gen Y economic model, but it is an old and established truth.)

The interesting thing is that 'this old and established truth' may have been so for some things but not for amateur exams in the 1960s - 1980s when many of us had to sit them.

As late as August 1985 the combined exam fee (for theory, regs and Morse) was a paltry $2. This was laughably low and was likely unchanged for years. As a comparison annual licence fees were approximately $23. In other words exam fees were trivial compared to annual licence costs. This was the regime under which today's old-timers (plus myself) were first licensed and during which amateur radio in Australia had its greatest ever growth in numbers.

The department was then pressured to recover its costs (likely 'encouraged' by Finance or Treasury) and increased exam fees overnight to $30. In real terms this is probably not much different to now. A few years later they devolved/outsourced exams. Licence fees have generally risen much more gently and have roughly followed inflation over the last 30 - 40 years.

I agree that we should pay a fair fee for our privileges. However we also want exam fees at a level that don't discourage people. High entry barriers is also terrible economics because if people aren't getting licensed because of it then there's fewer people paying licence fees later on. Critically we charge exam fees at about the time that people are budgeting to buy equipment etc which is absolutely the worst time to hit them.

Exam fees went from being way less than the annual licence fee to being much more. In other words the cost of entry today is far higher than existing licensees pay to renew whereas in 1985 it was only slightly more. No one purposely designed it this way, but the financial incentives built in to this (not become licensed, but if you do not to upgrade past Foundation) are precisely wrong (ie we'd like more to enter and MANY more to upgrade).

It's no wonder then that mobile phones (which do make money) are based on the opposite business model. You make the phone cheap (or free) and slug people on the data/text/calls afterwards. There's a low entry cost, and a choice of either a low (prepaid) ongoing cost or a high (contract) cost depending on how much you use them.

I don't think the mobile phone pricing model is suited to amateur radio. But we need to know about it to see how others manage initial vs ongoing charges in a smarter way than us.

I agree with VK2XSO and VK4WDM that we haven't got the balance right and it could be detrimental to overall recruitment, activity, licence upgrading rates and numbers. It should be within our intelligence to come up with arrangements that cut entry costs while making ongoing costs a little higher (established hams already have gear, their cost pressures are lower than those starting out, so they can afford more).

A parallel could be like how it's generally considered acceptable to subsidise schools and provide family payments to parents because kids will eventually become tomorrow's taxpayers and fund our pensions etc. Similarly if cutting exam and upgrade costs assists recruitment then that gives more people to talk to now and in the future (and share the licence fee burden with).

[VK4DU]

Well thought through, as usual, Peter.

The fees are clearly too high.

73
Glenn

[VK5ZLR]

$303 to walk in off the street ?

Is anybody expecting this hobby to improve while this continues ?
It's rotten to the core and I'm now considering what it would cost me personally to put a business proposal to the ACMA to compete directly with the WIA for licence testing.

I knew it was a bit pricey, I didn't realise it was that bad. The WIA is out of its depth and should simply hand the entire licensing process back to the ACMA.

[VK3ALB]

I knew it was a bit pricey, I didn't realise it was that bad. The WIA is out of its depth and should simply hand the entire licensing process back to the ACMA.

Why do you think handing it back to the ACMA would make it any better?

[VK3RX]

For pilot licence exams, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority fee per exam is $65, but on top of that $80-$110 delivery fee per exam is charged by an exam provider.

Which suggests the $70 per exam charged by the WIA is probably what it should be, and would be a lot higher if external exam providers were involved.

I suspect that the CASA & ACMA have to work within the same regulatory environment of only charging what it actually costs them to process an exam result, and I recall reading here on another thread that the ACMA audit the WIA to ensure the same compliance.

[VK2XSO]

Well I think differently.
Starting with what the money pays for, or more correctly, what do they spend it on ?
You can see that other hams are shocked that it is costing people this much to get into the hobby.

The paper, the ink, the postage, the examiners ? The double, triple and quadruple checking of checking ?
Or is it something else ?

As an example, the Motor registries could be given the chance to compete with the WIA. After all, a little competition is a good thing.
In NSW it's $41 for the test and $22 for the licence. The licence is issued immediately.
This says something about both the WIA and the ACMA.

I'm saying; They're not competitive and they're making no attempt to improve.