Subject: Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 11/26/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

There's nothing "chicken and egg" about it. We were discussing
off shore US Amateur Radio exams. Jim chimed in about "CBer's with
Extra licenses" on Guam, but not a word about them being FOREIGNERS,
which is what I was addressing.

Ask *him* if they were. I've never been to Guam.

Me neither.

Neither you, the other Jim nor Hans have provided a single bit of
evidence that the tests administered OFF SHORE (in my definition
meaning not conducted under the US flag, regardless if on US soil, an
embassy or US military installation) has been done so inappropriately.

What evidence would you accept?

How about some sort of organized survey of the exams? A written complaint
from one of the licensees. A written complaint from someone who's been there
who can attest, first hand, to the alleged improprieties.

Considering the change in recent years over Amateur enforcement, it's time
to revisit the issue with the FCC.

And perhaps a letter to Tom Ridge as previously suggested.

No US tickee no US testee. OK G.I.?

Which would put them back where they were before the scam started. If they
were
noncitizens and held foreign licenses too, they'd still be hams. All they
risk
is their alleged income stream and US call.

But they'd not be breaking US law anymore. Just like the AMERICANS who
ahve been caught doing it in the past, Jim.

The whole thread was initiated by Hans' lamentation over US
exams being conducted overseas. US licenses being used by
foreigners...Not foreign licenses being used by Americans.

You're missing it, Steve.

Well...I went back and checked Hans' first post. Seems I STILL "have" it,
Jim.

No US tickee, no US testee. OK, G.I.?

And that's it. No NAL, no other penalty. If the foreign ham holds a foreign
license, he/she can still operate.

OK...big deal.

And if he was determined to have broken US law, he loses his US license.
And under the present state of affairs vis-a-vis security, chances are would
face a hard time getting a visa INTO the United States, if DoS was involved.

Also, his loss of revenue from not being able to "conduct" the scam.

I'm perfectly cool, Jim.

But you're missing the main point.

No, I'm not.

You think there should be a lot more potent penalty system in place to
hold these persons accountable.

I agree. But under present laws it doesn't exist. And under current case
law, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to do anything OTHER than to revoke
the "examiners" license since that's the precendent the FCC has established.

I'm wondering how YOU are going from Hans' lamentations over US
tests being conducted overseas to this being a discussion about
Americans being able to use foreign licenses here.

It's the difference in consequences.

Again, you'd have a hard time getting a "penalty" any more severe than what
has already been established by FCC practice.

A non-resident alien DOES face the same consequences as US
Amateurs...Revocation of licensure....Just like the others who HAVE
lost their tickets, Jim.

And that's the difference you're missing. A US ham who loses his US license
can't operate in US territory. And since many countries reciprocal-license
based on US licensing, those countries are lost, too. That's why
he-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned who lost his license for character issues
has tried so hard to get it back.

You mean Herb Schoenblohm (sp?) Or Mittnick? Neither of those persons
lost their respective licenses for violating Part 97, Jim.

Neither of them conducted scam VE tests. And Herb HAS gotten his license
back, although someone else took his KV4 call last I remember.

A foreigner who holds dual licenses is not in the same situation.

Granted. But he CAN be made to suffer the same penalty that US citizens
have been

Specifically, there were complaints *in the restructuring comments*. FCC took
heed of them and acted.

So Hans and Jim and others complain.

Hans' comments, so far, have been limite to this forum. As for
Jim's...haven't seen them to establish an informed opinion from...But if they
didn't get the desired results the first time, they

To act against them where no evidence of misconduct exists is
discrimination.

Not at all.

Discrimination is *defined* as unequal treatment without a relevant reason.

Very good.

Are you going to continue to unravel your own arguements, Jim? If so I
will just let you and you be alone.....

Amateurs getting licnesed today do not face the same conditions
you and I faced 20-30 years ago, Jim.

37 years ago in my case. The new conditions are much easier.

And nothing prevents us from making the process more challenging in order
to meet the needs of Part 97.

New licensees would not face any revocation of service they
previously enjoyed. Old licensees would keep their old calls.

Big deal.

It's a big deal if you're on the other side of that fence.

Enough that the FCC has, on several occassions, demanded to know
why a particular licensee made several license changes within specific
time frames.

How often has that happened?

It's been in QST, Jim...I am sorry I don't recall teh specific
circumstances, but a fellow made several changes under the SEQUENTIAL system
and was called on the carpet for it.

Are you sure FCC didn't have anither reason, such as someone trying to evade
detection? Example: Someone gets booted off the local repeaters for acting
inappropriately, then goes and gets a new callsign to hide his identity.

Obviously not. He used the same name and addresses the FCC was obviously
able to get ahold of him at.

Then how do you account for guys with "longer" calls that manage
to do pretty well in the contests, Jim?

They'd do better with shorter calls.

Look at the leaders and see how many have 2x3s compared to those with 1x2s.

True...but almost every one of those "1 x 2" calls that hit the big time in
every contest are megastations. I bet they'd do just as well signing "K4CAP".

Oh well...How many "desireable" 3 calls are in FL, Jim?

Quite a few! Snowbirds from here.

If they are "snowbirds", then they still reside in taht area...just move
for the weather.

"Free" to you. It still costs the FCC per-item processed.

The cost is in the handling, data input, materials and postage. Which occur
in
all transactions.

Which would be direcetly paid by the applicant if they wanted a call otehr
than the 2 x 3 they were issued.

I said attach a copy to your original station documents. You'd
still send it in, and the FCC could update their records. They just
wouldn't necessarily sned out a new document with each and every
modification.

All that saves is the FCC having to print out and send a modified license.
They'd still have to receive your letter, input the data, and update the
database. With modern dataprocessing, having to do all that but not send a
license saves less than a dollar.

"Times" how many transactions a year...??? That's a LOT of "dollars",
Jim! Let's say it takes 2 minutes for a quick clerk to do the inputing. I'll
assume that on present GS scale they are making $10/hr. That's about .17/min,
or .34. Postage, bulk rate, already costs them .30 each, so we are up to
$0.60. I bet it's a safe bet that the actual document itself is worth another
..25 to .30/piece. So that's up to $.90 per document. And we haven't even
added in overhead...the computer itself...office costs, etc.

If FCC really wanted to save a few admin pennies, they'd renew every
nonvanity
license upon modification. Doing so would eliminate renewal-only
transactions.

No arguement from me. It can't be more than a keystroke to do.

No, it's not. But under your system, it no longer matters where
the licensee is. So let's stop issuing a "6" call to Californians and
"0" to Minnesotans, 4 to Tennesseeans, etc...Just start at KC1AAA (or
wherever they are in the current sequential system) and keep on going
until they get to WZ1ZZZ. Then start with KD2AAA and go to WZ2ZZZ,
etc etc etc until we get to WZ0ZZZ, regardless of whether they are in
Bangor Maine or Irvine, California. It doesn't matter, right...???

Not really.

Then WHAT'S your fuss over whether you have a 2 call or a three? =)

73

Steve, K4YZ