RadioBanter - View Single Post - Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?

November 27th 04, 02:26 PM

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes:

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.

I doubt he'd be interested...

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.

Not the point I was making.

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.

That's ultimately what the license is for..

And if he was determined to have broken US law, he loses his US
license.

So he uses his license from his country of residence.

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.

Not everyone wants to come here.

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

Which I previously mentioned. But that's the risk no matter what.

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.

No, I think the rules need to be changed. Specifically, someone who is
neither a US citizen nor a resident of US territory should not be
allowed to hold a permanent US ham license, nor to function as a VE.
IMHO.

That specific change would probably get through the lawyers. I can see a
couple of downsides to it, FWIW. Firstly, VE teams serving Americans
overseas could no longer make use of any locals as VEs. Maybe they don't
anyway? Secondly, foreign-based DXpeditions to rare US islands would have
to recite a portable call.

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.

So we change the rules. That's what Hans wants, and I say he's right.

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.

Last time I looked, they were both citizens.

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

How you gonna collect the NAL?

As I said before, unless he has assets in the US, you're not.

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

Point is, there was enough complaining to FCC about multiple choice
code tests that they were eliminated. If there's enough complaining
about nonresident aliens being VEs and holding permanent US licenses,
those rules can change too.

AFAIK, the NCVEC eliminated those tests, not the FCC

Consider what most countries outside the US do when an American wants
to operate. They issue a license good for a specific short time, based
on the valid US license. There's usually a fee in good old US dollars.
American gets to operate from Lower Podunkia and everyone has a good
time.

Why can't we do the same thing?

There are almost as many ways of doing this as there are countries.

The UK has no reciprocal licences per se, only permanent or temporary
licences. If you give a UK address you can get a permanent licence, which
is the same licence you get for passing a test. If not, you get a temporary
licence with a portable call. Either way there is a fee, and for the
temporary licence you pay the regular annual fee for only six months.

For a while I held a second UK call (G0VUK) based on my US licence.
However, since the code test was abolished my original call (G8VUK) has
full operating privileges.

Some countries issue visitor's licences with a distinctive call. For
example, my Irish call is EI4VXI. The V is for visitor. It is free for upto
a month, and costs progressively more for longer periods, and I can get the
same call back on subsequent visits.

I beleive that the latest ITU conference authorised calls with four call
letters. That would make possible a visitor's call like, say, KH2VXYZ! I
doubt that the FCC would be interested in administering this or collecting
the money, so if it were done it would have to be done through the VE
system. I can even envision that the FCC wouldn't have any record of these
calls atall. They probably wouldn't fit in their database. Perhaps the
NCVEC could keep track of them? Just a thought.

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.....

How am I unrvavelling anything? Being neither a resident nor a citizen
is a valid reason to deny a license. IMHO. YMMV. LSMFT

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.

Sure it does. All the screaming that would result. Also FCC's
reluctance to take back certain functions.

Like collecting fees.

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.

Who and when? How many changes?

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.

??

I meant detection by other hams. Most hams just use their first name on
the air - but I know a few who use their middle name. There's no rule
that sez you have to use either.

Suppose KC3@#$, "Bill" gets booted off the repeaters. Couple weeks go
by, then KD3!$^, "Tom", shows up. Who is to know they are the same
person without looking them up in the database, and discovering that
they're both William Thomas Bfztsplk?

Obviously Polish, ROTFL

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".

Part of being a megastation is going for every advantage. Including
length of callsign.

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.

Some have residences both places. Others visit with friends or
relatives up here in summer, then go south during the cold. Under your
plan, they'd be forced to lose their call, or lie to the FCC.

I don't think much of that either. There's a possibility of me moving to
Michigan. I wouldn't want to give up N3KIP for some KI8@& call. I prefer a
1x3 to a 2x2, and I don't want to pay for a vanity call.

"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.

Where's the extra cost?

The computer system is set up to grab the next call in the sequential
line automatically when a new license is issued, or when an upgrade
occurs and the applicant requests it. One check box on the application.

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!

Not really. Look up how many modifications are done a year. Remember
that a good number of them are upgrades.

Let's say it takes 2 minutes for a quick clerk to do the inputing.

A lot of it is online that doesn't require a clerk at all.

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.

Most of that cost is still incurred whether a modified license is
mailed or not.

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.

I think they don't do it because of the vanity system.

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?
=)

The total effect on the ARS,

73 de Jim, N2EY