N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Lenof21) writes:
In article , Leo
writes:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:36:59 -0800 (PST), "Phil Kane"
wrote:
On 08 Jan 2005 21:31:53 GMT, N2EY wrote:
Lenof21 wrote:
All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace
period.
Nope. Wrong. You are mistaken. Once an amateur's license expires,
he or she *cannot* legally operate until it is renewed.
Unless the renewal has been applied for before expiration. Then,
the license privileges continue until the FCC acts upon the application.
I did not know that! Thanks, Phil.
Amend my statement to read:
Once an amateur's license expires, he or she *cannot* legally operate until it
is renewed. If renewal has been applied for before expiration, the license
privileges continue until the FCC acts upon the application.
A good point, but not really an issue in this case. Once you think
about it, that sort of thing is mandatory. There is always a lag between
the application and issuance, So that lag would apply for the last day
of a persons license privileges.
Just like the IRS doesn't get the April 15th tax returns on April 15th.
What is important is that they are postmarked by then. If the mail takes
a week to get it to them, you are still covered.
However, it proves my point: *All* amateurs with expired licenses cannot
continue to operate in the grace period. Only those who have applied for
renewal *before the license actually expired* and whose applications have not
yet been processed by FCC can do so.
Where in Part 97 is this documented?
That is a procedural issue that simply addresses what would otherwise
become a paradox. If you had to have your renewed license in hand by the
end of the ten year license period, that would mean that you would have
to have the application in some time before that.
How long before that? two weeks? a month? a year? If a date is set, who
is responsible if the FCC is backlogged and they don't get the renewed
license to you.
Would the new license expire ten years from the new issuance date, or
would it be a ten year plus X days, weeks, or months.
My point is that that procedure is what makes the most sense because it
sets a date by which you must have your renewal in by, not a date by
which you must have the renewed license back by.
Much much easier.
Oh oh. An exception to the rule rears its ugly head.....
How could the J & M tag team possibly miss that one? 
Sure enough, the PCTA extras in here disregard the subject in order
to lambaste (and generally make nasty to) any NCTA about anything.
:-)
It is *you* who are disregsarding the subject, Len.
Can *all* amateurs with expired licenses legally operate while in the grace
period, Len? That's what you claimed. It isn't so.
I would postulate that an amateur who has sent in their license renewal
by the expiry date *is not* operating on an expired license.
My precedent for this is what happened when I upgraded to General and
Extra. I operated with my new privileges after the test and before the
wallpaper arrived. In that case, I just noted my new status with my
callsign with the proper suffix.
Do you retract your statement or stand by it, Len?
Doesn't matter if the NCTA are right or wrong (deliberately so in the
case suddenly become front-page news of sorts)...all NCTA are
targets of opportunity to be DISCREDITED by any means possible.
Not at all, Len.
Your statement about operation in the renewal period was clearly wrong.
97.21(b) proves that. Has nothing to do with code testing at all, but has
everyhting to do with a basic understanding of Part 97.
Your statements err on the side of breaking the law rather than observing it.
The "tag team" seems to think that all hams are always active on-
the-air as good "service personnel" (or something) during their valid
license period.
Where do you get that?
Darned if I know! If you or I said half the things attributed to us, we
would be saying some strange things indeed!
Never mind that there are absences from the "service"
for many different reasons.
Such as?
The "grace period" insures that such
absence will not allow any licensee to lose their (apparently) so precious
tribal identification of a call sign.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether operating with an
expuired-but-in-the-grace-period license is legal. You've written that it is
legal for all amateurs. Part 97 says it isn't.
The call sign is "who we are" to
quote
one licensee in here some years ago.
Who was that?
That would be especially true
for the Vanity calls. Licensees POSSESS their calls and those become
very, very personal.
Is that a problem? Perhaps it is a sore point with you because you do not have
an amateur radio call sign.
And what dies it have to do with what, I dunno...
In the USA I might even suggest that the FDA (Food and Drug
Administration) step in and help the FCC literally brand the granted
call sign on the physical person of the licensee, perhaps by a tatoo.
That might complete the process of the New Identity within the Tribe.
[why not? the FDA here certifies real hams ... :-) ]
Perhaps USDA could certify your posts as "100% pure bull", too....;-) ;-)
The plain, simple fact is that Len Anderson simply made a mistake on 97.21(b).
But he won't admit it.
- Mike KB3EIA -