On Feb 16, 11:54�pm, wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:49 pm, wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:55?pm, "
wrote:

* *fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur
radio station call sign. ?

Len:

I suggest you read Part 97 again.

I suggest you go to your local Post Office and ask
them about renting
a PO Box then using it for other people.

Why?

What matters is what the regulations were back then, not
what they are now.

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address.

Just any valid mailing address?

That question has already been answered. See (1) below

In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

Just any valid mailing address?

That question has already been answered. See (1) below

FCC used to care about where a licensee lived, and the
actual station location. But all that changed many years
ago, and all they have required for may years is a valid
mailing address where the licensee may receive mail
from FCC.

(1) a valid mailing address where the licensee may
receive mail from FCC.

What do the Postal Regulations say about it?

I don't know what they said about it in 2000. That's
what matters.

There are a number of retired "RV" people nowadays who
don't really have a "residence" in the classic sense. They
live in their RVs, travelling the country as they see fit, and
living wherever their travel leads them. At least some of them
are radio amateurs.

Of course they have a "mailing address", which is often just
a post office box. Someone checks their mail regularly, and
deals with important items as needed. FCC and the post office
have no problem with this, and no fraud is involved.

In some rural areas, people maintain post office boxes
"in town" and pick up their mail there when they get to town.
FCC and the post office have no problem with this, and no
fraud is involved.

How are these cases any different from the use of a Hawaiian
post office box?

After all, the FCC did accept and process the vanity call
applications, and did issue the callsigns. Perhaps it was
simply a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules,
rather than the letter of the law.

The government can be defrauded as well as anyone,

That's true.

and there was no misunderstanding.

How do you know?

Obviously the vanity callsign applications met the
letter of the law - otherwise FCC would not have
processed them nor issued the callsigns. Whether
the met the *intent* of the law is another issue, and
intent is a matter of interpretation.

*It was poor amateur practice.

Why?

Were the callsigns that were cancelled ones that other
amateurs wanted, but could not get?

Have any of the cancelled callsigns been reissued
through the vanity callsign program?

FCC has issued some vanity callsigns that some consider
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. Those
callsigns
would not normally be issued in sequence, so the FCC is
aware of the controversy, yet they issued those callsigns
when requested through the vanity program.

We're not talking about Kim, we're talking about
Michael P. Deignan of the RF Commandos.

The subject is the letter of the law regarding vanity callsigns
versus the intent of that law. There's also the question of
good vs. poor amateur practice.

Kim is not the only amateur, nor the first, to have a callsign
that some consider inappropriate. Indeed, she was not the
first to have a callsign with a certain particular suffix.

MD is not the only amateur
to be trustee of multiple club callsigns.

There was lengthy discussion here about the appropriateness
of certain Amateur Radio vanity callsigns. The defense was
that if the FCC issued the callsigns, they were appropriate.
Although I was initially unconvinced, I changed my mind.

Is that not correct?

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old. Why are you living in the past?

In ham years that was barely yesterday.

If it is OK to discuss those old callsign events, then it's
also OK to discuss other old events, such as boasts of
getting an Extra out of the box, or of opposing real estate
zoning changes. Etc.

Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

It's because the individual incessantly tells others how to
live their ham-lives,

Where?

The person involved hadn't posted here for *years*. His
posts are rather few in number, and quite short and
to-the-point.

Other individuals who post here, including one who isn't even
a radio amateur, incessantly tell others how to live their
ham-lives. Is that wrong?

then defrauds his friend and the FCC.

How was anyone defrauded?

Was there some sort of penalty, such as a forfeiture of money
or an operator license suspension/revocation?

What brought the whole issue to FCC's attention, anyway?
Did someone want one of those callsigns?

Jim, N2EY