operator's licence vs. station licence
 

How many countries have two kinds of licences: operator's licence and
station licence? You only get your callsign (station licence) after
you bring your rig in for inspection, whereupon you are granted a
callsign whose letter reflect the level of operator's licence you have
achieved. Taiwan is one.

This seems like a commercial radio concept dragged over into ham radio.
One would think one equipment approval would be enough too, as all
rigs on the market already have local FCC approval.

Dan Jacobson wrote in
:

How many countries have two kinds of licences: operator's licence and
station licence? You only get your callsign (station licence) after
you bring your rig in for inspection, whereupon you are granted a
callsign whose letter reflect the level of operator's licence you have
achieved. Taiwan is one.

This seems like a commercial radio concept dragged over into ham radio.
One would think one equipment approval would be enough too, as all
rigs on the market already have local FCC approval.


This is the system in Spain, although they only have to write a description
of their station to get the station licence (and, of course, pay an
additional fee!).

US military enclaves (Guanatanamo, etc, can't remember all of them right
now) all have the same system.

One advantage in both of those systems is that a licence issued anywhere in
the world is accepted as the operator's licence. Other than that, it does
seem terribly redundant.

Dan Jacobson wrote:
How many countries have two kinds of licences: operator's licence and
station licence? You only get your callsign (station licence) after
you bring your rig in for inspection, whereupon you are granted a
callsign whose letter reflect the level of operator's licence you have
achieved. Taiwan is one.

This seems like a commercial radio concept dragged over into ham radio.
One would think one equipment approval would be enough too, as all
rigs on the market already have local FCC approval.

The FCC had some strange license concept like this years ago.
Lately they changed it to match most hams' thinking. That the
callsign is associated with the person. Most hams, when visiting
a friend ham and borrowing the shack, would use his own call.
That he would "inspect" the equipment ("yes, it looks like a
Kenwood") and uses it.

Back in the olden days, two brothers living at the same house
got their ham licenses. But the FCC, seeing the same address,
made them share the same callsign, as they shared the same shack.

When was the last time a ham was busted for bad equipment?
All the NALs I've seen are for some stupid *use* of equipment
(jamming a repeater, dirty words, broadcasting, pecunary
interest violations, and such) or a lower level licensee
caught in say the extra portion of 20m. And one has to
work at it to get a NAL it seems. An occasional error
will usually pass unnoticed; the FCC figures that most hams
will spot the error and correct it themselves.

"Dan Jacobson" wrote

How many countries have two kinds of licences: operator's licence and
station licence?

Each individual licensed by the FCC has both an operators license and a
station license --- see §97.5(b)(1). The are granted on the same
document and run concurrently, but there are two separate licenses
granted.

73, de K0HB
--
My name is Hans and I improved this message.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Back in the olden days, two brothers living at the same house
got their ham licenses. But the FCC, seeing the same address,
made them share the same callsign, as they shared the same shack.

When was this, Robert?

I know of two brothers with licenses who lived at the same address and had two
different callsigns - more than 30 years ago.

Going back into the 1950s, I've read of husband-and-wife hams at the same
address with different callsigns.

So it would go back to pre-1950 or so.

More fun facts:

At the start of WW2, the FCC cancelled all amateur radio station licenses, and
stopped issuing new ones. But you could still get an amateur radio operator
license - there were just no legal amateur stations where you could use it.

For many years, FCC and its predecessors would allow the same individual to
hold multiple station licenses. This was fairly common back when portable
operation required you to identify as such, and when you had to notify FCC if
you operated away from home for more than 48 hours. Hams with a second
residence, or who went away to the same place regularly, sometimes got second
station licenses to avoid all that. Here in EPA, where it's common for
well-to-do hams to own places "down the shore" in SNJ, more than a few hams
held two station licenses - one with a 3-land call and one with a 2-land call.
When those old rules changed, one of those calls had to be given up.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Robert Casey
writes:


Back in the olden days, two brothers living at the same house
got their ham licenses. But the FCC, seeing the same address,
made them share the same callsign, as they shared the same shack.


When was this, Robert?


Sometime in the 20's or 30's, IIRC.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Robert Casey
writes:


Back in the olden days, two brothers living at the same house
got their ham licenses. But the FCC, seeing the same address,
made them share the same callsign, as they shared the same shack.


When was this, Robert?


Sometime in the 20's or 30's, IIRC.

Ah - that fits. In that era, mobile and portable operation by hams was not
allowed. A station license was for one location only! The rules changed in the
very late '20s and '30s to allow portable and finally mobile operation. (Until
1949, mobile operation was not allowed below 25 MHz, and for a time in the
1930s, portable operation required a special "Z" or "ZZ" license with four
letters after the number. W6AM got callsign "W6ZZAM" for portable use.)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/19/2004 4:42 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


(Until 1949, mobile operation was not allowed below 25 MHz...(SNIP)

Considering that you almost needed a seperate trailer to carry the gear,
this was hardly an impediment!

...(UNSNIP).. and for a time in the
1930s, portable operation required a special "Z" or "ZZ" license with four
letters after the number. W6AM got callsign "W6ZZAM" for portable use.)

I wonder who came up with that idea?

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (N2EY)
Date: 10/19/2004 4:04 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/19/2004 4:42 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


(Until 1949, mobile operation was not allowed below 25 MHz...(SNIP)

Considering that you almost needed a seperate trailer to carry the
gear,
this was hardly an impediment!

Not really. Look at an ARC-5 receiver, and how much could be packed
into a small space using mid-1930s technology. Hams could, and did,
build very compact equipment without "miniature" parts.


...(UNSNIP).. and for a time in the
1930s, portable operation required a special "Z" or "ZZ" license with four
letters after the number. W6AM got callsign "W6ZZAM" for portable use.)

I wonder who came up with that idea?

The govt. was very cautious in those days about such things. Spies and
all that.

Ya thik a spy would apply for a license in ANY radio service, Jim?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 10/19/2004 8:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (N2EY)
Date: 10/19/2004 4:04 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/19/2004 4:42 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


(Until 1949, mobile operation was not allowed below 25 MHz...(SNIP)

Considering that you almost needed a seperate trailer to carry the
gear,
this was hardly an impediment!

Not really. Look at an ARC-5 receiver, and how much could be packed
into a small space using mid-1930s technology. Hams could, and did,
build very compact equipment without "miniature" parts.

Hmmmmmm.

For some reason the response I put here didn't "take".

"I was being facetious, Jim".

There we go!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Ya think a spy would apply for a license in ANY radio service, Jim?


Depending on the situation, a ham license could be a good
"cover story" for a spy with transmitting equipment. The
FCC did shut down all ham bands during WW2...

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: Robert Casey
Date: 10/20/2004 12:19 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Ya think a spy would apply for a license in ANY radio service, Jim?


Depending on the situation, a ham license could be a good
"cover story" for a spy with transmitting equipment. The
FCC did shut down all ham bands during WW2...

But then that "cover story" only provides the government with a "head's
up" as to where the radio equipment is, Robert...Still doesn't make sense.

Brief transmissions from low power, mobile (portable) facilities makes
more sense.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Ya think a spy would apply for a license in ANY radio service, Jim?

Depending on the situation, a ham license could be a good
"cover story" for a spy with transmitting equipment. The
FCC did shut down all ham bands during WW2...

During WW1, too. In fact, during WW1, all amateur radio equipment had to be
disabled - receiving as well as transmitting.

In 1940, more than a year before Pearl Harbor, all US hams were required to
either take a loyalty oath or turn in their licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

During WW1, too. In fact, during WW1, all amateur radio equipment had to be
disabled - receiving as well as transmitting.

Right...you were there...

In 1940, more than a year before Pearl Harbor, all US hams were required to
either take a loyalty oath or turn in their licenses.

Right...you did, too...right?

I took an oath on entering the U.S. Army on 13 Mar 52...to defend the
Constitution of the United States of America...with my life if needs be.
That is how I served my country, the USA, for the next 8 years.

You "served your country" in "other ways." Right?

What other "ways?" By becoming a professional newsgroupie?

"Ramming Speed! Full speed ahead, bow-on to that berg!"

Tsk. Someone put a bow hitch in your Bowditch.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Ya think a spy would apply for a license in ANY radio service, Jim?

Depending on the situation, a ham license could be a good
"cover story" for a spy with transmitting equipment. The
FCC did shut down all ham bands during WW2...

Search for KGB Colonel Rudolph Abel on the 'web. You will learn
that he posed as an artist in NYC and had an HF receiver-
transmitter in his apartment for his "hobby of amateur radio."
According to arresting investigators. After WW2.

Abel was traded for Francis Gary Powers, the U-2 pilot downed
over Russia, tried and imprisoned there. Powers later worked for
Lockheed in Burbank then the NBC Western Hq there, living in
Roscoe Canyon in Sun Valley (northern extension of Roscoe Blvd,
see Mapquest), not exactly a neighbor but nearby to me.

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (William)
Date: 10/20/2004 6:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Ya think a spy would apply for a license in ANY radio service, Jim?

Depending on the situation, a ham license could be a good
"cover story" for a spy with transmitting equipment. The
FCC did shut down all ham bands during WW2...

During WW1, too. In fact, during WW1, all amateur radio equipment had to be
disabled - receiving as well as transmitting.

In 1940, more than a year before Pearl Harbor, all US hams were required to
either take a loyalty oath or turn in their licenses.

73 de Jim, N2EY

-------------
-------------

From: N2EY )
Subject: Excellent ARRL proposal


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Date: 2004-01-25 12:31:04 PST


In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
go thru to get on the air. There were neighborhood radio clubs which
didn't allow full voting memberships to Novices and Techs . . .


And in the mid-60s there were still some who did similar things. Indeed,
there
were Advanceds who looked down on Generals, Generals who looked down on
Conditionals, Conditionals who looked down on Techs, and Techs who looked
down
on Novices. Etc.

And it wasn't just kids vs. adults, either.

Yessir, It's 2004 and it's **still** out there. Guy was up late last
year for the vote on approving his membership application into The
Group (the 43rd & Kingsessing "Group" we're both familair with yes?)

You mean the one where the attendance sheet looks like the DXCC Honor Roll?

and somebody asked "what license class does he have?" His sponser:
"Uhhh . . Advanced." Then he ducked. Immediate 180dBA noise level from
the Back Benchers, "what the hell is this guy's problem?"

Well, what IS his problem?

That group is heavily focused on DX and contesting - particularly DX
contesting.
They're "a bit competitive"....

Anything less than an Extra is a big competitive disadvantage in DX
contesting.
Like not being able to work split. So why doesn't the guy get one? Even if he
only works 'phone, all he need do is pass element 4. And he's had almost 4
years.

No, wait, that's not a good reason. Those writtens are really tough. More
than
4 years ago, (Jan 19, 2000, to be exact) a certain verbose nonham here said
he
was going for Extra "right out of the box". But no ham license of any class
yet.
And this nonham says he's a "radio PROFESSIONAL"....

Maybe he should apply to The Group. I'd like to attend that meeting....

Then as now, they were few - but noisy.

Maybe it was different where you were, Dan.

It's all just cycles Dan and the 1968 maneuver was not the first cycle
by any means and welcome to the current cycle. There will be others.

Circle Game.

Dit-dit!

73 de Jim, N2EY

I just KNOW there was a reason you posted the SAME post under two different
threads, but I'll be darned if I know what it is.

And I'm trying to figure out how some club meeting int the 1960's has
anything to do with what's going on today.

Some generic club, with generic members, making generic comments that may
or may not be germane.

Whew.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (William)
Date: 10/21/2004 7:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence

I just KNOW there was a reason you posted the SAME post under two
different
threads, but I'll be darned if I know what it is.

And I'm trying to figure out how some club meeting int the 1960's has
anything to do with what's going on today.

Some generic club, with generic members, making generic comments that
may
or may not be germane.

Whew.

Steve, K4YZ

1. You are blind.

2. The club meeting was in 2003.

3. Kelly related the story for a reason.

4. Jim agreed with the "what IS his problem" remark.

5. Do your homework next time before shooting off your mouth.

I see it, Brain.

It STILL does not prove anything. Most of the comments were about your
scumbag buddy and HIS not taking a test that HE said he was going to take...but
hasn't.

1. I am not blind. I can SEE THROUGH your rants just fine.

2. You still refer to some club wherein some persons made some comments
that are completely relevent to that CLUB in particular, NOT Amateur Radio in
general. I am assuming it was the Franklin Radio Club or other such east coast
club.

3. Yes, he did.

4. Jim ACKNOWLEDGED Brian's remark which again pertained to the club in
particular, not Amateur Radio in general.

5. No homework was needed. I had 115 countries confirmed as a
General/Advanced, so I KNOW that getting the Extra, while helpful in some
regards, was not NECESSARY to DXing. I recommend that before running YOUR
mouth off YOU do your OWN homework.

For once.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (William)
Date: 10/21/2004 6:26 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

1. Not my rant.

2. I merely reposted W3RV's post and N2EY's response.

3. He agreed with the sentiment being retold.

4. Jim still does not acknowledge his own remark.

5. Steve still does not acknowledge that he was wrong. Never apologizes
either.

1. Sure it was. You started it with that silly "several Extras on RRAP"
claim.

2. Talking about a specific club with specific requirements.

3. Talking about a specific club with specific requirement.

4. Does he need to? It certainly doe NOT affirm YOUR assertion, Brain.

5. Wrong. Your message is date-time-grouped Thursday at 6:26PM CST.
Hans had acknowledged and ACCEPTED my aplogy HOURS before you made this
post...More than enough time for you to get your facts right.

Now...Since YOUR statement is obviously VERY wrong on TWO counts as
demonstrated by Hans' acknowledgement and acceptance of the apology hours
before you made this post, let's see how long it takes YOU to acknowledge YOUR
error and apologize to me........

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (William)
Date: 10/22/2004 7:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

1. Nope. Just a straight clip of what Kelly and Micolis exchanged in
RRAP. "Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger," another PCTA once
told me. Hi!

2. Sure.

3. Sure.

4. He's in denial. You're still getting the attributions wrong. Hi!

5. I use Google. I read one thread at a time, and respond as
appropriate. Too bad.

6. You did not apologize with the intent of sorrow or remorse. Your
so called apology was very narrowly focused, merely buying you time
while you continue to check out all other possible avenues for calling
Hans a liar. I think you even called Hans "slimy." Hi!

1. Still doesn't change the "message", whichg has nothing to do with YOUR
assertion that "numerous Extras" thumb their noses at lower class operators.
You still haven't provided a single valid quote.

2. Yep.

3. Yep.

4. No, I'm not.

5. It doesn't matter WHERE you post from...the FACT remains that your
post was several HOURS after the initial exchange occured. You had more than
adequate time to read the posts before trying to weasle your way into yet
another feeble rant.

6. "Sorrow or remorse"....No. Sincere apology for having got the
attribute on the article's true origin, yes.

"Sorrow or remorse" is for the death of a relative or friend, or backing
ovr one of the kid's bikes.

And when it comes to "buying time", YOU are the master of that...We've
waited almost four years now for some proof of the validity of your alleged
Somalia operation, and it's been almost a year now since your silly "Unlicensed
devices" rants. If I take a week to get a response from ARRL to determine the
nature of the article that I recall, "SO WHAT...?!?!

I've already proven you wrong on your assertion that I allegedly never say
I am sorry or acknowledge an error. Done that in the last 24 hours. Still no
apology from YOU for it...Just some lame "you really didn't mean it" claim.

Seems it was good enough for Hans, the aggrieved one in this case, to
accept it.

It's just as well...If you HAD done it I'd be in ICU with a stroke at this
very moment!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (William)
Date: 10/22/2004 8:04 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

5. Wrong. Your message is date-time-grouped Thursday at 6:26PM CST.
Hans had acknowledged and ACCEPTED my aplogy HOURS before you made this
post...More than enough time for you to get your facts right.

You're not so smart. I work one thread at a time and then I move on.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Coward.

Now...Since YOUR statement is obviously VERY wrong on TWO counts as
demonstrated by Hans' acknowledgement and acceptance of the apology hours
before you made this post, let's see how long it takes YOU to acknowledge
YOUR
error and apologize to me........

After I check with the ARRL, 73, World Radio, defunct Ham Radio, and
Nuts&Volts.

Sorry...too late.

Your claim was that I never acknowledge an error or make apologies.

You've already been proven wrong, now compounded by your refusal to admit
to it even after it was shown to be hours old.

Thank you for proving me right on THIS issue, that Brian P. Burke IS a
lying coward, again.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(William) writes:

6. You did not apologize with the intent of sorrow or remorse. Your
so called apology was very narrowly focused, merely buying you time
while you continue to check out all other possible avenues for calling
Hans a liar. I think you even called Hans "slimy." Hi!

Gunnery nurse Yell-yell has used all sorts of epithets in his
"apologies." As an example, see the thread heading where
Hans Brakob is called "Brokeslob" (or something close to that).

Anyone continuing to not agree with Robeson's opinions is
called a "coward and a liar."

Repeated disagreement with his opinions makes one a
"'Documented' liar." ! :-)

The only way to avoid being called nasty names is to travel
in the same direction as the gunnery nurse: "His way or the
highway." Hi hi. Problem is, he is on a one-way street (without
posted signs). Not much traffic along his way...

Subject: operator's licence vs. station licence
From: (William)
Date: 10/24/2004 6:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...
(William) wrote in message
.com...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

1. Still doesn't change the "message", whichg has nothing to do
with YOUR
assertion that "numerous Extras" thumb their noses at lower class
operators.
You still haven't provided a single valid quote.

See how you twist everything?

Nothing's "twisted", Brain, except your perceptions of reality.

You have twisted my words, substituting "numerous" for "several."

Now you lie about it.

Apology?

Right after your "I acknowledge that my accusation about Steve not
acknowledging errors or making apologies was wrong and I apologize to him" hits
the streets, Brain.

Steve, K4YZ

When did they allow the hams to start up again? Did they need to
reapply for a license?
I remember my father transmitting in S Calif, but maybe that was after
WW II was over. And, no, he wasn't a spy; he was in the US Navy during
the war.

Thanks,


Robert Casey wrote in message ...


Ya think a spy would apply for a license in ANY radio service, Jim?


Depending on the situation, a ham license could be a good
"cover story" for a spy with transmitting equipment. The
FCC did shut down all ham bands during WW2...