PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/23/2004 9:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net



"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


So...that means that if we can use this sampling as a basis for
survey,
the available 2 x 2 Extra Class calls falls far short .......


Perhaps a review of RF Exposure Guidelines at your station is in order,
Steve. When that's complete, along with any medical attention indicated
as a result, then perhaps a review of the FCC sequential callsign
assignments (as they pertain to license class) is also in order.

You can be as insulting as you care to, Hans.

The FACTS are that you made a stupid assertion that was easily refuted by
a
bit of time spent researching the database.

Extra class or othrwise, your "greeater than half" assertion is/was
wrong.


OK, fine. Hans made a mistake.

The bigger question is: Should we put up with the system as described?

Seems to me that all that would be required to fix it would be to require that
FCC would only issue or renew licenses for those persons who were either US
citizens or resident aliens. And all VEs must meet the same criteria.

That way, N3KIP can have his license and US military personnel can take their
exams in Tokyo, but the giveaway stops.


Who dies if nobody does anything about any of it? What's so broken
that it would even remotely draw more than a muffled snore from the
FCC? Gotta luv it: The Great Ham Radio Callsign War of 2004".

Who's been elected to write the request for the NPRM . . ?


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

"Brian Kelly" wrote


Gotta luv it: The Great Ham Radio Callsign War of 2004".

Who's been elected to write the request for the NPRM . . ?


Well, you brought it up, so I guess it's your baby, Brian. Let us know
how it goes, but whatever you do, don't use latex.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

The bigger question is: Should we put up with the system as described?

Seems to me that all that would be required to fix it would be to require
that
FCC would only issue or renew licenses for those persons who were either US
citizens or resident aliens. And all VEs must meet the same criteria.

That way, N3KIP can have his license and US military personnel can take
their
exams in Tokyo, but the giveaway stops.

It's not just about callsigns - it's about the integrity of the system.

Again with the allegations of lack of integrity.

Do you think it's a good idea that nonresident aliens can hold US licenses? I
don't.

I am asking this sincerely...Does ANYone have ANY evidence that these
"tests" were NOT administered in accordance with FCC rules and regulations?
And "giveaways"...Did the applicant's NOT pay the appropriate VE fee at the
time of the exam and did they NOT pay the appropriate fee if their "trophy"
call is other than from the sequential system...?!?!

That's not what I'm talking about.

If you're going to insist that the FCC NOT allow this to happen, other
changes will have to fall in to place too. The interpretations that allowed
THIS to happen are the same interpretations that force the FCC's hand to have
"open pools" of test questions.

Is the FCC forced to issue licenses to nonresident aliens?

I'm all for doing both...requiring some sort of residence requirement
for
licensure and closing the test poools, but who's going to foot the bill for
the
legal challenges that will be required to get it done...?!?!

What legal challenges? Do you really think that a nonresident alien could
successfully challenge the FCC on this point? Or would even bother?

Some time back, Steve, you gave up K4YZ, then got it back. How would you feel
if you couldn't get it back because someone in Yokohama had grabbed it? Or if
you could never have held it in the first place for a similar reason?

All it would take is for the rules to require either citizenship or residence
in US territory at the time of licensing and renewal. Two check boxes on the
Form 605, if you leave both blank, no license.

There was a time when you had to specify a station location on the old Form
610. A PO box wasn't good enough, it had to be a real address. That could
easily be reinstituted as "place of residence".

Of course there would be some cheats, but they could be easily "outed".

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:


The bigger question is: Should we put up with the system as described?

Seems to me that all that would be required to fix it would be to require
that
FCC would only issue or renew licenses for those persons who were either US
citizens or resident aliens. And all VEs must meet the same criteria.

That way, N3KIP can have his license and US military personnel can take

their

exams in Tokyo, but the giveaway stops.

It's not just about callsigns - it's about the integrity of the system.

Again with the allegations of lack of integrity.


Do you think it's a good idea that nonresident aliens can hold US licenses? I
don't.

I am asking this sincerely...Does ANYone have ANY evidence that these
"tests" were NOT administered in accordance with FCC rules and regulations?
And "giveaways"...Did the applicant's NOT pay the appropriate VE fee at the
time of the exam and did they NOT pay the appropriate fee if their "trophy"
call is other than from the sequential system...?!?!


That's not what I'm talking about.


If you're going to insist that the FCC NOT allow this to happen, other
changes will have to fall in to place too. The interpretations that allowed
THIS to happen are the same interpretations that force the FCC's hand to have
"open pools" of test questions.


Is the FCC forced to issue licenses to nonresident aliens?

I'm all for doing both...requiring some sort of residence requirement
for
licensure and closing the test poools, but who's going to foot the bill for
the
legal challenges that will be required to get it done...?!?!


What legal challenges? Do you really think that a nonresident alien could
successfully challenge the FCC on this point? Or would even bother?

Some time back, Steve, you gave up K4YZ, then got it back. How would you feel
if you couldn't get it back because someone in Yokohama had grabbed it?

Dunno whay Steve would do, but I'd scratch my head, go home and have
dinner, and get on with me life!

Or if
you could never have held it in the first place for a similar reason?

Whooeee Jim! Let's extend that to everyone. I would REALLY like
K3MC!...hehehe


- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/23/2004 9:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net



"Brian Kelly" wrote


Gotta luv it: The Great Ham Radio Callsign War of 2004".

Who's been elected to write the request for the NPRM . . ?


Well, you brought it up, so I guess it's your baby, Brian. Let us know
how it goes, but whatever you do, don't use latex.

Sorry, Hans, but it seems YOU were the one who started the whole whine over
who allegedly had "over half" of the "trophy" callsigns from KH0/KH2.

Unless that was a forged post...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 11/23/2004 9:31 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

The bigger question is: Should we put up with the system as described?

Seems to me that all that would be required to fix it would be to require
that
FCC would only issue or renew licenses for those persons who were either US
citizens or resident aliens. And all VEs must meet the same criteria.

That way, N3KIP can have his license and US military personnel can take
their
exams in Tokyo, but the giveaway stops.

It's not just about callsigns - it's about the integrity of the system.

Again with the allegations of lack of integrity.

Do you think it's a good idea that nonresident aliens can hold US licenses? I
don't.

No, Jim, I don't care for it at all.

However, as I pointed out earlier, there have been a great many items in
the various journals over the decades of US Amateurs doing almost the same
thing. If we (the United States) suddenly clamp down on who can have a US
license, then what happens when a US resident applies for a foreign one?
ESPECIALLY when the applicant actually took the test to get licensed...Not just
ploped down a chunk of change to do it...

I am asking this sincerely...Does ANYone have ANY evidence that these
"tests" were NOT administered in accordance with FCC rules and regulations?
And "giveaways"...Did the applicant's NOT pay the appropriate VE fee at the
time of the exam and did they NOT pay the appropriate fee if their "trophy"
call is other than from the sequential system...?!?!

That's not what I'm talking about.

It's what I am talking about, Jim.

Starting with Hans' original post, there have been numerous suggestions of
impropriety in obtaining these licenses, but from all other appearances, the
individuals otherwise fulfilled the requirements of Part 97 for US licensure
legally and honestly. In Hans' example, the test was publically announced, and
lacking other evidence to the contrary, I assume held in accordance with Part
97 requirements.

There having been no laws broken. Other than a bit of xenophobia, what's
the problem?

If you're going to insist that the FCC NOT allow this to happen, other
changes will have to fall in to place too. The interpretations that allowed
THIS to happen are the same interpretations that force the FCC's hand to
have
"open pools" of test questions.

Is the FCC forced to issue licenses to nonresident aliens?

Seems to me they are. If Joe Englishman or Juan Filipino takes the US exam
in accordance with US rules and regulations and comples with US laws, how can
they refuse?

I'm all for doing both...requiring some sort of residence requirement
for
licensure and closing the test poools, but who's going to foot the bill for
the
legal challenges that will be required to get it done...?!?!

What legal challenges? Do you really think that a nonresident alien could
successfully challenge the FCC on this point? Or would even bother?

I doubt that many would, however it seems that many others have the means
and the funds to travel to US possessions on frequent occassion...they could
also afford to hire an attorney to defend their loss of licensure due to
xenophobia.

Some time back, Steve, you gave up K4YZ, then got it back. How would you feel
if you couldn't get it back because someone in Yokohama had grabbed it? Or if
you could never have held it in the first place for a similar reason?

If I couldn't have held it because someone else already held it, I
wouldn't have applied for it in the first place. And no one in Yokohama could
have grabbed it since it was within the 2 year window that FCC rules DO
stipulate as being unavailable after it is vacated by the previous user...ie:
K4CAP can only be reassigned to me until May 13th of 2005.

All it would take is for the rules to require either citizenship or residence
in US territory at the time of licensing and renewal. Two check boxes on the
Form 605, if you leave both blank, no license.

OK...Joe Nippon is "residing" at a motel in Honolulu when he takes his
test.

He was lawfully admitted.

Condition met.

There was a time when you had to specify a station location on the old Form
610. A PO box wasn't good enough, it had to be a real address. That could
easily be reinstituted as "place of residence".

Of course there would be some cheats, but they could be easily "outed".

And in order to justify that the regulations backing up that "box" on the
form must be in place. I don't see anything in Part 97 that says you must be
standing on US soil when you apply for or hold a license. The only absolute is
that you provide an address where you can be reliably reached at. Alun
correctly noted that the only prohibition against licensure is being the
representitive of a foreign government.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 11/23/2004 9:31 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

The bigger question is: Should we put up with the system as described?

Seems to me that all that would be required to fix it would be to require
that
FCC would only issue or renew licenses for those persons who were either
US
citizens or resident aliens. And all VEs must meet the same criteria.

That way, N3KIP can have his license and US military personnel can take
their
exams in Tokyo, but the giveaway stops.

It's not just about callsigns - it's about the integrity of the system.

Again with the allegations of lack of integrity.

Do you think it's a good idea that nonresident aliens can hold US licenses?
I
don't.

No, Jim, I don't care for it at all.

However, as I pointed out earlier, there have been a great many items in
the various journals over the decades of US Amateurs doing almost the same
thing.

Gobbling up foreing countries callsigns without ever setting foot there?

If we (the United States) suddenly clamp down on who can have a US
license, then what happens when a US resident applies for a foreign one?
ESPECIALLY when the applicant actually took the test to get licensed...Not
just
ploped down a chunk of change to do it...

There's a big difference between someone actually visiting US territory and
getting a US license to operate here, and someone who never visits or operates
here getting a license and desirable call, then holding it for years and
decades.

Visitors can be accomodated with temporary licenses that require no testing,
same as is done in many countries. Look at the whole CEPT idea.

I am asking this sincerely...Does ANYone have ANY evidence that these
"tests" were NOT administered in accordance with FCC rules and regulations?

And "giveaways"...Did the applicant's NOT pay the appropriate VE fee at the
time of the exam and did they NOT pay the appropriate fee if their "trophy"
call is other than from the sequential system...?!?!

That's not what I'm talking about.

It's what I am talking about, Jim.

It's not what I'm talking about.

Starting with Hans' original post, there have been numerous suggestions
of
impropriety in obtaining these licenses, but from all other appearances, the
individuals otherwise fulfilled the requirements of Part 97 for US licensure
legally and honestly. In Hans' example, the test was publically announced,
and
lacking other evidence to the contrary, I assume held in accordance with Part
97 requirements.

There having been no laws broken. Other than a bit of xenophobia, what's
the problem?

The laws need to be changed.

If you're going to insist that the FCC NOT allow this to happen, other
changes will have to fall in to place too. The interpretations that
allowed
THIS to happen are the same interpretations that force the FCC's hand to
have
"open pools" of test questions.

Is the FCC forced to issue licenses to nonresident aliens?

Seems to me they are.

By what?

If Joe Englishman or Juan Filipino takes the US
exam
in accordance with US rules and regulations and comples with US laws, how can
they refuse?

Simple: The licenses are intended for US residents and visitors only.

I'm all for doing both...requiring some sort of residence requirement
for
licensure and closing the test poools, but who's going to foot the bill for
the
legal challenges that will be required to get it done...?!?!

What legal challenges? Do you really think that a nonresident alien could
successfully challenge the FCC on this point? Or would even bother?

I doubt that many would, however it seems that many others have the means
and the funds to travel to US possessions on frequent occassion...they could
also afford to hire an attorney to defend their loss of licensure due to
xenophobia.

If they can show travel to US territory, they'd be able to show residency.

Some time back, Steve, you gave up K4YZ, then got it back. How would you
feel
if you couldn't get it back because someone in Yokohama had grabbed it? Or
if
you could never have held it in the first place for a similar reason?

If I couldn't have held it because someone else already held it, I
wouldn't have applied for it in the first place. And no one in Yokohama
could
have grabbed it since it was within the 2 year window that FCC rules DO
stipulate as being unavailable after it is vacated by the previous user...ie:
K4CAP can only be reassigned to me until May 13th of 2005.

That rule could easily be changed, so that if someone voluntarily gives up a
callsign the 2 year rule doesn't apply.

All it would take is for the rules to require either citizenship or
residence
in US territory at the time of licensing and renewal. Two check boxes on the
Form 605, if you leave both blank, no license.

OK...Joe Nippon is "residing" at a motel in Honolulu when he takes his
test.

He was lawfully admitted.

Condition met.

No problem, then!

There was a time when you had to specify a station location on the old Form
610. A PO box wasn't good enough, it had to be a real address. That could
easily be reinstituted as "place of residence".

Of course there would be some cheats, but they could be easily "outed".

And in order to justify that the regulations backing up that "box" on
the
form must be in place. I don't see anything in Part 97 that says you must be
standing on US soil when you apply for or hold a license.

So add it.

The only absolute
is
that you provide an address where you can be reliably reached at. Alun
correctly noted that the only prohibition against licensure is being the
representitive of a foreign government.

Those rules are easily changed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/23/2004 9:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net



"Brian Kelly" wrote


Gotta luv it: The Great Ham Radio Callsign War of 2004".

Who's been elected to write the request for the NPRM . . ?


Well, you brought it up, so I guess it's your baby, Brian. Let us
know
how it goes, but whatever you do, don't use latex.

Sorry, Hans, but it seems YOU were the one who started the whole
whine over
who allegedly had "over half" of the "trophy" callsigns from KH0/KH2.



More RF exposure problems, Steve? Brian and I are talking about a
request for NPRM. Brian brought up that subject, not me. Please try to
keep up.

Good luck on this one now.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 11/24/2004 7:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

However, as I pointed out earlier, there have been a great many items
in
the various journals over the decades of US Amateurs doing almost the same
thing.

Gobbling up foreing countries callsigns without ever setting foot there?

Hardly "gobbling", Jim. Either them OR us!

If we (the United States) suddenly clamp down on who can have a US
license, then what happens when a US resident applies for a foreign one?
ESPECIALLY when the applicant actually took the test to get licensed...Not
just
ploped down a chunk of change to do it...

There's a big difference between someone actually visiting US territory and
getting a US license to operate here, and someone who never visits or
operates
here getting a license and desirable call, then holding it for years and
decades.

Visitors can be accomodated with temporary licenses that require no testing,
same as is done in many countries. Look at the whole CEPT idea.

I am asking this sincerely...Does ANYone have ANY evidence that these
"tests" were NOT administered in accordance with FCC rules and
regulations?

And "giveaways"...Did the applicant's NOT pay the appropriate VE fee at
the
time of the exam and did they NOT pay the appropriate fee if their
"trophy"
call is other than from the sequential system...?!?!

That's not what I'm talking about.

It's what I am talking about, Jim.

It's not what I'm talking about.

You've NOT answered my question Jim.

Were the "tests" conducted illegally or inappropriately?

There having been no laws broken. Other than a bit of xenophobia,
what's
the problem?

The laws need to be changed.

OK...I agree...what are we going to do about it?

But as of right now, NO laws seem to have been broken.

If you're going to insist that the FCC NOT allow this to happen,
other
changes will have to fall in to place too. The interpretations that
allowed
THIS to happen are the same interpretations that force the FCC's hand to
have
"open pools" of test questions.

Is the FCC forced to issue licenses to nonresident aliens?

Seems to me they are.

By what?

By the fact that as long as the tests that were conducted overseas were
conducted in accordance with FCC rules, and those applicants, as far as it
pertains to their FCC licenses are complying with those laws, how can they
refuse?

If Joe Englishman or Juan Filipino takes the US
exam
in accordance with US rules and regulations and comples with US laws, how
can
they refuse?

Simple: The licenses are intended for US residents and visitors only.

Sorry Jim...There's not one single line in Part 97 that supports your
assertion.

US laws generally state one of three conditions: "shall", "shall not"
"may".

Where "shall" is stated, the licensee is obligated to perform that task.

Where "shall not" is stated, the licensee is prohibited from doing that
thing.

Where "may" is stated, the licensee may proceed at his/her own discretion,
but is neither prohibited or obligated to do such a thing.

I doubt that many would, however it seems that many others have the
means
and the funds to travel to US possessions on frequent occassion...they could
also afford to hire an attorney to defend their loss of licensure due to
xenophobia.

If they can show travel to US territory, they'd be able to show residency.

Start at KH0A, Jim and scroll throug QRZ. Many of the QSL cards of the
"foreign" operators reflect some sort of at least occassional operation from US
territory.

If I couldn't have held it because someone else already held it, I
wouldn't have applied for it in the first place. And no one in Yokohama
could
have grabbed it since it was within the 2 year window that FCC rules DO
stipulate as being unavailable after it is vacated by the previous
user...ie:
K4CAP can only be reassigned to me until May 13th of 2005.

That rule could easily be changed, so that if someone voluntarily gives up a
callsign the 2 year rule doesn't apply.

And if the Tennessee Lottery ticket I bought this afternoon hits, I will
be a multi-millionaire, but until it does, I won't start looking for a BMW.

And "easily", Jm...?!?! C'mon, don't make me laugh! The Code Test
"debate" has been raging for decades now, and even in the face of a changed
treaty status that allows the FCC to accomodate it's own professed desire to be
rid of it, we are no closer now than we were 3 years ago.

The "2 year" rule gives the FCC "breathing room" administratively. They
won't be in any mood to change it without some immense Congressional pressure
to do so.

All it would take is for the rules to require either citizenship or
residence
in US territory at the time of licensing and renewal. Two check boxes on
the
Form 605, if you leave both blank, no license.

OK...Joe Nippon is "residing" at a motel in Honolulu when he takes his
test.

He was lawfully admitted.

Condition met.

No problem then!

There was a time when you had to specify a station location on the old Form
610. A PO box wasn't good enough, it had to be a real address. That could
easily be reinstituted as "place of residence".

Of course there would be some cheats, but they could be easily "outed".

And in order to justify that the regulations backing up that "box" on
the
form must be in place. I don't see anything in Part 97 that says you must
be
standing on US soil when you apply for or hold a license.

So add it.

I'm not the one arguing that there's a probelm, Jim. You and Hans can
work that one out!

The only absolute
is
that you provide an address where you can be reliably reached at. Alun
correctly noted that the only prohibition against licensure is being the
representitive of a foreign government.

Those rules are easily changed.

I reiterate my previous comments about the FCC approving things even when
they are allegedly anxious to do so!..

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/24/2004 8:21 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net



"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/23/2004 9:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net



"Brian Kelly" wrote


Gotta luv it: The Great Ham Radio Callsign War of 2004".

Who's been elected to write the request for the NPRM . . ?


Well, you brought it up, so I guess it's your baby, Brian. Let us
know
how it goes, but whatever you do, don't use latex.

Sorry, Hans, but it seems YOU were the one who started the whole
whine over
who allegedly had "over half" of the "trophy" callsigns from KH0/KH2.



More RF exposure problems, Steve? Brian and I are talking about a
request for NPRM. Brian brought up that subject, not me. Please try to
keep up.

Good luck on this one now.

No luck needed, Brain...I mean Hans.

This was all at your instigation.

Still in your lap.

Steve, K4YZ