In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

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!

According to your own statistics, a large percentage of the most desirable KH2
and KH0 calls are held by noresident aliens.

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?

I don't know. I've never been to one of those VE sessions. I'm not going to
make any claims one way or the other.

However, suppose for a moment that there *were* some rules broken by a VE team
made up of noncitizens who have never been to US territory. How could FCC do
any enforcement actions against them other than revoking their US licenses?

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?

Tack it onto the next restructuring NPRM when it eventually shows up.

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

Doesn't mean it's right!

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?

Change the rules!

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.

So change it.

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.

Then, under the new rules I would write, they get visitor licenses.

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.

It's a lot easier to change FCC rules than to hit the lottery.

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.

Not true!

25 years ago, there was FCC code testing, sending tests, and only "one minute
solid legible copy" as the passing criteria.

15 years ago, there were no code waivers and *all* US hams were code tested.

5 years ago, there were still 13 and 20 wpm code tests.

Now all we have is 5 wpm.

Until July 2003, the code test debate was always limited by the fact that the
treaty required at least some code testing.

There was and is also the simple fact that, of those who bother to comment to
FCC on the subject, the majority support at least some code testing.

So FCC takes their time.

Suppose 90% of those who comment supported something like the rules changes I
mentioned - do you think FCC would refuse to act on them?

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.

Valid point; there would be cases of "call snatching"...

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!

That's what we're trying to do.

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!..

Ya *really* wanna stir things up?

Imagine if FCC came up with a new callsign system, like this:

1) No more vanity calls
2) All CONUS callsigns begin with W
3) All non-CONUS callsigns begin with K
4) All nonresident callsigns begin with N
5) All special event callsigns begin with A
6) All callsigns indicate the geographic location of the licensee's address. If
you move across a call district boundary, you get a new callsign, sequentially
issued, no choice.
7) Everybody gets a 2x3 call except Extras, who get the shorter calls,
sequentially issued, until they're used up.
8) If your present call matches the new system, you can keep it. Otherwise you
get a sequentially issued new call on the next renewal. No choice of the new
call.

Can you imagine the uproar?

Of course it'll never happen, because the admin paperwork alone would be a
nightmare. Plus the vanity revenue would go away.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


OK, fine. Hans made a mistake.


No, Jim, I didn't make a mistake. I just overstated my case by 2%. I
said "over half" (51%) when I should have said "damned near half" (49%).

grin

Ah yes. I made a mistake about your mistake, Hans :-)

51% to 49% is about the overstatement of Mr. Kerry vs. Mr. Bush, earlier this
month...

Steve, on the other hand is completely mistaken when he claims "AH0XX"
is a call which would sequentially be assigned to an Extra licensee.

whatever. I'd still think the system is broken.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

Brian (more or less) said:

Look, if the inmates are in charge of the left wing of the
asylum (VEC/Question Pools/Morse-Farnsworth Exams/etc), why
can't we simply.....

Hey, anyone who gets a license by passing a morse test with Fransworth
spacing is not allowed into heaven.

Verily!

It's in the Bible. Book of Brian, chapter 9, verse 6.
3, de Hans, K0HB