| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#10
November 24th 04, 07:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| An Apology To Hans | Policy | |||
| Check my math please? | Antenna | |||
| MFJ259/269 Math | Antenna | |||
| Cecil's Math | Antenna | |||
Threaded Mode
