|
Care To Try The Math Again, Hans?
Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be nice!)
From: "KØHB" Date: 11/22/2004 10:06 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: et "Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote or that they fail to render oaths and allegiance to Hans Brakob? Steve, could you point out to me where this "render oaths and allegiance" ( !@#$%^&* ) comes from? Had to double check and make sure the post didn't come from Len Anderson! Perhaps it came from your opening line about "what's wrong with this post" stuff, Hans. You're bandying your "expertise" about...was just wondering. Your point was? If you have to ask, you probably won't "get it", but I've got a hot news flash for you. Those fellas taking the FCC tests at DU and JA hamfests aren't dual citizens of DU (or JA) and Saipan, they're souveneir collectors and reciprocal-licensing cheats. So WHO CARES, HANS...?!?! They have to pay the same fee that any other examinee has to pay, so what does it matter to you? I reiterate my previous observation...UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP IS NOT REQUIRED FOR FCC LICENSURE. They've been holding VE exams in Europe and the former Soviet Union since the 90's, Hans. Where was your righteous indignation then...??? A bit displaced since the inhabitants of Europe are essentially of the same ethnic background as you...??? There are a small handful of "will-call" PO boxes in KH0 and KH2 which are the "home address" for hundreds of JA and DU citizens. (What do all these calls have in common? KH2O KH0JQ KH0JU KH0KW AH0BB KH0BZ KH0CG KH0CQ KH0HQ KH0HZ WH0V NH0F WH0B WH0C AH0AS AH0AU KH0CN KH0DD ......and I could go on for hundreds of desirable KH0/KH2 call signs held by foreign nationals who've never set foot on Guam/Saipan/US soil and likely have no intention to ever do so.) Again, WHO CARES...??? The present callsign system has been in place since 1978 now...If those calls weren't already taken by American nationals, chances are they won't be any time soon anyway. Here's how it works. DU1XYZ or JA1XYZ knows a guy on KH0 or KH2 and has him rent a PO Box. Then he gets himself and a couple of buddies a W5YI VE certificate and holds exams. Applicants are given the KH0 or KH2 PO Box address (for a "consideration") and "bingo", they have their souveneir US call sign. It's the price we pay for living in a society that insists on extending it's "rights" to everyone who is NOT a citizen, Hans. There have been numerous attempts to reign in those "rights" to the exclusive ownership of US citizens or foreign nationals legally landed on US soil. With rare exception, every attempt to do so has failed as a result of the liberal courts...The same courts that demand that the government "play fair" by publishing the verbatim questions and answers to licensing examinations for a wide variety of pursuits. That's why a pregnant illegal immigrant can wade across the Rio Grande just in time for Junior to make an appearance, and since he landed here and not in Juarez, mommy get's to stay too. Over half of the KH0 and KH2 2x1 calls have been scarfed up by JA's and DU's. Meanwhile some kid on Guam or Saipan who upgrades to Extra has to wait until a JA or DU fella croaks over to capture a desireable call, unless some other JA or DU captures it first for a souvenier. "Over half", eh...??? Well, you didn't specify a number, so let's just use "half" (50%) as a nice round number to work with. There are four available prefixes in 0 and 2 each...AH, KH, NH and WH. That's 104 potential 2 x 1 calls on Saipan and 104 on Guam. Unless Amateur Radio suddenly takes a big upward turn, I don't see there being a big rush on them. I went thru the KH0x block...all 26 of them...Exactly 10 of the calls were non-WASP names with "post office box" addresses. Three were unassigned. The other 13 calls belonged to people with "stateside" addresses or addresses that appeared to be valid "local" addresses. You did a bit better in the AH0 block, Hans, but only by 1...Here we had 11 going to foreign national appearing persons, 8 to persons with CONUS or "local" sounding addresses, and a grand total of 6 unassigned callsigns. I missed one somewhere but once through was enough for me. I'll give you that one, but it's still less than your "over half" assertion. You finally met your goal in the NH0 block...18 of those calls were to foreign names via post office boxes...5 were CONUS or "local" while three were unassigned. It was a bit questionalble in the WH0 block. Nine were clearly non-US licensee's. Five were clearly CONUS based holders, while five more I classified as "questionable" because the addresses appeared to be "local" boxes, but I couldn't find any corroborating evidence one way or the other (e mail addresses ending in " dot jp", photos of QSL cards with a foreign address, etc.). However there were 7 callsigns that were "not in the database"...in otherwords, unassigned. I skipped going through the KH2 calls...I imagine I will find similar results. And forget the 2 x 2 AH0/AH2 calls. That's more fun than I care to have in one sitting. However, just for grins and giggles, I started in on the AH0 2 x 2 calls...I only got to AH0AM...1/3 of the calls were either abandoned or were held by persons living off-island (read that on Hawaii or in the contiguous 48...). Only 3 were held by persons with names that weren't "traditional" WASP names and had the boxes you described. The rest were folks on-island. 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 of your suggestion of "...more than half" being in foreign hands (acknowleging that you specified "2x1" at one point, however noting you also lamented the numerous 2 x 2 calls held by foreign nationals at the top of your rant) The final results...?!?! Clearly less than your assertion of "more than half" of the "desireable" 2 x 1 callsigns are in the hands of persons not residing on Saipan. Care to try again? Besides "souveniers" I mentioned reciprocal-licensing cheats, which is a primary reason so many KH0/KH2 calls go to JA's..... Because JA only has reciprocal agreements with a dozen or less countries, a US license is an essential tool for JA DXpeditioners --- let's say they'd like to do a DXpedition to V7 or VP9 . Their JA license is useless, but let them flash a KH0 license and wham, he's VP9DX with no questions asked. Meanwhile some kid on Guam or Saipan who upgrades to Extra has to wait until a JA fella croaks over to capture a desireable call (unless some other JA captures it first for his reciprocal-cheat scheme). So...What ya gonna do about it? Why don't you write another "good ol boy" letter to your editor buddy and whine to him about this too? Steve, K4YZ |
"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. When you do that research, you'll find that "2 x 2 Extra Class calls" don't exist in the KH/KL/KP blocks. A 2 x 2 style call in those groups indicates a Technician or a General. Do the math. Nonetheless, if I were a DU or JA or OH or DL going to score a cool trophy callsign, "KH0XX" is a hell of a lot trendier than "KF4XXX". And speaking of OH, you or I can't obtain a KH3x call sign (Johnson Island), but a Vice President of NOKIA (Finland), OH2BH, holds the rare call AH3D. Legal. Must be! Does "legal" mean "right"? Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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. Stupid Hans. When you do that research, you'll find that "2 x 2 Extra Class calls" don't exist in the KH/KL/KP blocks. A 2 x 2 style call in those groups indicates a Technician or a General. Do the math. YOU asserted than "more than half" of the "desireable" 2 x 1 KH0/KH2 calls were in the hands of persons who "have no intention" of landing on US soil/ I proved you wrong. It wasn't that hard. That I goofed on the 2 x 2 "extra callsigns" doesn't change mitigate the other numbers in the least. Nonetheless, if I were a DU or JA or OH or DL going to score a cool trophy callsign, "KH0XX" is a hell of a lot trendier than "KF4XXX". And speaking of OH, you or I can't obtain a KH3x call sign (Johnson Island), but a Vice President of NOKIA (Finland), OH2BH, holds the rare call AH3D. Legal. Must be! Does "legal" mean "right"? Where did I say "right", Hansel? I said that's the way it is. And It really is THAT simple. Sunuvagun! Stop being an idiot, Hans. You are humiliating yourself in the face of facts easily refuted by a bit of research. I did the foot work. I gave you the numbers. You came up a loser. Sucks to be you. Sunnuvagun. Steve, K4YZ |
"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote Extra class or othrwise, your "greeater than half" assertion is/was wrong. I'll accept your numbers, Steve, and in fact "greater than half" might be an inadvertent overstatement. Stupid me. But that's easy to fix --- I'll amend the assertion to: "Damned near half of the desireable AH/KH/NH/WH0/KH2 2x1 callsigns have been scarfed up by foreigners through trophy-callsign acquisition schemes and are therefore unavailable to US citizens actually residing in those territories." With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.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. I always attributed it to post-Marine can't-make-it-in-the-real-world traumatic stress syndrome. ;^) I guess it could be RF induced, though. When you do that research, you'll find that "2 x 2 Extra Class calls" don't exist in the KH/KL/KP blocks. A 2 x 2 style call in those groups indicates a Technician or a General. Do the math. Lots of Techs. No Morris Code Test. Nonetheless, if I were a DU or JA or OH or DL going to score a cool trophy callsign, "KH0XX" is a hell of a lot trendier than "KF4XXX". And speaking of OH, you or I can't obtain a KH3x call sign (Johnson Island), but a Vice President of NOKIA (Finland), OH2BH, holds the rare call AH3D. Thought he was VP Nokia China? And Hey, no fair talking about the elitists. You'll get into trubble for that. ;^) Legal. Must be! Does "legal" mean "right"? Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB hl9act |
Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: "KØHB" Date: 11/23/2004 11:43 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote Extra class or othrwise, your "greeater than half" assertion is/was wrong. I'll accept your numbers, Steve, and in fact "greater than half" might be an inadvertent overstatement. Stupid me. But that's easy to fix --- I'll amend the assertion to: "Damned near half of the desireable AH/KH/NH/WH0/KH2 2x1 callsigns have been scarfed up by foreigners through trophy-callsign acquisition schemes and are therefore unavailable to US citizens actually residing in those territories." Profanities and after-the-fact changes to INTENTIONAL typing (how does one "inadvertantly" type something?) notwithstanding, I guess this is as close to "I was wrong" as you'll get. Now...go back and re-read the OTHER post, see where you were wrong there, and see if you can fix THAT, too. Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/23/2004 5:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: 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. It's not just about callsigns - it's about the integrity of the system. Again with the allegations of lack of integrity. 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...?!?! 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. 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...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"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 Steve, on the other hand is completely mistaken when he claims "AH0XX" is a call which would sequentially be assigned to an Extra licensee. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: "KØHB" Date: 11/23/2004 6:43 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: . net "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 Steve, on the other hand is completely mistaken when he claims "AH0XX" is a call which would sequentially be assigned to an Extra licensee I did not say it was a call that would be sequentially assigned to an Extra, Hans. I said it was a call that an Extra could request. ("Glean" was the exact word I used) Steve, K4YZ |
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 |
|
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com