"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

One of those petitions asked that they
allow amateurs to retain their calls when moving because many hams had
become 'connected' to their call signs, almost as a 'name', and did not
wish to surrender the call when moving. Finding no regulatory,
enforcement, nor "good operating practice" reason that a ham shouldn't
keep their callsign, they ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Yep.

There's also another factor: availability of callsigns in the new area.

This is a more restrictive issue than most realize. There are only 2028
possible 1x2 callsigns and only 2028 possible 2x1 callsigns in each
district. As of this point in time, most districts have none available for
sequential issue and only a few available for vanity calls.

Even the 1x3s, of which there are 52,728 possible combinations per district,
are no longer available for sequential issue.

Actually the number of callsigns is slightly smaller since there are certain
suffixes that for various reasons are not made available for the general ham
population.



There was a time, back when the ARS was much smaller, that FCC would try
to
give "corresponding" calls when someone moved. W1ICP was W0ICP, for
example.
But that became "impractical".

I got N2EY (sequentially issued) when I moved from EPA to WNY in 1977. By
the
time I moved back (1979), the FCC was not reissuing "abandoned" 1x2 calls.
Something about their computer system.

What it meant in my case was that if I'd asked for a 3-land call, I could
have
gotten a sequentially-issued 3-land 1x2. But N2EY would not have been
reissued
to anyone. So there would be one less Extra with a 1x2, and I decided to
keep
N2EY.

Did I do the wrong thing?

Absolutely not IMHO. I've moved several times: from 8 land to 9 land to 0
land and back to 8 land. It would make no sense to me to keep changing my
call sign. And if one were restricted to sequentially issued calls, all
that was available by the time I moved into each of these areas were the
2x2s beginning with A. I don't happen to like them.


I guess it's no problem when you are running a full gallon and
have the Internet right there at the operating position, Hans.

Whether I'm running a "full gallon" or 100mW (which is closer to what I
normally run) doesn't make it any easier to devine the source of a CQ.
And what does the internet have to do with it?

If you have internet access in the shack, you could look up a callsign
heard
and see what state the ham is in. Not a new idea, though - there used to
be
this thing called a "callbook"

73 de Jim, N2EY

Don't need internet access even today. There are callbooks available on CD
ROM for a non-internet connected computer. Besides that, what's wrong with
just asking the guy (or gal)? In addition, if one is hunting states for WAS
or whatever, monitor the contests that include section as part of the report
and jump in when you find one. Or call CQ specifically for the states of
interest.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

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

KH2D, who has *been there* says differently. See his posts on the
subject.

I read it.

He refered to "CBers" with Amateur licenses. He did not specify that
ther
were licenses obtained from VE exams held at foreign hamfests. Sounded to
me
like "locals"...

Unless I'm mistaken, only an Extra can be a VE that gives Extra exams. So
you
have a chicken-and-egg scenario about how such a setup could get started.

There's nothing "chicken and egg" about it. We were discussing
off shore US Amateur Radio exams. Jim chimed in about "CBer's with
Extra licenses" on Guam, but not a word about them being FOREIGNERS,
which is what I was addressing.

Ask *him* if they were. I've never been to Guam.

Neither you, the other Jim nor Hans have provided a single bit of
evidence that the tests administered OFF SHORE (in my definition
meaning not conducted under the US flag, regardless if on US soil, an
embassy or US military installation) has been done so inappropriately.

What evidence would you accept?

And I said that if he didn't get the desired results, he should push
it with DoJ.

And they would do what? It's an offense committed outside US territory and
US
jurisdiction, unless it's at an embassy or similar place.

It would, hopefully, get the licenses of the offenders revoked
thereby depriving them of the basic premise for them BEING a VE, Jim.

No US tickee no US testee. OK G.I.?

Which would put them back where they were before the scam started. If they were
noncitizens and held foreign licenses too, they'd still be hams. All they risk
is their alleged income stream and US call.

Yet we HAVE had more than a small number of VE test session right here
in
the US that WERE just that (license for sale). I am sure there have
been
cases
of fines, but in most cases, revocation of of licensure for both
"licensee"
and
"examiner" was the only penalty enforced.

And a US citizen cannot use a foreign amateur license in the USA. So the
penalty is much tougher on them.

That's not the point.

Sure it is.

No, it's not.

The whole thread was initiated by Hans' lamentation over US
exams being conducted overseas. US licenses being used by
foreigners...Not foreign licenses being used by Americans.

You're missing it, Steve.

You brought up how to enforce regulations on foreign Amateurs who may
allow some misconduct in the performance of a VE session.

And the answer is...

Determine wrongdoing (if any) by that Amateur and revoke his/her
license.

No US tickee, no US testee. OK, G.I.?

And that's it. No NAL, no other penalty. If the foreign ham holds a foreign
license, he/she can still operate.

No where did I say ANYthing about using a foreign license in the
United
States.

What I DID say was that in VE session right here at home,
conducted
by
Americans, the "most" penalties usually enforced are license revocation of
both
the licensee and the "examiner".

Are you suggesting any GREATER penalty on a foreigner who commits the
same
crime?

Do you dispute this fact?

Cool down and think about the main point:

I'm perfectly cool, Jim.

But you're missing the main point.

I'm wondering how YOU are going from Hans' lamentations over US
tests being conducted overseas to this being a discussion about
Americans being able to use foreign licenses here.

It's the difference in consequences.

THAT was specifically codified in Part 97 as a no-no. No debate.
Against the rules. Period.

Besides the fact that it's just plain wrong, hams who live in US territory
have
two reasons not to cheat as VEs:

1) If they're caught, they could face fines and even jail time

Uh huh...And how many VE's caught cheating have so far FACED jail
time,

2) If they're caught, they could lose their FCC licenses, which means no
ham
radio on US territory, and maybe none at all. Ever.

American licensees HAVE lost their licenses for cheating. So far
just

A nonresident alien with both a foreeign and US license doesn't face the
same
possible consequences.

A non-resident alien DOES face the same consequences as US
Amateurs...Revocation of licensure....Just like the others who HAVE
lost their tickets, Jim.

And that's the difference you're missing. A US ham who loses his US license
can't operate in US territory. And since many countries reciprocal-license
based on US licensing, those countries are lost, too. That's why
he-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned who lost his license for character issues
has tried so hard to get it back.

A foreigner who holds dual licenses is not in the same situation.

OK...then send a copy of the document to me and I'd be glad to sign
on
as
a
co-sponsor. But right now there's not much to argue with since what's
going
on
appears to be legal and there's no other legal precedent for the FCC to
say
"No, We won't accept license applications from non-resident foreign
nationals".

Don't need a precedent.

Sure you do.

Why would the government revoke ANY privilege unless there was some
misconduct or abuse of that privilege?

Because they think it's not a good thing for the ARS, or for radio in
general.
Look at the multiple choice code tests - they were eliminated as part of
the
2000 restructuring after many years of use - because hams complained that
they
weren't doing the job.

Stop.

Go back and read what I said previously and what YOU just wrote,
Jim.

Your own example examplifies MY point, Jim...there were
COMPLAINTS. The Federal Government did not spontaneously decide to
remove the test format.

Right!

Specifically, there were complaints *in the restructuring comments*. FCC took
heed of them and acted.

So Hans and Jim and others complain.

Allow me to reiterate uncase your scrollback isn't working:

But right now there's not much to argue with since what's
going
on
appears to be legal and there's no other legal precedent for the FCC to
say
"No, We won't accept license applications from non-resident foreign
nationals".

Don't need a precedent.

Sure you do.

Why would the government revoke ANY privilege unless there was some
misconduct or abuse of that privilege?

"Why would the government revoke ANY privilege unless there was
some misconduct or abuse of that privilege".

While you can argue the choice of words "misconduct" or "abuse"
when applied to the multiple choice format, Jim, there as certainly no
move afooot by the FCC to change it until there was a precedent
(complaints) from the field to do so.

And there were!

If you force THAT issue, then "they" can adequately argue that there
are
even far greater abuses right here at home and the whole program goes out
the
window!

So?

Proof of discrimination, Jim.

To act against them where no evidence of misconduct exists is
discrimination.

Not at all.

Discrimination is *defined* as unequal treatment without a relevant reason.

Why? If it's someone "new", they will have never known any other
way...and
I specifically stated that all those already licensed would not be forced
to
make any changes.

Because the new folks would be subject to conditions that the existing hams
didn't face.

Amateurs getting licnesed today do not face the same conditions
you and I faced 20-30 years ago, Jim.

37 years ago in my case. The new conditions are much easier.

New licensees would not face any revocation of service they
previously enjoyed. Old licensees would keep their old calls.

Big deal.

It's a big deal if you're on the other side of that fence.

The FCC continues to offer the different "Group" callsigns, but if
the
licensee wants a call other than what was issued, they pony up the
change...No
more "sequential" calls other than the 2x3 they were issued.

hooboy

Why? Do you walk up to Burger King and just take the food?

Fee-for-service is the way of the future if we continue to enact tax
cuts.

How much service is required to issue a sequential callsign?

Enough that the FCC has, on several occassions, demanded to know
why a particular licensee made several license changes within specific
time frames.

How often has that happened?

Are you sure FCC didn't have anither reason, such as someone trying to evade
detection? Example: Someone gets booted off the local repeaters for acting
inappropriately, then goes and gets a new callsign to hide his identity.

If it was no big deal, why would they fuss?

Lots of reasons. Another is TVI.

As a matter of fact...I often wonder why they fuss over frequent
Vanity changes...It's the one thing they ARE getting paid for, and the
fee charged far exceeds the expected outlay of materials and manpower
to accomplish.

For one thing, frequent vanity changing locks up calls from reissue for two
years.

If some idiot has more money than common sense and wants to
change his call every three months...let him. He paid for it.

Even though it denies others access to those calls for two years? Once or twice
is a mistake, several times is something else.

And no one looking for a 2-land call would wind up working someone in
PA!

Is that *really* such a problem? Many of the rarest states are in call
districts that contain a lot of states, so even if that rule were reenacted
the hunt is only slightly reduced.

Jim...have you worked so many that you forgot this one basic
premise of award hunting? Until it's worked and confirmed, they are
ALL "rare"...! ! !

It's not FCC's job to make my award-hunting easier.

How about we make it even easier: Carve up the callsign blocks into
state-specific ones so you could tell which exact state someone was in just
from the call. For example, in the 3rd call district, all calls with an M,
R or
Y in the suffix could be restricted to Maryland only, all calls with D, E
or L
could be restricted to Delaware, and all the rest would go to PA. (Adjust
as
needed for population variation) So you could just look at a callsign and
know
which state the ham was in.

Been nipping the cooking sherry a bit, have we, Jim...???

Why couldn't that be done? It would make SS easy as pie. In fact, some hams
have done it already on a voluntary basis. Guess what state N0SD is in...

"dadididadit didididadah" takes about 1 second extra at 20WPM. Big
deal.

It is when you do it a couple thousand times in a weekend.

Then how do you account for guys with "longer" calls that manage
to do pretty well in the contests, Jim?

They'd do better with shorter calls.

Look at the leaders and see how many have 2x3s compared to those with 1x2s.

Would I have to pay the fee to get a 3 land call?

What did I say?

What if all the 3-land 1x2s are gone?

Ominus Feces Occurum. There'd be 3-laders living in FL and other
places
force to give up their "out-of-dictrict" calls too.

Right. Somebody who's been a ham for 60+ years and held the same call, then
moved to SFL 15 years ago would have to give it up or sign portable. Thanks
a
lot.

Oh well...How many "desireable" 3 calls are in FL, Jim?

Quite a few! Snowbirds from here.

The actual cost of the licensing program would go down since the FCC
would
no longer be issuing tons of "sequential" callsigns gratis, and fees
collected
would go up since you couldn't get any other format of call without
ponying
up
the change to do so.

Issuing sequentials costs almost nothing because the computer simply
spits
them
out automatically.

Still costs time to attend the computer, input the data, and pay for
the
actual forms and postage.

No more time than the basic modification. Which are free anyway.

"Free" to you. It still costs the FCC per-item processed.

The cost is in the handling, data input, materials and postage. Which occur in
all transactions.

How's this for example: "Where a change of address is requested and
no
other change of callsign would be required due to location within the same
call
district, attaching a copy of the letter of notification sent to the
Commission
to the original station records shall be considered adequate. A change of
address on the original license document will be reflected upon the next
routine renewal or paid license transaction."

No good. FCC is supposed to know how to contact licensees. That's why they
need
some sort of current address.

I didn't say "don't send it in", Jim.

I said attach a copy to your original station documents. You'd
still send it in, and the FCC could update their records. They just
wouldn't necessarily sned out a new document with each and every
modification.

All that saves is the FCC having to print out and send a modified license.
They'd still have to receive your letter, input the data, and update the
database. With modern dataprocessing, having to do all that but not send a
license saves less than a dollar.

They can find your transmitter by DF ing, but to send you a letter they
need an
address. Or at least a PO box.

Uh huh. And what I proposed changed...what...???

Having the license match the database.

If FCC really wanted to save a few admin pennies, they'd renew every nonvanity
license upon modification. Doing so would eliminate renewal-only transactions.

and the fees would go up
since they were no longer issuing (save for the initial call) gratis
licenses.
And the FCC would be getting paid to process what extra paperwork they
DID
receive.

But do vanity fees go to FCC or to the general fund?

Again, Jim, you're the one suggesting changes...

I'm pointing out that your proposed changes would increase admin work that
serves "no regulatory purpose". Making my search for WAS easier isn't FCC's
job.

No, it's not. But under your system, it no longer matters where
the licensee is. So let's stop issuing a "6" call to Californians and
"0" to Minnesotans, 4 to Tennesseeans, etc...Just start at KC1AAA (or
wherever they are in the current sequential system) and keep on going
until they get to WZ1ZZZ. Then start with KD2AAA and go to WZ2ZZZ,
etc etc etc until we get to WZ0ZZZ, regardless of whether they are in
Bangor Maine or Irvine, California. It doesn't matter, right...???

Not really.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

So you could just look at a callsign
and know
which state the ham was in.


Aw, gee, Jim, that isn't nearly complicated enough.

Yeah - what was I thinking?

You gotta get it
down to the country level at least, preferably the city or township
level.

Naw. Grid squares!

The control freaks would like something like the old convoluted
USSR system. If you knew a guys call sign, the system was almost
detailed enough to use for targeting ICBMs. See below. Riley
Hollingsworth could just dial in your call sign, and a boomer sub off
the coast of New Jersey would target a tomahawk with the violation
notice attached to the nosecone.

There's a way to spend the peace dividend! (remember that?)

I can just see it now ---- "Hey,
K4CAP, your stations RF Exposure Evaluation appears to need updating.
Please report when you have completed the required survey."

bwaahaahaa

It sure would make SS, county-hunting and such a bit easier, though.

TERRITORIES, PREFIXES AND SUFFIXES OF THE FORMER USSR.

(snipped due to length)

Did those guys have a fixation for bureaucracy or what? Or maybe their DF
capabilites were very limited.

And don't forget RAEM

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 11/26/2004 8:31 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

There's nothing "chicken and egg" about it. We were discussing
off shore US Amateur Radio exams. Jim chimed in about "CBer's with
Extra licenses" on Guam, but not a word about them being FOREIGNERS,
which is what I was addressing.

Ask *him* if they were. I've never been to Guam.

Me neither.

Neither you, the other Jim nor Hans have provided a single bit of
evidence that the tests administered OFF SHORE (in my definition
meaning not conducted under the US flag, regardless if on US soil, an
embassy or US military installation) has been done so inappropriately.

What evidence would you accept?

How about some sort of organized survey of the exams? A written complaint
from one of the licensees. A written complaint from someone who's been there
who can attest, first hand, to the alleged improprieties.

Considering the change in recent years over Amateur enforcement, it's time
to revisit the issue with the FCC.

And perhaps a letter to Tom Ridge as previously suggested.

No US tickee no US testee. OK G.I.?

Which would put them back where they were before the scam started. If they
were
noncitizens and held foreign licenses too, they'd still be hams. All they
risk
is their alleged income stream and US call.

But they'd not be breaking US law anymore. Just like the AMERICANS who
ahve been caught doing it in the past, Jim.

The whole thread was initiated by Hans' lamentation over US
exams being conducted overseas. US licenses being used by
foreigners...Not foreign licenses being used by Americans.

You're missing it, Steve.

Well...I went back and checked Hans' first post. Seems I STILL "have" it,
Jim.

No US tickee, no US testee. OK, G.I.?

And that's it. No NAL, no other penalty. If the foreign ham holds a foreign
license, he/she can still operate.

OK...big deal.

And if he was determined to have broken US law, he loses his US license.
And under the present state of affairs vis-a-vis security, chances are would
face a hard time getting a visa INTO the United States, if DoS was involved.

Also, his loss of revenue from not being able to "conduct" the scam.

I'm perfectly cool, Jim.

But you're missing the main point.

No, I'm not.

You think there should be a lot more potent penalty system in place to
hold these persons accountable.

I agree. But under present laws it doesn't exist. And under current case
law, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to do anything OTHER than to revoke
the "examiners" license since that's the precendent the FCC has established.

I'm wondering how YOU are going from Hans' lamentations over US
tests being conducted overseas to this being a discussion about
Americans being able to use foreign licenses here.

It's the difference in consequences.

Again, you'd have a hard time getting a "penalty" any more severe than what
has already been established by FCC practice.

A non-resident alien DOES face the same consequences as US
Amateurs...Revocation of licensure....Just like the others who HAVE
lost their tickets, Jim.

And that's the difference you're missing. A US ham who loses his US license
can't operate in US territory. And since many countries reciprocal-license
based on US licensing, those countries are lost, too. That's why
he-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned who lost his license for character issues
has tried so hard to get it back.

You mean Herb Schoenblohm (sp?) Or Mittnick? Neither of those persons
lost their respective licenses for violating Part 97, Jim.

Neither of them conducted scam VE tests. And Herb HAS gotten his license
back, although someone else took his KV4 call last I remember.

A foreigner who holds dual licenses is not in the same situation.

Granted. But he CAN be made to suffer the same penalty that US citizens
have been

Specifically, there were complaints *in the restructuring comments*. FCC took
heed of them and acted.

So Hans and Jim and others complain.

Hans' comments, so far, have been limite to this forum. As for
Jim's...haven't seen them to establish an informed opinion from...But if they
didn't get the desired results the first time, they

To act against them where no evidence of misconduct exists is
discrimination.

Not at all.

Discrimination is *defined* as unequal treatment without a relevant reason.

Very good.

Are you going to continue to unravel your own arguements, Jim? If so I
will just let you and you be alone.....

Amateurs getting licnesed today do not face the same conditions
you and I faced 20-30 years ago, Jim.

37 years ago in my case. The new conditions are much easier.

And nothing prevents us from making the process more challenging in order
to meet the needs of Part 97.

New licensees would not face any revocation of service they
previously enjoyed. Old licensees would keep their old calls.

Big deal.

It's a big deal if you're on the other side of that fence.

Enough that the FCC has, on several occassions, demanded to know
why a particular licensee made several license changes within specific
time frames.

How often has that happened?

It's been in QST, Jim...I am sorry I don't recall teh specific
circumstances, but a fellow made several changes under the SEQUENTIAL system
and was called on the carpet for it.

Are you sure FCC didn't have anither reason, such as someone trying to evade
detection? Example: Someone gets booted off the local repeaters for acting
inappropriately, then goes and gets a new callsign to hide his identity.

Obviously not. He used the same name and addresses the FCC was obviously
able to get ahold of him at.

Then how do you account for guys with "longer" calls that manage
to do pretty well in the contests, Jim?

They'd do better with shorter calls.

Look at the leaders and see how many have 2x3s compared to those with 1x2s.

True...but almost every one of those "1 x 2" calls that hit the big time in
every contest are megastations. I bet they'd do just as well signing "K4CAP".

Oh well...How many "desireable" 3 calls are in FL, Jim?

Quite a few! Snowbirds from here.

If they are "snowbirds", then they still reside in taht area...just move
for the weather.

"Free" to you. It still costs the FCC per-item processed.

The cost is in the handling, data input, materials and postage. Which occur
in
all transactions.

Which would be direcetly paid by the applicant if they wanted a call otehr
than the 2 x 3 they were issued.

I said attach a copy to your original station documents. You'd
still send it in, and the FCC could update their records. They just
wouldn't necessarily sned out a new document with each and every
modification.

All that saves is the FCC having to print out and send a modified license.
They'd still have to receive your letter, input the data, and update the
database. With modern dataprocessing, having to do all that but not send a
license saves less than a dollar.

"Times" how many transactions a year...??? That's a LOT of "dollars",
Jim! Let's say it takes 2 minutes for a quick clerk to do the inputing. I'll
assume that on present GS scale they are making $10/hr. That's about .17/min,
or .34. Postage, bulk rate, already costs them .30 each, so we are up to
$0.60. I bet it's a safe bet that the actual document itself is worth another
..25 to .30/piece. So that's up to $.90 per document. And we haven't even
added in overhead...the computer itself...office costs, etc.

If FCC really wanted to save a few admin pennies, they'd renew every
nonvanity
license upon modification. Doing so would eliminate renewal-only
transactions.

No arguement from me. It can't be more than a keystroke to do.

No, it's not. But under your system, it no longer matters where
the licensee is. So let's stop issuing a "6" call to Californians and
"0" to Minnesotans, 4 to Tennesseeans, etc...Just start at KC1AAA (or
wherever they are in the current sequential system) and keep on going
until they get to WZ1ZZZ. Then start with KD2AAA and go to WZ2ZZZ,
etc etc etc until we get to WZ0ZZZ, regardless of whether they are in
Bangor Maine or Irvine, California. It doesn't matter, right...???

Not really.

Then WHAT'S your fuss over whether you have a 2 call or a three? =)

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

One of those petitions asked that they
allow amateurs to retain their calls when moving because many hams had
become 'connected' to their call signs, almost as a 'name', and did not
wish to surrender the call when moving. Finding no regulatory,
enforcement, nor "good operating practice" reason that a ham shouldn't
keep their callsign, they ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Yep.

There's also another factor: availability of callsigns in the new area.

This is a more restrictive issue than most realize. There are only 2028
possible 1x2 callsigns and only 2028 possible 2x1 callsigns in each
district. As of this point in time, most districts have none available for
sequential issue and only a few available for vanity calls.

If hams were required to change callsigns when moving across district lines,
It's highly probable that there would usually be *no* 1x2s or 2x1s available in
most districts, because they'd all be tied up by current holders or in the 2
year period.

Even the 1x3s, of which there are 52,728 possible combinations per district,
are no longer available for sequential issue.

The "no longer available for sequential issue" thing is, I think, due solely to
an FCC decision. IIRC, their computers are not set up to do it. Yet.

Besides, it generates vanity revenue.

Actually the number of callsigns is slightly smaller since there are certain
suffixes that for various reasons are not made available for the general ham
population.

Exactly.

There was a time, back when the ARS was much smaller, that FCC would try
to
give "corresponding" calls when someone moved. W1ICP was W0ICP, for
example.
But that became "impractical".

I got N2EY (sequentially issued) when I moved from EPA to WNY in 1977. By
the
time I moved back (1979), the FCC was not reissuing "abandoned" 1x2 calls.
Something about their computer system.

What it meant in my case was that if I'd asked for a 3-land call, I could
have
gotten a sequentially-issued 3-land 1x2. But N2EY would not have been
reissued
to anyone. So there would be one less Extra with a 1x2, and I decided to
keep N2EY.

Did I do the wrong thing?

Absolutely not IMHO. I've moved several times: from 8 land to 9 land to 0
land and back to 8 land. It would make no sense to me to keep changing my
call sign. And if one were restricted to sequentially issued calls, all
that was available by the time I moved into each of these areas were the
2x2s beginning with A. I don't happen to like them.

If everyone had to change with every move, even those would probably be all
tied up.

If you have internet access in the shack, you could look up a callsign
heard
and see what state the ham is in. Not a new idea, though - there used to
be
this thing called a "callbook"

73 de Jim, N2EY

Don't need internet access even today. There are callbooks available on CD
ROM for a non-internet connected computer.

My point was simply that even thr Ancient Ones in the BPC times had ways of
finding the rare states.

Besides that, what's wrong with
just asking the guy (or gal)?

Ya gotta work him first.

In addition, if one is hunting states for WAS
or whatever, monitor the contests that include section as part of the report
and jump in when you find one. Or call CQ specifically for the states of
interest.

I've found that in CW SS, section-hunting is usually (not always) a waste of
time. Except for the very rare/difficult ones (NT, NL, AK, PAC [from EPA]),
I've found that simply working everything you can hear will get you 70+
sections. Getting the really rare ones is a different game, of course, but
relatively few are "really rare".
And the rare ones are often easily found by the size of the pileup on them.

In SS 2004, the Type 7 and I worked all states except Hawaii. 100 homebrew
watts, inverted V at 37 feet, paper logs and a bug.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


In SS 2004, the Type 7 and I worked all states except Hawaii. 100
homebrew
watts, inverted V at 37 feet, paper logs and a bug.


Ah yes, "a boy and his radio", not a net-connected, cluster-spoon-fed,
computer-dependent robo-station tended by a jumpsuited sycopant "if
they're not a W6 they can't be in California" techno-control-geek with
thick glasses.

There's hope for radiosport after all!

73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

What evidence would you accept?

How about some sort of organized survey of the exams? A written
complaint
from one of the licensees. A written complaint from someone who's been there
who can attest, first hand, to the alleged improprieties.

Considering the change in recent years over Amateur enforcement, it's
time to revisit the issue with the FCC.

And perhaps a letter to Tom Ridge as previously suggested.

I doubt he'd be interested...

No US tickee no US testee. OK G.I.?

Which would put them back where they were before the scam started. If they
were
noncitizens and held foreign licenses too, they'd still be hams. All they
risk is their alleged income stream and US call.

But they'd not be breaking US law anymore. Just like the AMERICANS who
ahve been caught doing it in the past, Jim.

The whole thread was initiated by Hans' lamentation over US
exams being conducted overseas. US licenses being used by
foreigners...Not foreign licenses being used by Americans.

You're missing it, Steve.

Well...I went back and checked Hans' first post. Seems I STILL "have"
it, Jim.

Not the point I was making.

No US tickee, no US testee. OK, G.I.?

And that's it. No NAL, no other penalty. If the foreign ham holds a foreign
license, he/she can still operate.

OK...big deal.

That's ultimately what the license is for..

And if he was determined to have broken US law, he loses his US license.

So he uses his license from his country of residence.

And under the present state of affairs vis-a-vis security, chances are would
face a hard time getting a visa INTO the United States, if DoS was involved.

Not everyone wants to come here.

Also, his loss of revenue from not being able to "conduct" the scam.

Which I previously mentioned. But that's the risk no matter what.

I'm perfectly cool, Jim.

But you're missing the main point.

No, I'm not.

You think there should be a lot more potent penalty system in place to
hold these persons accountable.

No, I think the rules need to be changed. Specifically, someone who is neither
a US citizen nor a resident of US territory should not be allowed to hold a
permanent US ham license, nor to function as a VE. IMHO.

I agree. But under present laws it doesn't exist. And under current
case
law, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to do anything OTHER than to
revoke
the "examiners" license since that's the precendent the FCC has established.

So we change the rules. That's what Hans wants, and I say he's right.

I'm wondering how YOU are going from Hans' lamentations over US
tests being conducted overseas to this being a discussion about
Americans being able to use foreign licenses here.

It's the difference in consequences.

Again, you'd have a hard time getting a "penalty" any more severe than
what
has already been established by FCC practice.

A non-resident alien DOES face the same consequences as US
Amateurs...Revocation of licensure....Just like the others who HAVE
lost their tickets, Jim.

And that's the difference you're missing. A US ham who loses his US license
can't operate in US territory. And since many countries reciprocal-license
based on US licensing, those countries are lost, too. That's why
he-whose-name-must-not-be-mentioned who lost his license for character
issues has tried so hard to get it back.

You mean Herb Schoenblohm (sp?) Or Mittnick? Neither of those persons
lost their respective licenses for violating Part 97, Jim.

Last time I looked, they were both citizens.

Neither of them conducted scam VE tests. And Herb HAS gotten his
license back, although someone else took his KV4 call last I remember.

A foreigner who holds dual licenses is not in the same situation.

Granted. But he CAN be made to suffer the same penalty that US citizens
have been

How you gonna collect the NAL?

Specifically, there were complaints *in the restructuring comments*. FCC
took heed of them and acted.

So Hans and Jim and others complain.

Hans' comments, so far, have been limite to this forum. As for
Jim's...haven't seen them to establish an informed opinion from...But if they
didn't get the desired results the first time, they

Point is, there was enough complaining to FCC about multiple choice code tests
that they were eliminated. If there's enough complaining about nonresident
aliens being VEs and holding permanent US licenses, those rules can change too.

Consider what most countries outside the US do when an American wants to
operate. They issue a license good for a specific short time, based on the
valid US license. There's usually a fee in good old US dollars. American gets
to operate from Lower Podunkia and everyone has a good time.

Why can't we do the same thing?

To act against them where no evidence of misconduct exists is
discrimination.

Not at all.

Discrimination is *defined* as unequal treatment without a relevant reason.

Very good.

Are you going to continue to unravel your own arguements, Jim? If so I
will just let you and you be alone.....

How am I unrvavelling anything? Being neither a resident nor a citizen is a
valid reason to deny a license. IMHO. YMMV. LSMFT

Amateurs getting licnesed today do not face the same conditions
you and I faced 20-30 years ago, Jim.

37 years ago in my case. The new conditions are much easier.

And nothing prevents us from making the process more challenging in
order
to meet the needs of Part 97.

Sure it does. All the screaming that would result. Also FCC's reluctance to
take back certain functions.

New licensees would not face any revocation of service they
previously enjoyed. Old licensees would keep their old calls.

Big deal.

It's a big deal if you're on the other side of that fence.

Enough that the FCC has, on several occassions, demanded to know
why a particular licensee made several license changes within specific
time frames.

How often has that happened?

It's been in QST, Jim...I am sorry I don't recall teh specific
circumstances, but a fellow made several changes under the SEQUENTIAL system
and was called on the carpet for it.

Who and when? How many changes?

Are you sure FCC didn't have anither reason, such as someone trying to evade
detection? Example: Someone gets booted off the local repeaters for acting
inappropriately, then goes and gets a new callsign to hide his identity.

Obviously not. He used the same name and addresses the FCC was
obviously able to get ahold of him at.

??

I meant detection by other hams. Most hams just use their first name on the air
- but I know a few who use their middle name. There's no rule that sez you have
to use either.

Suppose KC3@#$, "Bill" gets booted off the repeaters. Couple weeks go by, then
KD3!$^, "Tom", shows up. Who is to know they are the same person without
looking them up in the database, and discovering that they're both William
Thomas Bfztsplk?

Then how do you account for guys with "longer" calls that manage
to do pretty well in the contests, Jim?

They'd do better with shorter calls.

Look at the leaders and see how many have 2x3s compared to those with 1x2s.

True...but almost every one of those "1 x 2" calls that hit the big time
in every contest are megastations. I bet they'd do just as well signing
"K4CAP".

Part of being a megastation is going for every advantage. Including length of
callsign.

Oh well...How many "desireable" 3 calls are in FL, Jim?

Quite a few! Snowbirds from here.

If they are "snowbirds", then they still reside in taht area...just move
for the weather.

Some have residences both places. Others visit with friends or relatives up
here in summer, then go south during the cold. Under your plan, they'd be
forced to lose their call, or lie to the FCC.

"Free" to you. It still costs the FCC per-item processed.

The cost is in the handling, data input, materials and postage. Which occur
in all transactions.

Which would be direcetly paid by the applicant if they wanted a call
otehr than the 2 x 3 they were issued.

Where's the extra cost?

The computer system is set up to grab the next call in the sequential line
automatically when a new license is issued, or when an upgrade occurs and the
applicant requests it. One check box on the application.

I said attach a copy to your original station documents. You'd
still send it in, and the FCC could update their records. They just
wouldn't necessarily sned out a new document with each and every
modification.

All that saves is the FCC having to print out and send a modified license.
They'd still have to receive your letter, input the data, and update the
database. With modern dataprocessing, having to do all that but not send a
license saves less than a dollar.

"Times" how many transactions a year...??? That's a LOT of "dollars",
Jim!

Not really. Look up how many modifications are done a year. Remember that a
good number of them are upgrades.

Let's say it takes 2 minutes for a quick clerk to do the inputing.

A lot of it is online that doesn't require a clerk at all.

I'll
assume that on present GS scale they are making $10/hr. That's about
.17/min,
or .34. Postage, bulk rate, already costs them .30 each, so we are up to
$0.60. I bet it's a safe bet that the actual document itself is worth
another
.25 to .30/piece. So that's up to $.90 per document. And we haven't even
added in overhead...the computer itself...office costs, etc.

Most of that cost is still incurred whether a modified license is mailed or
not.

If FCC really wanted to save a few admin pennies, they'd renew every
nonvanity
license upon modification. Doing so would eliminate renewal-only
transactions.

No arguement from me. It can't be more than a keystroke to do.

I think they don't do it because of the vanity system.

No, it's not. But under your system, it no longer matters where
the licensee is. So let's stop issuing a "6" call to Californians and
"0" to Minnesotans, 4 to Tennesseeans, etc...Just start at KC1AAA (or
wherever they are in the current sequential system) and keep on going
until they get to WZ1ZZZ. Then start with KD2AAA and go to WZ2ZZZ,
etc etc etc until we get to WZ0ZZZ, regardless of whether they are in
Bangor Maine or Irvine, California. It doesn't matter, right...???

Not really.

Then WHAT'S your fuss over whether you have a 2 call or a three? =)

The total effect on the ARS,

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

In SS 2004, the Type 7 and I worked all states except Hawaii. 100
homebrew watts, inverted V at 37 feet, paper logs and a bug.

Ah yes, "a boy and his radio", not a net-connected, cluster-spoon-fed,
computer-dependent robo-station

Can I use that description?

tended by a jumpsuited sycopant "if
they're not a W6 they can't be in California" techno-control-geek with
thick glasses.

Well, I don't own any jumpsuits but I did have to get glasses last year...

There's hope for radiosport after all!

CQWW, anyone?

73 de Jim, N2EY