RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27935-who-can-have-us-license-sequential-calls.html)

KØHB November 27th 04 12:33 AM



"N2EY" wrote
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


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


Can I use that description?


No, because some W4 will 'remember' reading it first in CQ or QST and
publicly smear your name as a plagiarist without first checking her
facts. I've seen it happen.

73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID

PS: I hereby grant to N2EY permission for royalty-free use of my
description "net-connected, cluster-spoon-fed, computer-dependent
robo-station©" for any non-commercial purpose.




Dee D. Flint November 27th 04 01:10 AM


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:


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.


No, it was not due to an FCC decision. They used them up.

Figuratively speaking, I was there, as they say, at the point in time when
they ran out. Sequentially available 1x3s ran out in most districts in '92,
'93, or '94 (some districts were slower than others and some may have gone
on slightly longer). My call is my original one issued in 1992 and as you
can see from the fact that it is N8UZE that they were already close to the
end of the 1x3s in district 8 by then. My daughter's call sign, issued in
1993, is N8ZNW. The pattern of issue was first to use W calls, then K
calls, and finally N calls. Slightly off topic, 2x3 calls being issued at
this time are still in the K sequence.

For a while, I followed the call sign usage just out of curiosity to see
when they would run out.

The biggest reason that I did not change my call sign upon getting my Extra
was that district 8 was out of 1x2 call signs by the time I passed my Extra
test in late 1992 (upgraded license was issued in early 1993). I had no
interest in Extra class call signs in the 2x1 or 2x2 format.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


N2EY November 27th 04 12:52 PM

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

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.


No, it was not due to an FCC decision. They used them up.


Well, they went through them. See below.

Figuratively speaking, I was there, as they say, at the point in time when
they ran out. Sequentially available 1x3s ran out in most districts in '92,
'93, or '94 (some districts were slower than others and some may have gone
on slightly longer). My call is my original one issued in 1992 and as you
can see from the fact that it is N8UZE that they were already close to the
end of the 1x3s in district 8 by then. My daughter's call sign, issued in
1993, is N8ZNW. The pattern of issue was first to use W calls, then K
calls, and finally N calls. Slightly off topic, 2x3 calls being issued at
this time are still in the K sequence.

For a while, I followed the call sign usage just out of curiosity to see
when they would run out.


What I was trying to describe is that while FCC may have issued all of the
1x3s, they're not all in use. Once upon a time, when, say, W8ZZZ was reached,
FCC would go back to W8AAA and "fill in the gaps". This was done sequentially -
you didn't get a choice.

Of course that sort of thing takes resources and also reduces the demand for
vanity calls.

The biggest reason that I did not change my call sign upon getting my Extra
was that district 8 was out of 1x2 call signs by the time I passed my Extra
test in late 1992 (upgraded license was issued in early 1993). I had no
interest in Extra class call signs in the 2x1 or 2x2 format.

Works for me!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun November 27th 04 01:26 PM

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

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.


That specific change would probably get through the lawyers. I can see a
couple of downsides to it, FWIW. Firstly, VE teams serving Americans
overseas could no longer make use of any locals as VEs. Maybe they don't
anyway? Secondly, foreign-based DXpeditions to rare US islands would have
to recite a portable call.

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?


As I said before, unless he has assets in the US, you're not.


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.


AFAIK, the NCVEC eliminated those tests, not the FCC

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?


There are almost as many ways of doing this as there are countries.

The UK has no reciprocal licences per se, only permanent or temporary
licences. If you give a UK address you can get a permanent licence, which
is the same licence you get for passing a test. If not, you get a temporary
licence with a portable call. Either way there is a fee, and for the
temporary licence you pay the regular annual fee for only six months.

For a while I held a second UK call (G0VUK) based on my US licence.
However, since the code test was abolished my original call (G8VUK) has
full operating privileges.

Some countries issue visitor's licences with a distinctive call. For
example, my Irish call is EI4VXI. The V is for visitor. It is free for upto
a month, and costs progressively more for longer periods, and I can get the
same call back on subsequent visits.

I beleive that the latest ITU conference authorised calls with four call
letters. That would make possible a visitor's call like, say, KH2VXYZ! I
doubt that the FCC would be interested in administering this or collecting
the money, so if it were done it would have to be done through the VE
system. I can even envision that the FCC wouldn't have any record of these
calls atall. They probably wouldn't fit in their database. Perhaps the
NCVEC could keep track of them? Just a thought.

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.


Like collecting fees.

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?


Obviously Polish, ROTFL


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.


I don't think much of that either. There's a possibility of me moving to
Michigan. I wouldn't want to give up N3KIP for some KI8@& call. I prefer a
1x3 to a 2x2, and I don't want to pay for a vanity call.

"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



Alun November 27th 04 01:35 PM

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:


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.


No, it was not due to an FCC decision. They used them up.

Figuratively speaking, I was there, as they say, at the point in time
when they ran out. Sequentially available 1x3s ran out in most
districts in '92, '93, or '94 (some districts were slower than others
and some may have gone on slightly longer). My call is my original one
issued in 1992 and as you can see from the fact that it is N8UZE that
they were already close to the end of the 1x3s in district 8 by then.
My daughter's call sign, issued in 1993, is N8ZNW. The pattern of
issue was first to use W calls, then K calls, and finally N calls.
Slightly off topic, 2x3 calls being issued at this time are still in
the K sequence.

For a while, I followed the call sign usage just out of curiosity to
see when they would run out.

The biggest reason that I did not change my call sign upon getting my
Extra was that district 8 was out of 1x2 call signs by the time I
passed my Extra test in late 1992 (upgraded license was issued in early
1993). I had no interest in Extra class call signs in the 2x1 or 2x2
format.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


In my case I didn't know whether I would get, say, WZ3Z or AA3AA. I
particularly didn't want a 2x1, as they seem to me to be 'back-to-front'. A
2x2 would have been OK, but they are no shorter than a 1x3. A friend of
mine, who upgraded at the same time, in fact got AA3BS. That could have
been me. Everyone phoneticises his last two letters as 'Bovine Scatology'!

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Steve Robeson K4YZ November 27th 04 02:04 PM

Subject: Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/26/2004 6:33 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net



"N2EY" wrote
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


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


Can I use that description?


No, because some W4 will 'remember' reading it first in CQ or QST and
publicly smear your name as a plagiarist without first checking her
facts. I've seen it happen.


As it happens, I found the item I was looking for in QST...It was just a
lot earlier than I thought...but I leave the apology stand.

That time I was wrong. Most of the time the "smearing" your name gets is
pretty well deserved, Hans.

Sorry...it's true.

Steve, K4YZ






N2EY November 27th 04 07:56 PM

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:


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.


That specific change would probably get through the lawyers. I can see a
couple of downsides to it, FWIW. Firstly, VE teams serving Americans
overseas could no longer make use of any locals as VEs.


I don't see that as a downside; it's one of the main components of the idea!

Maybe they don't
anyway? Secondly, foreign-based DXpeditions to rare US islands would have
to recite a portable call.


Add a provision for temporary licenses to aliens if they don't want to do the /
thing. They pay a fee, get a special event callsign for the particular
possession, and when it's done the callsign goes back into the pool right away.
Similar to what you described for your Irish license.

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?


As I said before, unless he has assets in the US, you're not.


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.


AFAIK, the NCVEC eliminated those tests, not the FCC


Unless I misunderstood the Report and Order, FCC removed them.

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?


There are almost as many ways of doing this as there are countries.

The UK has no reciprocal licences per se, only permanent or temporary
licences. If you give a UK address you can get a permanent licence, which
is the same licence you get for passing a test. If not, you get a temporary
licence with a portable call. Either way there is a fee, and for the
temporary licence you pay the regular annual fee for only six months.


So if I ever get to the UK for a vacation, I can get a distinctive UK license
based on my US license (no test)?

For a while I held a second UK call (G0VUK) based on my US licence.
However, since the code test was abolished my original call (G8VUK) has
full operating privileges.

Some countries issue visitor's licences with a distinctive call. For
example, my Irish call is EI4VXI. The V is for visitor. It is free for upto
a month, and costs progressively more for longer periods, and I can get the
same call back on subsequent visits.


So why can't the USA do something similar for legitimate visitors?

I beleive that the latest ITU conference authorised calls with four call
letters. That would make possible a visitor's call like, say, KH2VXYZ! I
doubt that the FCC would be interested in administering this or collecting
the money, so if it were done it would have to be done through the VE
system. I can even envision that the FCC wouldn't have any record of these
calls atall. They probably wouldn't fit in their database.


Naw, just lump them in with special event callsigns.

Perhaps the
NCVEC could keep track of them? Just a thought.


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.


Like collecting fees.


Yup.

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?


Hmm?

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?


Obviously Polish, ROTFL


No, it's an old pop culture reference. Al Capp's "Li'l Abner"

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.


I don't think much of that either. There's a possibility of me moving to
Michigan. I wouldn't want to give up N3KIP for some KI8@& call. I prefer a
1x3 to a 2x2, and I don't want to pay for a vanity call.


Well, there you have it. I consider myself lucky to have gotten a 1x2; 2x1s
sound backwards to me. As in "where's the rest of it?"

All this concern about callsigns isn't limited to hams. The BC folks have been
at it for years, since certain callsigns are considered much more desirable
than others in that service. Calls like KISS, WARM, WOW, WHY, WHAT, WHEN, etc.

I recall reading that the original allocations of
all-letters-begins-with-W-or-K callsigns were to ships. When a ship sank, its
"unlucky" callsign would often not be reassigned to a new ship, and often wound
up assigned to a shore or BC station. Anybody confirm this story?

Personally, if radio saved a ship's crew, I'd consider that ship's callsign
lucky!

Oddly enough, I don't think any real BC station has ever held WKRP.



73 de Jim, N2EY


Dee D. Flint November 27th 04 10:15 PM


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:


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.


AFAIK, the NCVEC eliminated those tests, not the FCC


Unless I misunderstood the Report and Order, FCC removed them.


The FCC never specified the format of the code tests as administered by the
VECs only the code speed. Initially some required solid copy, others had
mutiple choice questions, and others had fill in the blanks. Eventually the
council of VECs agreed upon using fill in the blank questions only with
candidates also able to pass with solid copy if they did not get 7 out of 10
questions right.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Alun November 28th 04 01:58 AM

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:


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.


That specific change would probably get through the lawyers. I can see
a couple of downsides to it, FWIW. Firstly, VE teams serving Americans
overseas could no longer make use of any locals as VEs.


I don't see that as a downside; it's one of the main components of the
idea!

Maybe they don't
anyway? Secondly, foreign-based DXpeditions to rare US islands would
have to recite a portable call.


Add a provision for temporary licenses to aliens if they don't want to
do the / thing. They pay a fee, get a special event callsign for the
particular possession, and when it's done the callsign goes back into
the pool right away. Similar to what you described for your Irish
license.

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?


As I said before, unless he has assets in the US, you're not.


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.


AFAIK, the NCVEC eliminated those tests, not the FCC


Unless I misunderstood the Report and Order, FCC removed them.

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?


There are almost as many ways of doing this as there are countries.

The UK has no reciprocal licences per se, only permanent or temporary
licences. If you give a UK address you can get a permanent licence,
which is the same licence you get for passing a test. If not, you get a
temporary licence with a portable call. Either way there is a fee, and
for the temporary licence you pay the regular annual fee for only six
months.


So if I ever get to the UK for a vacation, I can get a distinctive UK
license based on my US license (no test)?


You can, you just need someone in the UK who will act as a mail drop,
Otherwise you will just get M0/N2EY if you have it mailed to you direct.
Hmmm, that's almost M0NEY, and I don't think that one has been issued
either.


For a while I held a second UK call (G0VUK) based on my US licence.
However, since the code test was abolished my original call (G8VUK) has
full operating privileges.

Some countries issue visitor's licences with a distinctive call. For
example, my Irish call is EI4VXI. The V is for visitor. It is free for
upto a month, and costs progressively more for longer periods, and I
can get the same call back on subsequent visits.


So why can't the USA do something similar for legitimate visitors?


It could, but I can't imagine the FCC wanting to be directly involved


I beleive that the latest ITU conference authorised calls with four
call letters. That would make possible a visitor's call like, say,
KH2VXYZ! I doubt that the FCC would be interested in administering this
or collecting the money, so if it were done it would have to be done
through the VE system. I can even envision that the FCC wouldn't have
any record of these calls atall. They probably wouldn't fit in their
database.


Naw, just lump them in with special event callsigns.


Those are 1x1 calls. How does that work for KH2?

Perhaps the
NCVEC could keep track of them? Just a thought.


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.


Like collecting fees.


Yup.

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?


Hmm?

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?


Obviously Polish, ROTFL


No, it's an old pop culture reference. Al Capp's "Li'l Abner"

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.


I don't think much of that either. There's a possibility of me moving
to Michigan. I wouldn't want to give up N3KIP for some KI8@& call. I
prefer a 1x3 to a 2x2, and I don't want to pay for a vanity call.


Well, there you have it. I consider myself lucky to have gotten a 1x2;
2x1s sound backwards to me. As in "where's the rest of it?"


I couldn't agree more

All this concern about callsigns isn't limited to hams. The BC folks
have been at it for years, since certain callsigns are considered much
more desirable than others in that service. Calls like KISS, WARM, WOW,
WHY, WHAT, WHEN, etc.

I recall reading that the original allocations of
all-letters-begins-with-W-or-K callsigns were to ships. When a ship
sank, its "unlucky" callsign would often not be reassigned to a new
ship, and often wound up assigned to a shore or BC station. Anybody
confirm this story?

Personally, if radio saved a ship's crew, I'd consider that ship's
callsign lucky!

Oddly enough, I don't think any real BC station has ever held WKRP.



73 de Jim, N2EY




garigue November 28th 04 02:43 AM


I don't think much of that either. There's a possibility of me moving
to Michigan. I wouldn't want to give up N3KIP for some KI8@& call. I
prefer a 1x3 to a 2x2, and I don't want to pay for a vanity call.


Well, there you have it. I consider myself lucky to have gotten a 1x2;
2x1s sound backwards to me. As in "where's the rest of it?"


I couldn't agree more



I couldn't agree less ......any call that starts with a N is bogus in my
book ....those LETTERS belong on the tail of
a 1905 Wright Flyer not flying through the sacred ether. I got my call
after a few months of having my extra and it was granted in sequence .......
I was going to keep my WA3PPS but it just got too cumbersome.

In all seriousness I could care less about who has what or whatever ...I
just like the variety out there and am actually entertained by some of the
really cumbersome CW calls out there. I rarely get on phone but I do get
K13R from time to time from an old-timer .....good for a chuckle. I tell
them the 13th call district is SW Pa. Now if I could only get up a decent
antenna .....another story for another time.

Take care guys .... God Bless ...... Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa.




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com