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

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


If you move across a call district line, you either apply for a call
in
that district, or you are obligated to sign "portable", "stroke",
"mobile", etc
that call district.


Been there, done that, and have the litany of call signs to prove it.
In fact, used to be that you needed to NOTIFY the FCC if you were going
to operate away from your assigned station location, and periodically
renew that notification. Some of just got an additional station
callsign if we were going to spend time at another location. Once had a
station license with my now-mother-in-laws address because I spent so
much time there courting her daughter. Saved having to sign "KG6AQI/W0"
and sending those pesky notices to Washington.

FCC finally figured out it was unnecessary regulation for their
purposes, and discontinued the requirement.

There are both enforcement and "good operating practice"
issues therein.


No there aren't.

Each licensee is required to have a current mailing address on file at
FCC. One reason, I presume, is in case they need to "enforce".

"Good operating practice"? --- that's just a control-freak way of saying
"I want to know exactly where you are, regardless of what the FCC
wants".

73, de Hans, K0HB

Subject: Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/25/2004 10:29 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

There are both enforcement and "good operating practice"
issues therein.

No there aren't.

Sure there are.

Each licensee is required to have a current mailing address on file at
FCC. One reason, I presume, is in case they need to "enforce".

And a primary station location should be required on the license.

Submit a mailing address chage to the FAA with just a post office box or
"Rural Route" number and see what happens, and they require it for the same
reasosn..."enforcement issues"

"Good operating practice"? --- that's just a control-freak way of saying
"I want to know exactly where you are, regardless of what the FCC
wants".

It's a way of saying it's annoying to answer a W1 calling CQ cuz you need
New England states for WAS only to find out he's in Los Angeles.

And stuff your "control freak" issues, Hans. That's just your way of
trying to demean someone else's ideas by attaching some misdirection without
valid reasoning behind it.

Pretty lame, actually, but nothing new.

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


And a primary station location should be required on the license.


That's your opinion.

In the FCC's opinion it is not a regulatory necessity, thus they don't
require it.

Just as they no longer require you to certify you've operated CW at
least 10 hours in the past year or you can't renew your license, they no
longer require you to be an Extra to operate an amateur radio station in
space, they no longer require you to keep a strict record (log) of your
stations transmissions (including fruitless CQ's), they no longer
require you to advance-notify your District Engineer each month you will
be operating portable or mobile and include a "specific as possible"
itinery of your mobile operation, and they no longer require your
station to have a device to measure your transmitting frequency
(independent of the transmitter).

These are all archaic regulations, just like "primary station location
required", which did not serve any FCC regulatory purpose and they have
discarded.

If you feel you need to still keep a log, feel free to do so. If you
feel you still need your primary station location inscribed on your
license, feel free to inscribe it there (there's a nice spot on the
document under "Special Conditions" where you could also record the
address of your District Engineer so you can notifiy him each month that
you'll be operating 'mobile' away from your "primary station location").
When you renew, be sure to include a copy of your log to fulfill the
"hours of CW operation in the past year" requirement .

Or not, as you wish.


It's a way of saying it's annoying to answer a W1 calling CQ cuz you
need
New England states for WAS only to find out he's in Los Angeles.


FCC doesn't regulate WAS, so they don't impose WAS requirements on the
call sign structure.

Your example is pretty contrived anyhow, because there are several
states in "1-land", so unless you need every one of them, a quick check
of your callboook would have revealed he's in Sacremento.

73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID

Subject: Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/25/2004 11:43 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

And a primary station location should be required on the license.

That's your opinion.

And my opinion is worth any less than yours...how...????

In the FCC's opinion it is not a regulatory necessity, thus they don't
require it.

It's not about regulatory. It's about enforcement.

These are all archaic regulations, just like "primary station location
required", which did not serve any FCC regulatory purpose and they have
discarded.

It's not about regulatory. It's about enforcement. You DO know the
difference, don't you?

It's a way of saying it's annoying to answer a W1 calling CQ cuz you
need
New England states for WAS only to find out he's in Los Angeles.


FCC doesn't regulate WAS, so they don't impose WAS requirements on the
call sign structure.

Your example is pretty contrived anyhow, because there are several
states in "1-land", so unless you need every one of them, a quick check
of your callboook would have revealed he's in Sacremento.

It's not contrived.

There's are numerous letters in QST over the past few years (and I must
assume even more who haven't written) lamenting the same thing.

I guess it's no problem when you are running a full gallon and have the
Internet right there at the operating position, Hans. Not everyone is so
blessed with accessories and horsepower.

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote


In the FCC's opinion it is not a regulatory necessity, thus they don't
require it.

It's not about regulatory. It's about enforcement.


In the FCC's opinion it is not an enforcement issue, thus they don't
require it.


There's are numerous letters in QST over the past few years
(and I must assume even more who haven't written) lamenting
the same thing.


The FCC sees no regulatory reason (nor enforcement reason, nor "good
operating practice" reason) to change your callsign when you move from
one district to another, nor are they required to consult "numerous
letters in QST" to determine what is "good operating practice"..

They do, however, often take into account the wishes of the citizens who
petition them for rule changes. 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.


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?

73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

Subject: Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 11/25/2004 11:43 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

And a primary station location should be required on the
license.

That's your opinion.

And my opinion is worth any less than yours...how...????


Did I say it was worth less? No, of course I didn't say it, and of
course you knew I didn't say it, but nice try at misdirection anyhow.

What I did say was "In the FCC's opinion......".

73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID

(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote:

Submit a mailing address chage to the FAA with just a post office box or
"Rural Route" number and see what happens, and they require it for the same
reasosn..."enforcement issues"

Why would the FAA require a street address when the FCC doesn't? Very
few pilots fly to their homes (though there's a suburb of Sacramento
when many houses have a hangar next to a runway), but many hams operate
from home.



==
Jack Hamilton


==
In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted comfort and security.
And in the end, they lost it all - freedom, comfort and security.
Edward Gibbon

Subject: Who Can Have A US License? Sequential Calls?
From: Jack Hamilton
Date: 11/25/2004 12:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote:

Submit a mailing address chage to the FAA with just a post office box
or
"Rural Route" number and see what happens, and they require it for the same
reasosn..."enforcement issues"

Why would the FAA require a street address when the FCC doesn't? Very
few pilots fly to their homes (though there's a suburb of Sacramento
when many houses have a hangar next to a runway), but many hams operate
from home

In know, but they do. In 96 I submitted a change-of-address that included
my PO box and RR...I got an UGLY letter that stated I was required to provide
SPECIFIC directions to my residence from recognizable landmarks, or my
certificate was "subject to suspension pending provision of said information".

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote



Submit a mailing address chage to the FAA with just a post
office box or "Rural Route" number and see what happens,
and they require it for the same reasosn..."enforcement issues"


FAA is not concerned with my amateur station location unless I move
close to an airport and build a tower, so I have no occasion to submit a
mailing address change to them.

I'll keep it in mind, however, if I move and my location/tower height
require permits from them. Until then, I really couldn't care less
about what FAA requires, since they lack jurisdiction in amateur radio
location matters.

73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID