On 24 Nov 2004 03:17:41 -0800, (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
wrote:

If you do, why have you not provided this information to the
appropriate authorities?

We preached to the choir for a lot of years from Guam. Nobody
listened, because nobody cared. There were numerous complaints made to

the ARRL and Washington, D.C. about testing discrepancies, P.O. boxes,
mail drops in California, licenses arriving unexpectedly.

When the hams in Saipan reported to the ARRL VE (a number of times)
that 3 CB'ers with extra class KH0 calls were making sure that all the
other CB'ers got an extra class call too, nothing happened.

If you lived in New Jersey and there were VE tests given at your local
ham club once a month, would you fly to Saipan (or Manila) to take a
test? Smell the rat yet?

But then again, you can't expect the ARRL VE manager to fly to Saipan
because the DXCC desk used up all the airplane ticket money flying to
the Tokyo hamfest to check post cards.

It still comes down to "it's allowed by OUR law"...at least at
present...

Just because the rules are the rules doesn't mean the rules make any
sense. There's a fine line between abusing a law and breaking it
maybe. People are abusing the hell out of the U.S. licensing system
because it's very easy to abuse. It needs to be fixed. But the people
who could fix it don't seem to care that it's broken.

I don't think we should start putting JA's in radio prison for
grabbing U.S. calls, but I think it's way past time where we should
have smartened up and fixed a very poorly implemented licensing
system.

VE testing wasn't a great idea. Allowing VE testing anywhere by
anybody is way past rediculous.

73, Jim KH2D

Subject: Get your Trophy US Extra Callsign (A KH0x call would be nice!)
From:
Date: 11/25/2004 5:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On 24 Nov 2004 03:17:41 -0800, (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
wrote:

If you do, why have you not provided this information to the
appropriate authorities?

We preached to the choir for a lot of years from Guam. Nobody
listened, because nobody cared. There were numerous complaints made to

the ARRL and Washington, D.C. about testing discrepancies, P.O. boxes,
mail drops in California, licenses arriving unexpectedly.

When the hams in Saipan reported to the ARRL VE (a number of times)
that 3 CB'ers with extra class KH0 calls were making sure that all the
other CB'ers got an extra class call too, nothing happened.

Then it sounds to me like you need to address this to the Department of
Justice, Jim. This is exactly the scenario Jim, N2EY is proclaiming, but it
sounds like US CBers were responsible for this, if I read you right...NOT
the sessions being conducted in the RP as Hans used as a point of conversation.

Just because the rules are the rules doesn't mean the rules make any
sense. There's a fine line between abusing a law and breaking it
maybe. People are abusing the hell out of the U.S. licensing system
because it's very easy to abuse. It needs to be fixed. But the people
who could fix it don't seem to care that it's broken.

Until Hans brought it up in this forum, Jim, it's the first I heard of
anyone fussing about it...Not that I read every line of every journal, but
after 20+ years of VE testing, I would have thought it would have made "the
news" at least once.

And I agree about things needing to be fixed.

I don't think we should start putting JA's in radio prison for
grabbing U.S. calls, but I think it's way past time where we should
have smartened up and fixed a very poorly implemented licensing
system.

VE testing wasn't a great idea. Allowing VE testing anywhere by
anybody is way past rediculous.

As is having callsigns that are peculiar to the Pacific Rim/Alaska held by
folks living in CONUS, Jim...KH6's, KL7's, KH2's...! Defeats the whole
purpose of having distinctive calls, doesn't it...???

One more call for one of those kid's on Guam that Hans (or was it
Jim...???) is all concerned with?

73 and Happy Turkey Day.

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...


FCC VEC exam?

No biggie. K3FK, WE3A and I used to administer them in Helsinki. A
number of the Finns passed all exam up through the Extra in one sitting.

Wonder what they used for an address?

I already provided the callsign of the Cincinnati amateur whose address
they used.

WA8JOC handled QSLing for all of my DX operations. His mailman, Freddie
was used to the piles of QSL cards following a CQ WW DX 'test operation
but when the FCC documents began arriving with all sorts of lengthy
Finnish names, he asked Shep if he had rented the garage to a bunch of
guys from Finland. They, after all, had to provide a U.S. address
through which they could be contacted by the FCC.

Dave K8MN

Of course. And you provided it.

No, I didn't. WA8JOC provided it.

Typical Extra attitude.

I think so. We performed a service to those desiring to legally obtain
U.S. licenses. If you don't like it, I can live with that.

I don't like a number of things that you've done. All of amateur
radio gets to live with it.

Just help
yourself to whatever you want, pass some around to your friends.

I helped myself to nothing. I helped others to obtain that which they
desired. Neither U.S. nor Finnish laws were broken. Almost all of
those who tested have visited the U.S. at least once and have used the
licenses they obtained. Again, if it bothers you, I can live with that.

Callsign: K3FK Class: Extra Codes: HAI USA
Name: RICHARD A IRVING
Addr1: PSC 78, Box 33
Addr2: APO, AP 96326-1000
Country: USA
Effective: 14 Nov 2002 Expires: 04 Nov 2007
FRN: 0007938624 What's this?
FCC: ULS Listing
Lookups: 211

Yep, that's K3FK

Callsign: WE3A Class: Extra Codes: HAI USA
Name: VILHO K HIILESMAA
Addr1: 2721 Halifax Court, c/o Steinman
Addr2: McKinney, TX 75070
Country: USA
Effective: 06 Sep 2000 Expires: 06 Sep 2010
FRN: 0006405997 What's this?
FCC: ULS Listing
Lookups: 118

Yep, that's Ville.

How do you pronounce "Ville" from Texas?

And that address sounds familiar.

Callsign: N5TJ Class: Extra Codes: HVIE USA
Name: JEFFREY S STEINMAN
Addr1: 2721 Halifax Court
Addr2: McKinney, TX 75070
Country: USA
Effective: 10 May 2000 Expires: 04 Nov 2006
FRN: 0002263895 What's this?
FCC: ULS Listing
Lookups: 1444

Callsign: KZ5DX Class: Club Codes: HVBF USA
Name: STEINMAN AMATEUR RADIO CLUB
Addr1: 2721 Halifax Court
Addr2: McKinney, TX 75070
Country: USA
Effective: 10 May 2000 Expires: 04 Nov 2006
FRN: 0002263895 What's this?
FCC: ULS Listing
Trustee: N5TJ, JEFFREY S STEINMAN
Lookups: 60

***
"All these new club calls...
from ] [Permanent Link][Original]

Subject: All these new club calls...
From:
)
Date: Mon Sep 11 12:15:59 1995

In the Sprint rumored scores (and other recently published
scores), I have noticed quite a few new club calls. Some of
the club calls appear to belong to individuals who are well
known in contest circles. Here are a couple of examples:

KC5NWX STEINMAN AMATEUR RADIO CLUB LIC ISU
11-APR-1995
CLUB 6719 SHELL FLOWER LN LIC EXP
11-APR-2005
DALLAS TX 75252 LST UPD
11-APR-1995
KR0Y STEINMAN, JEFFREY S IS RESPONSIBLE


KC5OYM ALLIGATOR AMATEUR RADIO CLUB LIC ISU
31-MAY-1995
CLUB P. O. BOX 10465 LIC EXP
31-MAY-2005
MIDLAND TX 79702 LST UPD
31-MAY-1995
N5RZ BOWEN, RALPH E IS RESPONSIBLE

What is the deal with these new calls? Have you guys set up clubs
in your homes, or is this part of the process required to get a
desired vanity call? I am definately NOT looking to start any flames
here, please. I am just trying to understand why several top notch
contesters have applied for club call signs. (And of course,
wondering if I need to do the same to get the call I'm after!)
Thanks for any enlightenment.

73, Kirk WR3O"
***

Note that Steinman no longer holds KR0Y, nor KC5NWX. You have to
wonder if he has enough yet.

Callsign: WA8JOC Class: Extra Codes: HAI USA
Name: Kenneth S Scheper
Addr1: 5875 Cedaridge Dr
Addr2: Cincinnati, OH 45247
Country: USA
Effective: 03 Mar 2004 Expires: 31 May 2014
FRN: 0003051612 What's this?
FCC: ULS Listing
Lookups: 1075

Yep, that's Shep.

My name is Dave and exams were administered under the Laurel, MD VEC.

***
"The Laurel VEC coordinates the efforts of its Volunteer Examiners
(VEs) in preparing and administering amateur service operator license
examinations. The VEC screens collected information from its VE
teams, resolves all discrepancies, and forwards all required data to
the FCC electronically. All VECs are authorized to coordinate
examination sessions at any location an examination can be conducted.
A VEC, however, may choose to limit its area of operation to a
particular geographical area. The Laurel VEC has certified VEs in
several states as well as overseas.

A Volunteer Examiner (VE) team can administer an operator license
examination to you or file other applications for you, such as an
application for renewing your license, change of address, or change of
name. If you are interested in becoming a VE with the Laurel VEC,
contact your nearest VE Team Leader."
***

And it appears that you were the single point of failure. Although
it's charter states that "The Laurel VEC has certified VEs in several
states as well as overseas," there appear no exams scheduled in
Helsinki for 2004 or 2005; no VE Team Leaders in Helsinki or -any
other- off shore location.

http://www.qsl.net/aa3of/Laurel%20VE%20Teams.htm
http://www.qsl.net/aa3of/Exam%20Schedule.htm

Rant away.

Dave K8MN

No rant, David. Every so often you reveal a new factoid about
yourself or your associates that I find interesting. Do keep posting,
and go easy on the branch water today.

Happy Thanksgiving and Best of Luck

bb

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
wrote:


Hans envisions himself as somewhat of an Old Sea Dog,

Hey, Jack,

Say "hi" from the 7th Fleet to your mama. She used to work under the
bridge crossing the Sh!t River into Olongapo, didn't she?

I thought she did a copy of the original act of firing ping-pong balls
from her uterus across the bar into a martini glass..... : )

*** Selected stories from Po City and Subic Bay ***

Great reads! Here-- http://www.subicbaypi.com/subic_comment_off.htm

"Phil Kane" wrote in
et:

On 24 Nov 2004 01:27:16 GMT, Alun wrote:

Do not forget that holding an amateur license does not convey any
civil rights - _Howard v City of Burlingame_

I'm not sure what implications that has. I think I'd better try and find
that case and read it.

_Howard v City of Burlingame_, 937 F2nd 1376, (9th Cir., 1991)

"Uncle Vern" Howard got into a dispute with the city about getting
a permit for his tower as against neighbor complaints. (In the
meanwhile he put up a 65 foot tower where the original dispute was
over a 51 foot tower).

The District Court held that under the "reasonable accommodation"
factor in PRB-1 the permit had to be granted but it denied Vern's
claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. s. 1963 which awardss damages
where a local government (but not Federal) violates an individual's
civil rights "under color of law" and for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.
s. 1988.

The parties cross-appealed to the 9th Circuit , the city appealing
the PRB-1 preemption and Vern appealing to reinstate his claim
for a declaration of protected rights and therefore eligibility for
1963 damages and 1988 fee award.

The 9th Circuit upheld the lower court but also ruled that holding
an amateur license did not confer any protected right (such as First
Amendment rights) to the licensee, and specifically the right to put
up any antenna of choice - the jurisdiction must still consider those
factors specified in PRB-1 to reach a "reasonable accommodation":

"In fact, the most significant section of the [Communications
Act] forecloses rather than supports Howard's claim: "no such
license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms,
conditions, and periods of the license." 47 U.S.C. Sec. 301. Such
language is evidence that no enforceable right exists under Sec.
1983, and that Congress intended to foreclose claims such as
Howard's. See Golden State, 110 S. Ct. at 449; Wilder, 110 S. Ct.
at 2523. Cf. Wright, 479 U.S. at 430. The Act thus grants no Sec.
1983 right to licensees to erect antennas."

Vern was getting up in years and didn't want to carry this to the
SCOTUS - it was a shot in the dark, as he said - so there it stands.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Thanks for the info. I couldn't find the case on FindLaw.com, but I didn't
know which circuit to look under. I will try searching it under the 9th.

Getting somewhat back on topic, we were discussing civil rights of foreign
hams in the US. I beleive that someone suggested that we be given
distinctive calls.

As I understand it, Howard v Burlingame said that a ham licence didn't
cause any protected civil right to arise, on the ground that the
Communications Act foreclosed that possibility by it's statutory language.

That seems to be correct, but it doesn't seem to rule out the application
of due process rights (for example) in obtention of a licence.

BTW, do you think the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment could
ever be applied to the feds, or do you think that as it says the states it
can only be applied to the states? The due process clause of the 5th
amendment seems to be the fallback position that can be used against the
federal govt., as it doesn't contain that language.

These two clauses have been held to apply to aliens, as they don't use the
word 'citizen', even though other clauses within the 14th amendment do.

Alun

On 26 Nov 2004 03:19:17 GMT, Alun wrote:

BTW, do you think the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment could
ever be applied to the feds, or do you think that as it says the states it
can only be applied to the states? The due process clause of the 5th
amendment seems to be the fallback position that can be used against the
federal govt., as it doesn't contain that language.

I doubt it, but I would never be surprised at how the SCOTUS would
rule in civil rights cases these days.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

wrote in
:

On 24 Nov 2004 01:31:47 GMT, Alun wrote:

Quite true, but if you live in Germany and nip down to your local USAF
facility for a VE sesion you can get a US licence, all legal and above
board.

There's an obvious solution. If someone takes a VE test overseas and
has no US address, they ought to be given a sequentially issued call in
one of the less populous FCC districts, say the 1st district.

Or they should be told to buzz off. Why should any U.S. license be
issued to someone in a foreign country that has no intention of using
it in the U.S. ?

And with the CEPT stuff, there's even more reason not to issue U.S.
licenses in many countries.

73, Jim KH2D


The problem with CEPT operation under a foreign call is that non-residence
is a required condition. This means, amongst other things, that having a
green card completely bars operation in the US under CEPT.

However, anyone who has a licence from a country that has an ordinary
bilateral reciprocal agrrement with the US can operate in the US even as a
permanent resident for an indefinite period of time.

In both cases, FCC rules impose further conditions:-

1) They must not be a US citizen;

2) They must be a citizen of the country that issued their licence; and

3) They must not have a US licence.

OTOH, the rules for obtaining a regular US licence leave it open to anyone
except a representative of a foreign government. This is supposed to be so
that listening stations can separate diplomats from other hams by their
non-US calls. This exception seems to be allowable because of an overriding
government interest.

What would you have the FCC do differently?

It doesn't seem likely that you could get back to the situation where
foreign hams in general couldn't get a US call, as this would likely not
make it past the due process clause.

If you could acheive that I'd still be OK, as I could use W3/my UK call
forever if I didn't have a US call. Others wouldn't be so lucky. If they
came from a country with no bilateral agreement (remember CEPT is no help
to US residents), or if they were citizens of one country with a licence
from another, or even if they just got into the hobby after coming to live
in the US, those guys would all be QRT. That's how it used to be in the bad
old days.

So maybe you'd like to ban VE tests held outside the US? That would be hard
on your military. How do you get licenced if you are posted somewhere that
you don't speak the language? Well, one way is to get a licence from your
own country by taking a test in your own language, and then get reciprocal
privileges. Granted, I can't think of other examples of countries offering
testing outside their borders, but not many have a VE system either. I
think VK does. I wonder if you can take their tests outside VK?

Another suggestion I saw in this thread was to stop aliens from being VEs.
I don't think that would fly constitutionally speaking either. BTW, I'm a
VE myself. I don't think it would harm me that much if I couldn't be a VE.
You could volunteer to explain that to any Americans that might want to
take a test but couldn't because we could only muster 2 VEs that day.

Perhaps it would be possible to tinker with the rules only for VE tests
held outside the US, restricting the nationality of either the VEs and/or
the candidates. OTOH, it's possible that if you did that you might run
afoul of the civil rights laws of the host countries.

So, what do you seriously suggest?

I don't really think anyone cares if someone in Japan can get a call that
belongs to the mainland US. All that really seems to be needed is some way
to prevent those testing overseas from getting an exotic offshore US call.
Arguably, those in the mainland US shouldn't be able to either, but the FCC
doesn't regard this as important.

On 26 Nov 2004 04:22:50 GMT, Alun wrote:

However, anyone who has a licence from a country that has an ordinary
bilateral reciprocal agrrement with the US can operate in the US even as a
permanent resident for an indefinite period of time.

An excellent reason to never issue a U.S. call sign to a Japanese ham.
There is no circumstance where they'd NEED a U.S. license, because
they can operate in the U.S. or in any U.S. territory with their
Japanese license. Throw stroke whatever on the end of their JA call
and they're good to go. No paperwork required, no resources wasted.

So maybe you'd like to ban VE tests held outside the US? That would be hard
on your military. How do you get licenced if you are posted somewhere that
you don't speak the language?

No, I wouldn't. You go to the U.S. Embassy or a U.S. military base and
take the test. Think about this - How do you pass a test in Japan
that's in English