![]() |
N2EY wrote: Perhaps the vanity call system stopped the simultaneous renewals. It's that expensive, state-of-the-art data system they installed! Reminds me of the time clocks where I work...Used to be that you took a card, slid it into the clock, it "puched" your card, and you got got paid for teh time you worked. Now we have the KRONOS system (Reminds me of the science fiction movie of the same name...stops across everything) If you "punch in" one minute before your "block", they have to pay you for the previous 15 minute block. If you punch out one minute AFTER your "block", they ahve to pay you for the next 15 minute increment. Of course what's happening is that we have a cluster around the clock. And people are in such a panic at the end of the shift that stuff "get's done" just to get to the clock "on time". Technology doesn't always solve problems (ie: record keeping for the FCC) It more often than not creates more than it solves. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article .com, "K4YZ"
writes: N2EY wrote: Perhaps the vanity call system stopped the simultaneous renewals. It's that expensive, state-of-the-art data system they installed! How do you know this, Steve? If a ham happens to move right at the time of renewal, the system can handle it. So that's not the problem. My speculation on vanity calls is based on the fact that a new vanity call issuance generates a renewal. That way, the fee doesn't have to be pro-rated. But I don't know why nonvanities couldn't be renewed when a ham moves or upgrades. That would reduce FCC paperwork. -- One effect of the old system was that it tended to make the number of amateurs appear larger than it really was. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
K4YZ wrote:
N2EY wrote: Perhaps the vanity call system stopped the simultaneous renewals. It's that expensive, state-of-the-art data system they installed! Reminds me of the time clocks where I work...Used to be that you took a card, slid it into the clock, it "puched" your card, and you got got paid for teh time you worked. Now we have the KRONOS system (Reminds me of the science fiction movie of the same name...stops across everything) If you "punch in" one minute before your "block", they have to pay you for the previous 15 minute block. If you punch out one minute AFTER your "block", they ahve to pay you for the next 15 minute increment. Of course what's happening is that we have a cluster around the clock. And people are in such a panic at the end of the shift that stuff "get's done" just to get to the clock "on time". Yoiks! Have they noticed the loss of productivity? - Mike KB3EIA - |
On 13 Jan 2005 03:50:34 -0800, K4YZ wrote:
Of course what's happening is that we have a cluster around the clock. And people are in such a panic at the end of the shift that stuff "get's done" just to get to the clock "on time". When I worked for the now-departed-but-not-missed Douglas Aircraft Company, the hourly employees lined up at the clock some 10 minutes before the end of the shift (union-negotiated "wash-up time"), and no one punched out before the shift-end time. We engineers did not have to punch the clock, but we had to fill out a "daily time sheet" which served the same function. At other employers, the custom developed of filling out the sheets a whole day (or for some of us, week) at a time because we knew what "they" wanted our time to be charged to..... America, America.... Technology doesn't always solve problems (ie: record keeping for the FCC) It more often than not creates more than it solves. Especially when the prigramming for the system which has to run it is contracted out to the "private sector" rather than done in-house by folks who know what the goal is and have to live with the results themselves. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Until the F.C.C. can receive and grant renewals immediately from all Hams, there will have to be such a rule. Otherwise they would have to determine some time lag, say a week, and then tell you you have to calculate the number of days in ten years minus 1 week. Remember it will be different for many hams, because it depends on how many leap years there have been since you got your ticket, and whether you got your ticket before the leap day if you got the ticket during a leap year. Remember too that there's a 90 day limit in the other direction - if you send in a renewal too early (more than 90 days before expiration) they send it back. Do you know of a single instance of this happening? I'm not sure why that 90-day rule exists. For many years you could get a simultaneous renewal whenever you modified. I was a ham for a long time before I ever actually "renewed" because every upgrade and address change resulted in a renewed license too. They're trying to get us to read the directions. We say we're trainable. They're just checking. Perhaps the vanity call system stopped the simultaneous renewals. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think it was the sequential call system that stopped the simultaneous renewals. ;)) |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Until the F.C.C. can receive and grant renewals immediately from all Hams, there will have to be such a rule. Otherwise they would have to determine some time lag, say a week, and then tell you you have to calculate the number of days in ten years minus 1 week. Remember it will be different for many hams, because it depends on how many leap years there have been since you got your ticket, and whether you got your ticket before the leap day if you got the ticket during a leap year. Remember too that there's a 90 day limit in the other direction - if you send in a renewal too early (more than 90 days before expiration) they send it back. I'm not sure why that 90-day rule exists. For many years you could get a simultaneous renewal whenever you modified. I was a ham for a long time before I ever actually "renewed" because every upgrade and address change resulted in a renewed license too. Perhaps the vanity call system stopped the simultaneous renewals. Perhaps. What I would *really like* would be the ability to renew my license for say thirty years. That way I wouldn't have to worry about forgetting about it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote: What I would *really like* would be the ability to renew my license for say thirty years. That way I wouldn't have to worry about forgetting about it. Interesting concept - renew for your expected lifetime? IIRC, Japanese amateur radio operator licenses never expire, and Canadian amateur licenses expire when the licensee is 125 years old. Or something like that. In any event, their license terms are so long that they outlive the licensee. One problem with doing that sort of thing here is being able to reissue callsigns. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Phil Kane wrote: On 14 Jan 2005 06:15:16 -0800, wrote: IIRC, Japanese amateur radio operator licenses never expire, and Canadian amateur licenses expire when the licensee is 125 years old. Or something like that. In any event, their license terms are so long that they outlive the licensee. One problem with doing that sort of thing here is being able to reissue callsigns. What many Administrations do is to issue as lifetime operator license and a station license renewable by paying a fee and getting a validation sticker just like an auto license plate. The problem with that scheme is that you still have to remember to renew the thing, and it still takes admin work. In Japan, the station license needs to be renewed annually and costs 120 yen, last time I looked. There's an enormous difference between the number of JA operator and station licenses as a result. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com