Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 04:30:09 PDT From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #171 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Thu, 14 Apr 94 Volume 94 : Issue 171 Today's Topics: ARRL rpt on preferred calls (2 msgs) LICENSING DELAYS (6 msgs) NEW RIG, BEGINNER Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Apr 94 19:14:21 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!srgenprp!alanb@hplabs.hp.com Subject: ARRL rpt on preferred calls To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu prvalko (prvalko@vela.acs.oakland.edu) wrote: : Naturally, coming from Newington (in the 1 district) I would expect this : from their committee. 1 area and 0 area calls are the most desireable : as the most easily spell english language words. For example : ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 12:57:52 GMT From: world!drt@uunet.uu.net Subject: ARRL rpt on preferred calls To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu prvalko (prvalko@vela.acs.oakland.edu) wrote: : Well, it sounds fairly reasonable I'd agree. : except for one clause, that being (of : course) the stipulation that calls be limited to the current call : district. : Naturally, coming from Newington (in the 1 district) I would expect this : from their committee. Huh? Did you look at the calls of the members of the committee? Or their current addresses? None has a 1 or 0 call, or lives in 1 or 0 land. : 1 area and 0 area calls are the most desireable : as the most easily spell english language words. For example : : N1CE, W1SE, WH0A, N0CALL, WH0OPS and W1NS all come to mind as rather : interesting and fun calls. Sorry, I'm going to agree with them on this one. I don't think the FCC should *make* you change your callsign when you're in a new district, but if that's where you are and you want a new call, you should get one that reflects your location, IMO. If that means not everyone can have K1SS, that's OK with me. (The biggest equity problem with this that I see is uneven population growth in the various districts.) : If the poor folks stuck in 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,and 9 had a chance at these : calls, they would be gone in a flash! A more substantial objection (read "the one I care about more") is that it looks, the way it's written, as though any club or repeater group with a single Extra member is going to be able to get a Group A callsign at the same time as any Extra-class individual. If so, these are *really* going to be gone in a flash, and since clubs are somewhat less mortal than people, the calls they snap up will be off the market more or less permanently. I don't really know how to fix this, since contesting clubs certainly should have shorter calls. But surely not every repeater club or general purpose club needs one? Most clubs should probably get 2x3s, but I have no idea how to implement this objectively. Perhaps clubs should have last preference (or "gate"), individuals should have first crack at vacated calls, and perhaps preferred calls should be restriced to clubs that have been in existance for more than x years. Other than that, I think the report is pretty good, too. -drt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |David R. Tucker KG2S 8P9CL drt@world.std.com| ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 94 12:52:08 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: LICENSING DELAYS To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu >weeks. But 12 weeks is absolutely assinine. I understand that there are >4 people in Gettysberg working on 610 apps. No they probably cant handle >the influx of requests. the fcc didn't believe there'd be something like 4,000 to 6,000 applications per month either. i received a message from a gent on compuserve that claimed in his experience in handling form 610s for a VEC's operation that 1 in 12 had something illegible with them. I can believe it -- we have people fill out 610s and put "M. I." for their "city". Sure everyone should know about Merritt Island - we sent men to the moon from there - but it's a bit much to expect folks outside of the Brevard County, FL, area to be familar with our geography... >#1 Lets cut the beaurocratic excuses and get this mess cleaned up. in work. things are getting set up for electronic data interchange between the VECs and the FCC. You can't just "ad hoc" this together since it's desired to be a long term solution that can be supported by both ends of the chain. >#2 Lets get our public servants organized so that they can do their > jobs effeciantly for the nation. in work. probably would help if people didn't call 'em to find out if their license was issued this morning/afternoon/etc. >Where is our ARRL ???? What are our ARRL lawers in washington doing? >Again we dont want to hear all the reasons and excuses! lets get something >done! NOW! the VEC is working with the FCC for the EDI project. It's sad that you think throwing lawyers at the problem will solve it. All that will do is cost lots of money and be counterproductive. The FCC thinks we hams adore and respect them and that's worth something to us when it comes to getting rules changed and adopted. We don't want them thinking of us as a Pain In The Arse for no good reason. > I once had a commanding officer in the navy tell his junior officers; >Don't bring me problems, damn it, bring me solutions! This is so the CO can blame someone else when the JO takes initiative and it backfires. >Solution # 1 I don't know if the government can exactly do this without an Act of Congress. For John Q. Public, it's not a problem since there's only about 700K out of 250M people affected. >Solution # 2 In work. Recommend perusing the last 3-4 years of most of the general interest ham mags and newsletters and archives for this list and you'll find it's something everyone would have done sooner if funding was approved and people were given time to work on it. that's finally happened recently and it should be coming to bear on the problems this year. >34 years. But I do have a group of Boy Scouts who have worked sence last >Oct. to pass their exams in Feb. and are still waiting like I'm sure well -- patience. Unless the dam breaks, they should get licensed around the week of May 16th. (take the day they took the test and add 12 weeks.) They can always start working on the next exam material or code or start setting up a station in the 3 months it's taking to turn over a license. Get 'em building some 1/4 wave ground planes and get 'em stuck up on the houses so they'll be able to work some folks on 2m w/o the need for a repeater and will be able to hit the repeater better because they have an outside antenna. Do some dummy net practice at the next troop meeting (assign everyone a dummy call and let them practice making contacts and such). Do some 3rd party participation and let them get air time that way. Sure you've been doing all this in the last months but now it's really going to mean something since you now have them over the first hill. bill wb9ivr (took about 8-10 weeks for my license in 1972...November 71 to January 72..was a tough christmas with the HF radio in the old garage...and no license to use it.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 14:07:32 GMT From: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10!jsherman@uunet.uu.net Subject: LICENSING DELAYS To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu My fiancee called the FCC and was told 14-16 weeks for her license???? She took her test the first week of February! ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 1994 15:50:00 GMT From: nothing.ucsd.edu!brian@network.ucsd.edu Subject: LICENSING DELAYS To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu If the delays and understaffing at the FCC Amateur licence processing center bother you so much, why not volunteer to help them one day a week? Ditto the ARRL VEC. Just a few people doing this would clear the backlog in a short time. What have you done for your hobby lately? - Brian ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 94 21:03:29 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: Licensing Delays To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In response to the 'comment' on licensing delays and the possible role of the ARRL in reducing those delays. Under discusion is a proposal to permit electronic filing from the VE/VEC to the FCC. In one possible implementation this would eliminate the key-in time at Gettysburg which seems to be one of the major components in the time of the total cycle to issue a license. Naturally this will require coordination among the various VEC's and the FCC. It is my understanding that the ARRL VEC is prepared to move virtually immediately. When the FCC is ready and the other VEC's are also ready (those who are interested in such a program-- and several are interested), I would expect it to be implemented. The FCC, however, is the final authority in just what can happen and when it can happen. It is indeed a shame that the period to get one's license has grown from the 6-7 weeks it took in 1953 when I got my license to the 9-11 weeks it sometimes takes today. Moreover, in the "olden days" that wait gave us time to assemble a station; today a quick trip to the store permits the station components to be acquired and I expect heightens the frustration at the delay. Tod Olson, K0TO ARRL Director, Dakota Division +---------------------------+----------------------------------+ | Tod Olson, K0TO | E-Mail tao@maroon.tc.umn.edu | | | MCI address 246-8130 | | | Voice 1-612-473-6478 | | | 292 Heather Lane | FAX 1-612-473-7474 | | Long Lake, MN 55356-9439 | "There are no solutions, just | | | different sets of problems!" | +--------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 15:01:16 GMT From: pacbell.com!amdahl!netcomsv!netcom.com!billcorn@ames.arpa Subject: LICENSING DELAYS To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu EE DEPT NOVELL SUPERVISOR (supervisor@rose-hulman.edu) wrote: : I understand that there are 4 people in Gettysberg working on 610 apps. I am waitting 60 days for a back order on the 610 formes themselves. So I guess if you can't get the forms, you can't clog up the system!!!! Bill Cornutt WB6YWI -- ----------------------------------------------------- When I awake in the morning, I get out of bed. billcorn@netcom.com ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 14 Apr 94 05:11:00 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.uh.edu!rosie.uh.edu!st3qi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Subject: LICENSING DELAYS To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article , supervisor@rose-hulman.edu (EE DEPT NOVELL SUPERVISOR) writes... > Im just getting into this medium, and this is the first day I have >checked into this "net", so mabe this has all been hashed out and the FCC >will begin May first with getting licenses back to our new hams in two >weeks. But 12 weeks is absolutely assinine. I understand that there are >4 people in Gettysberg working on 610 apps. No they probably cant handle >the influx of requests. >#1 Lets cut the beaurocratic excuses and get this mess cleaned up. >#2 Lets get our public servants organized so that they can do their > jobs effeciantly for the nation. > >Where is our ARRL ???? What are our ARRL lawers in washington doing? >Again we dont want to hear all the reasons and excuses! lets get something >done! NOW! > > I once had a commanding officer in the navy tell his junior officers; >Don't bring me problems, damn it, bring me solutions! > >Solution # 1 > ARRL go to washimgton to the FCC and TELL them that the league will >cordinate the volenteers from the amateur fraternity to come to Gettsyberg >and provide the labor to get them up to date. No excuses accepted. >If they will not accept our help, then the league should sue the FCC in court >to accept the help and start a national public awareness campaine to expose >this mess. > >Solution # 2 > Offer, at no cost to the government, to study the processing >procedures and come up with a list of solutions to make them more >effeciant. > > > No I'm not waiting myself for a license. I've held mine for >34 years. But I do have a group of Boy Scouts who have worked sence last >Oct. to pass their exams in Feb. and are still waiting like I'm sure >hundreds, thousands of others are for their first ticket. I think MY >league should be doing something, NOW! > >Dave Gahimer >K9ZCE I guess you've been living on Mars lately, because if you would read the newsletters that are being published you would realize that the FCC is in the middle of a major computer upgrade. They are sh!t canning their main frame and going online with a PC-LAN system. So, give the FCC a little slack. They're going to make things alot faster and easier shortly, but we have to give them some time to put the new computers in. The 610 turn-around time is going to be slow until they get their new system in. Take a chill pill!! But, to properly respond to your post... if you want to REALLY make changes to the FCC, get Uncle Billy to appoint you as the Director of the FCC and then you can MAYBE make some changes. At least you'll have some fancy letter head. -Brad Killebrew N5LJV -st3qi@jetson.uh.edu -President, Univ of Houston ARC ------------------------------ Date: 13 Apr 94 13:06:47 -0500 From: yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.tufts.edu!news.hnrc.tufts.edu!jerry@yale.arpa Subject: NEW RIG, BEGINNER To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article <1994Apr9.034133.13269@intercom.com>, allanwng@intercom.com (Allan W. Ng) writes: > All: I am considering buying the Radio Shack 2 meter hand held during the > sale this month. If I do get it how do I test it out to make sure that > it works okay, other than talking through it? If you can't talk through it because you don't have your ticket, allow someone who's licensed to test it for you! ------------------------------ Date: (null) From: (null) >Committee Members: >Mr. Steve Mendelsohn, WA2DHF, Chairman >Mr. Frank Butler, W4RH >Mr. Tom Comstock, N5TC >Mr. John Kanode, N4MM >Mr. Brad Wyatt, K6WR Not too many 1's and 0's on the committee! Funny how people always jump to attribute the worst possible motives to the ARRL. Actually the big advantage of the 1 district is that there are many more available calls to choose from (because of fewer hams). I was lucky enough to live in Conn. the last time preferred calls were available. (1975? or thereabouts) AL N1AL ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #171 ******************************