Date: Thu, 5 May 94 04:30:10 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 #193 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Thu, 5 May 94 Volume 94 : Issue 193 Today's Topics: New FCC amateur radio licenses (2 msgs) subscribe 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: Tue, 3 May 1994 14:50:42 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!ra!usenet@network.ucsd.edu Subject: New FCC amateur radio licenses To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu I've noticed that the recent amateur radio licenses come in two parts: the traditional wallet document, and one that can be framed to be hung in the shack. I was last issued a license in 1990 that was printed with an impact printer, and it's a little hard to read. It appears that the new licenses are laser printed. Question: Can I ask the FCC for the new license? I'd like to get the part you can frame. (Somehow I feel the answer is going to be `no.') -Dave -- David Drumheller, KA3QBQ phone: (202) 767-3524 Acoustics Division, Code 7140 fax: (202) 404-7732 Naval Research Laboratory Washington, DC 20375-5350 e-mail: drumhell@claudette.nrl.navy.mil ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 94 23:02:56 GMT From: yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!tedtrost@yale.arpa Subject: New FCC amateur radio licenses To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu >I was last issued a license in 1990 that was printed with an >impact printer, and it's a little hard to read. It appears that the new >licenses are laser printed. > Question: Can I ask the FCC for the new license? I'd like to get the >part you can frame. (Somehow I feel the answer is going to be `no.') Dave-- why not just try it? If it doesn't work, "lose" your existing one and get a new one. Ted Trost Internet: tedtrost@delphi.com Delphi: TEDTROST CompuServe: 71175,1043 Amateur radio station N1RDQ "I like beer. On occasion I will even drink a beer to celebrate a major event such as the fall of communism or the fact that our refrigerator is still working." --Dave Barry ------------------------------ Date: 5 May 94 02:43:00 GMT From: news-mail-gateway@ucsd.edu Subject: subscribe To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu subscribe ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 94 15:48:27 GMT From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!msuinfo!cravitma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , , Subject : Re: [News] FCC Gets New Weapon On Wed, 4 May 1994 14:03:30 GMT, strange alien beings caused Paul H. Bock (phb@syseng1.melpar.esys.com) to write: > BTW, does anyone know if there ARE legal requirements on > dealers? If so, what kind? As far as I can ascertain, at this point there are no dealer requirements of any kind. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure compliance with the laws, whatever they may be. /Matthew -- Matthew Cravit, N9VWG | All opinions expressed here are Michigan State University | my own. I don't speak for MSU E-Mail: cravitma@cps.msu.ed | and they don't speak for me. PGP public key available from http://web.cps.msu.edu/~cravitma ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 94 14:03:30 GMT From: newsgate.melpar.esys.com!melpar!phb@uunet.uu.net To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , , Subject : Re: [News] FCC Gets New Weapon ddtodd@ucdavis.edu (Daniel D. Todd) writes: >>the radio salesman. Maybe there should also be a penalty for the sales- >>man/dealer who doesn't *actively* inform his customers of the rules... >I think it is wrong (if even possible) to punish based on intentions. If there Well, let's look at it a different way. A *licensed* ham is REQUIRED to know the rules and regulations. If he violates them, it is de facto a *with malice aforethought* violation; he/she cannot say, "Well, gee, FCC, I didn't know about THAT rule!" Sort of analogous to speeding in a car ("Gee, officer, I didn't know what the speed limit was..."). Similarly, a dealer in two-way radio equipment should know what he is selling, and what licensing requirements there are. He has a *moral* responsibility to society to help prevent bedlam on the airwaves by not selling equipment to folks without informing them of the licensing requirements; whether or not he is *legally* required to do so may be another matter. Of course, he can't be prosecuted if he isn't legally bound. He also isn't responible if he informs the buyer of the licensing requirements and they ignore it; then the burden of guilt is on them. They were informed, they chose to ignore the requirements. However, the innocent person who has never had any kind of radio license, commercial or amateur, and knows nothing about radio licensing requirements (about 95+% of the population, probably), is at least a partial victim if (a) he buys transmitting equipment and is not informed by the dealer that he needs a license, AND (b) there is no documentation with the radio which tells him he needs a license. He's still guilty of breaking the law, but in a sense he's been victimized. Maybe it would never happen; maybe all the documentation supplied does say "You need a license." But, in my mind, a *responsible* dealer would WARN the buyer at the time of sale, and perhaps have available the blank application forms and even offer to assist the buyer in filling them out. I'm not out to get dealers, or see them prosecuted; I'd just like to see the public be properly informed of the rules before they buy. Then if they transgress, it's their neck. BTW, does anyone know if there ARE legal requirements on dealers? If so, what kind? ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #193 ******************************