QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/policy/940180.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 11.7 KB

Date: Fri, 22 Apr 94 04:30:07 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #180
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri, 22 Apr 94       Volume 94 : Issue  180

Today's Topics:
                "NOCODE" Tech to "TechPLUS" upgrading
                     /AA? (I'm confused) (4 msgs)
                  Illinois anti scanner legislation

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

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: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 07:59:37 +0000
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!demon!g8sjp.demon.co.uk![e-mail]
Subject: "NOCODE" Tech to "TechPLUS" upgrading
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] "kevin jessup" writes:

> When a "codeless" tech "upgrades" to TECH plus 5WPM code, he simply
> gets a CSCE for the 5WPM.  No forms get sent to the FCC.  At least
> not when I upgraded.  I was told to just save the form in case
> someone asked to see it.

Umm ... The '610 which you filled out as your application to be tested should
end up at the FCC (via the VEC). The CSCE is for you to keep, cherish, and
guard with your life, since it's the only proof *you* have of HF privs.

> Also, when I received my license (March of 1993) there was no
> indication other than TECHNICIAN with PRIMARY privileges.  (Will
> this change for future technicians?)

As I understand it, that's the way it is. No differentiation on the license
between Technician and Technician w/HF.

> So...what is to prevent a codeless tech from operating 10 meter
> SSB?  Who would know that he did NOT upgrade??  Does anybody
> really care? ;-))

Same thing that prevents a Novice from operating on 10M SSB. You hear 'Novice'
calls there all the time, right? As is being discussed in other threads
elsewhere, you can no longer tell a license class by the format of the call.

--
Iain Philipps
N2TLY (if I could find my license, I'd be able to tell you the class :-)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 14:37:37 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!cupnews0.cup.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: /AA? (I'm confused)
To: [e-mail]

Jerry Dallal ([e-mail]) wrote:
:             I  confuse easily.   Would someone straighen me out  about
:         this?

:             Suppose  a technician upgrades to advanced.   Part 97.9(b)
:         says  that  advanced  privileges can be used as  long  as  the
:         individual has a CSCE.    97.119(e)  says that a modifier must
:         be used after the call sign.  In this case it would be /AA.

:             My  confusion  arises becase the FCC does  not  require  a
:         change of call signs.  Does this mean that if N0NNN were to go
:         from Technician  to  Advanced without requesting a  change  in
:         call sign,  (s)he would be required to use  N0NNN/AA while the
:         upgrade  was  being processed but could go back to  plain  old
:         N0NNN once the new license was received!!!???

:             Thanks.

Yes. During the interim period the FCC database does not show the correct
license class, hence the need for the /AA.  Once the license is issued
the database is correct and hence, no need for the /AA.

Jim

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 94 13:33:44 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: /AA? (I'm confused)
To: [e-mail]

>            My  confusion  arises becase the FCC does  not  require  a
>        change of call signs.  Does this mean that if N0NNN were to go
>        from Technician  to  Advanced without requesting a  change  in
>        call sign,  (s)he would be required to use  N0NNN/AA while the
>        upgrade  was  being processed but could go back to  plain  old
>        N0NNN once the new license was received!!!???

yes, that's right.

the /xx is to show you have something in work to the world and that explains
why someone that's got a novice license in the callbook (or the FCC's
database) is on 14.003 running CW if they sign xx#xxx/AE. the point of this
is to allow licensed operators to enjoy their new privileges the day they
pass the test.

once you receive the official license, you drop the upgrade identifier.

some of us are happy that we aren't required to change calls.  the call sign
groups are for merely having a system for assigning the different format calls
(and when the "vanity call" rules come about, you could still get something
that could be out of joint relative to what license you really hold..)

bill wb9ivr

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 94 19:45:41 GMT
From: koriel!newsworthy.West.Sun.COM!abyss.West.Sun.COM!spot![e-mail]
Subject: /AA? (I'm confused)
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Jim Hollenback) writes:
>Jerry Dallal ([e-mail]) wrote:
>:             I  confuse easily.   Would someone straighen me out  about
>:         this?
>
>:             Suppose  a technician upgrades to advanced.   Part 97.9(b)
>:         says  that  advanced  privileges can be used as  long  as  the
>:         individual has a CSCE.    97.119(e)  says that a modifier must
>:         be used after the call sign.  In this case it would be /AA.
>
>:             My  confusion  arises becase the FCC does  not  require  a
>:         change of call signs.  Does this mean that if N0NNN were to go
>:         from Technician  to  Advanced without requesting a  change  in
>:         call sign,  (s)he would be required to use  N0NNN/AA while the
>:         upgrade  was  being processed but could go back to  plain  old
>:         N0NNN once the new license was received!!!???
>
>:             Thanks.
>
>Yes. During the interim period the FCC database does not show the correct
>license class, hence the need for the /AA.  Once the license is issued
>the database is correct and hence, no need for the /AA.
>
>Jim
>

I don't have my copy of Part 97 here, but I believe the /AA identifier must
be used when using privileges authorized by the CSCE. In other words, if N0NNN
is a Technician, and upgrades to Advanced, he/she would use /AA on HF frequencies
other than those afforded by the 5WPM CSCE (i.e. Tech+), and he/she would not
use the /AA identifier on frequencies his Technician license allowed.

---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * This Extra supports the abolition of the 13 and 20 WPM tests *

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 16:54:13 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!csn!col.hp.com!fc.hp.com![e-mail]
Subject: /AA? (I'm confused)
To: [e-mail]

> :             My  confusion  arises becase the FCC does  not  require  a
> :         change of call signs.  Does this mean that if N0NNN were to go
> :         from Technician  to  Advanced without requesting a  change  in
> :         call sign,  (s)he would be required to use  N0NNN/AA while the
> :         upgrade  was  being processed but could go back to  plain  old
> :         N0NNN once the new license was received!!!???

Yes, but the /AA is only needed when you're using frequencies reserved for
Advanced class and above only. If you're a Technician and upgrade, you don't
need to use /AA when operating in the bands you had access to when you were
a Technician class licensee.

John Schmidt, NK0R
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 14:33:54 GMT
From: news.bu.edu!att-in!att-out!walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com![e-mail]
Subject: Illinois anti scanner legislation
To: [e-mail]

>: >FLASH - IMPORTANT - ACT NOW...
>: >
>: >HOUSE BILL 4180 - 88TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
>: >STATE OF ILLINOIS  1993 AND 1994
>: >
>: >INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE CROSS ON 12 APRIL 1994
>: >
>: >SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED   720 ILCS 5/31-9 NEW
>: >
>: >LRB8814416RCMB  Sec.31-9
>: >
>: >Amends the Criminal code of 1961. Prohibits the possession of a
>: >receiver or transceiver capable of monitoring or broadcasting
>: >police, fire, or other municipal radio frequencies unless the
>: >device operates exclusively on alternating current power. Penalty
>: >is a Class B misdemeanor. Exempts peace officers, fire officials,
>: >municipal employees, agents acting in an official capacity, and
>: >the press.

ATTENTION!!!!

Note the impact of this proposed law is far beyond any existing
"scanner" law found in other states.  This proposed law makes
POSSESSION ANYWHERE a crime.  If this law is passed, everyone
in Illinois that currently owns a DC powered scanner will be
technically required to dispose of them or be in violation of
the law.  Likewise, anyone driving through or otherwise visiting
the state of Illinois and has in his/her possession a DC
powered scanner will be in violation of the law.

Under this proposed law, if you have a mobile scanner or a portable
in the trunk of your car, in your home, etc. you are violating
the law.

As to the exemptions, isn't it nice to know that as citizens, you are
afforded less rights than members of the press.

If the state of Illinois passes this law, watch for it to be
emulated in other states.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 03:02:27 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2p1el9$[e-mail]>, <2p3egi$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Illinois anti scanner legislation

One could use an inverter (to generate a 110 VAC
square wave from 12 VDC) to power an AC scanner
in the car.  Tripp Lite, based in Chicago, makes
inverters.  Hmm...maybe they know someone in the
Illinois legislature...c'mon now...

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 94 23:25:39 GMT
From: ncd.com!newshost.ncd.com!sheridan.ncd.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <2p1el9$[e-mail]>, <2p3egi$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Illinois anti scanner legislation

I understand everyone's concern... but last I heard is that there is a full
federal pre-emption by FCC concerning this sort of thing for amateurs
I suspect that it would be difficult to convince the cop on the beat
that you are within your rights...and it might even take a court case
to get it beaten into the state's head that the exemption exists... but it
should be sufficient.

Am I wrong about this?  And I would think that pointing out the exemption
would certainly get the state to add amateurs to the list.

Any comments?

Steve KA6S

------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #180
******************************