FCC Seeks Comments on Petition to Grant Lifetime Amateur Radio Licenses

The vanity rules don't allow applications until the callsign has expired AND its been 2 years, whether or not they are deceased.

That's how I got mine.

 

No code anymore, no true enforcement of the rules anymore, no paper licenses anymore, and reduction of field personnel.

What exactly does the FCC do these days?

Maybe it would be better just to do away with the FCC and save the taxpayers a lot of money. I don't see how it could hurt ham radio any further than what has/is happening to us slowly over time.

 

Oh dear, here comes the code/no-code argument again...

 

I'd like to see the lifetime license combined with a 'petition to revoke' clause - i.e. if enough other licensed amateurs complain about a certain operator (the exact number TBD), then that license would revoked by the FCC. That'd put some teeth in the 'self policing' concept we are supposed to be working under.
I agree with previous posts that keeping the address current could be a significant issue.

 

Nope.... no argument..... just a proficiency certification

 

Since we've pretty much continue to refer to ourselves as a hoard of hobbyist's instead of the once proud and quite professional like Amateur Radio Service and leaving in the vast debris field of what the Amateur Radio Service ONCE REPRESENTED to this country AND it's government, is there any wonder why this is of consideration?

STAMP IT fellow "hobbyists!" It's a DONE DEAL! No further discussion necessary!

 

Aren't that an oxymoron?

 

We have to at least agree--what is the goal here and are we adequately meeting that goal. Are we trying to purge the rolls? Are we trying to ensure people keep up their proficiency? Incentives to upgrading?

Redo the test system: 2 classes--a tech merged with a general, and an extra stand-alone test. Upgrade novices automatically to technicians--and drop advanced down to the lower class. Give the lower licensees some of the general class privileges--but not all of them. Expand Extra-only segments greatly. and allow extras do do experimental stuff with just a notice to the FCC (giving them 60 days to provide guidance or restrictions), without the heavy fees. This encourages upgrading and it technological development.

Make the Extra applicant show a verified log prior to the test of at least something like 300+ QSOs spread out in at least a couple of different modes (CW being optional), to demonstrate they actually utilize their license and have at least some proficiency. I passed the general and extra exams with about NO proficiency. That ain't right. Then I got a vanity call by winning the lottery--that ain't right either. Grant vanity callsigns on a points-basis, not the lottery. I think a heavy DX/contester should have priority over newbies for them. Maybe add a couple of additional prefixes, and require a fee to grant the vanity callsign. Use the fee money for additional enforcement.

Require submission of at least 100+ QSOs every 10 years to renew the license.

This would meet some's desires to purge the rolls, while keeping up operator proficiency and providing incentives to upgrade. I don't remember ever having to pay for renewals--so a 10 year renewal seems fine with me. Too lazy to mail it in, then you're probably too lazy to turn on the rig. A non-operating ham doesn't do any harm to the rest of us--so not sure why we'd want to kick them off unless we want to enforce proficiency. But why make it quasi-automatic? Use or lose it I say. We can just keep mailing it in, but there's no keeping up of skills. We're going to lose bands if they don't get better utilized!

No sense it just memorizing the question pool and having no proficiency for the Extra exam (hey wait, that's what I did...).

 

I've read the enforcement actions--wow the FCC is milquetoast on this. What does it take for an outright revocation these days!?

 

What's the difference? I use Fldigi to decode CW while I'm still learning it At least I've made a few CW contacts that way.

 

AE2S has valid points, so keep those in mind when considering changes to AR. Being an OT I'd like to see the code brought back. Why? Look/listen to the bands? Sounds more like CB everyday. Not saying everyone who is 'no code' is responsible for this but you have to admit that since the code was dropped the bands, and AR in general, have deteriorated. As for renewal of licenses - going to a lifetime license would be convenient for all but it also opens the door for more abuse. In 1970 I got my First Class Commercial License. Shortly thereafter the FCC changed the rules and made it virtually a useless document, then they decided to issue it for 'life'... a useless license with no expiration date. Do we need that in AR? With AR being covered with digital crap signals that invade CW and SSB portions of the bands and with CB type ops playing music and taking up space in the land of a thousand nets what good is AR? So, the question is: how does having renewable licenses help AR? Renewal reaffirms interests. It also reminds us to stay abreast of changes in the R & Regs. It also allows the FCC to control a licensee without necessarily going to court (an expensive, time demanding process). Those are reasons enough to keep 'renewing' licenses. Personally, I'd like to see the return of renewing to 5 years vs 10 years.

 

We already have a ULS number which is connected to our SSN. Not a problem for FCC main frame to see when we kick off. Renewal is a hassle for the countless who do not own a computer. I recently got one for business purposes, but you can probably tell, I'm not that good with it. Still, and will continue, to use paper logging. Lifetime license should be fine.

 

In the comments I submitted to the FCC, I basically indicated I'm OK with the principle, but I think they need to consider whether SK's, folks who move without changing their address, and the loss of withholding renewal as an enforcement tool would cost more than any savings that might be realized from ending the need to renew every 10 years.