Sorry, Glen

[W3WN]

Sorry Glen, but as per today's FCC Digest, your request for modifying Part 97 vis a vis Station ID has been shot down.

Again.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...A-12-795A1.pdf

Ah, and maybe it's just me, but I don't think they're looking too kindly on your constantly requesting this.

Your latest petition sets forth no new facts or changed circumstances warranting further consideration of the proposal. The current petition, therefore, is repetitive.

[N2RJ]

Wow, it took them how long?

I wonder when they're going to act on his other petition, re 4 meters.

[W3WN]

Wow, it took them how long?

I wonder when they're going to act on his other petition, re 4 meters.

This one was filed 17 October 2011. So that took them about 7 months plus to decide not to bother with that. (Actually, that's pretty fast for a government bureaucracy)

The original petition referenced was filed in May 2006.

Don't recall seeing anything about the 4 meter petition.

[WB2WIK]

Sorry Glen, but as per today's FCC Digest, your request for modifying Part 97 vis a vis Station ID has been shot down.

Again.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...A-12-795A1.pdf

Ah, and maybe it's just me, but I don't think they're looking too kindly on your constantly requesting this.

They also don't read well.

I've corresponded with FCC staffers many times via e-mail (recently) and if I ask three questions and they answer one, completely ignoring the other two, they think they're done.

I literally always must remind them to re-read the initial inquiry. Then, sometimes I'll get a reply answering one of the other questions, ignoring the remaining one. Maybe.

I pointed out an inconsistency in Part 97 relating to Part 2 and wanted a clarification. Their response was babble and didn't clarify the inconsistency.

I think they really just don't want to be bothered, or maybe just have poor reading comprehension or a poor understanding of the regulations to begin with.

Probably best to just do whatever we wish and leave them alone.

[K9ASE]

Ouch! they weren't very nice. Too bad they aren't so thorough with 6m baby monitor interference.

[KT1F]

...-.- ..

..

[K9STH]

Unfortunately, the FCC keeps ignoring the fact that the majority, probably the vast majority, of operators working DX and contests routinely violate the identification rule by NOT giving their call during the last transmission. Reinstating the "3-minute rule" giving the option of identifying during the first transmission would make what is common practice legal.

What people seemed to object to in my first proposal was making identification during the first transmission mandatory as was the requirement for decades in the past. The petition that was denied would make identification during the first transmission optional. However, if such an identification were made during the first transmission then the need to identify at the end of the "communication" would be eliminated if the entire exchange lasted for less than 3-minutes.

The identification of the station is virtually always made during the first transmission when operators are involved in working the DX for the simple reason that the call sign is given just trying to be recognized by the DX (or contest) station. But, under present regulations the call sign MUST be given at the end of the "communication". It is this identification that is routinely eliminated which is in direct violation of 47 CFR Part 97. All that I am trying to do is to get what is now illegal, but very common practice, legalized.

Of course, the FCC no longer adequately polices the Amateur Radio Service and expects the Service to be "self policing". However, how many operators are going to "call" a station for not properly identifying? Very few! By reinstating the "3-minute rule" and making identification during the first transmission optional, this technical violation would be eliminated. I guess that the FCC doesn't want to expend the effort to add a single sentence to 47 CFR Part 97 even though doing so would eliminate a lot of technical violations.

As far as submitting petitions for rule-making goes, I have every right to submit these petitions no matter what! Many amateur radio operators gripe about all sorts of things. Unfortunately, virtually no one is willing to put forth the effort to get the rules changed. If a petition is rejected, then so be it. If the FCC is "put out" by the fact that I submit a petition, then so be it. However, it is the right of any citizen of the United States to petition the Federal Government for any number of reasons and the Federal agency has to take notice of these petitions, like it or not!

I don't know exactly when I might again submit a petition to reinstate the "3-minute" rule. But, since it is my right under the Constitution of the United States of America to submit petitions, at a later date I may try again!

As for the 4-meter petition, I have heard absolutely nothing from the FCC. I really don't think it has a chance. But, there are a lot of operators in the United States that would like the opportunity to utilize that band and who encouraged me to submit the petition.

The only cost for submitting a petition is for printing the necessary number of copies and for the envelope and postage. That means only a few dollars. If someone feels strongly about a situation then that person should be willing to take the time to attempt to get something done. Otherwise, everything is just rhetoric.

Glen, K9STH

[KY5U]

I'm on your side Glen. It can only help the DX world.

[WM3O]

can you point to the section in Part 97 that says "last transmission"

[KC9LGW]

can you point to the section in Part 97 that says "last transmission"

Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication...