FCC Seeks Comments on Petition to Grant Lifetime Amateur Radio Licenses

Anyone who thinks they deserve lifetime license is denied!
Those who don't think they deserve same are hearby granted.

So it goes.

 

Did you mean like BOHICA?

 

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Bohica is Native American.

 

FCC could always scan the SSA master death record. In the event of a match they should confirm first, since SSA is not always right and then cancel.

 

I have all his issues in pdf format, and have been working my way through them one at a time. I love the editorials and the homing in colum

 

there is you are supposed to notify the FCC when you change address and the ULS uses a FRC # when you log into your account.

 

I also have all the issues in PDF format. I have read them all, mainly to get the technology and built-it articles. As for Wayne's editorials, I might skim through them but mostly do not since, as I said, they were often too biting and abrasive for me. I wanted and still want to enjoy all phases of the hobby with which I may brush against and tend to avoid those that do not give me some degree of pleasure. There's enough in 73 Magazine to occupy one's time without reading every word. To some, the magazine was treated as a joke but to others, like me, the magazine was a treasure for experimenters and builders.

 

I just went to the FCC site and found that you have to log in to get information. If this is how it's done now, then it may well be a secure system. However, leave it to some roaming hero to break into the system as a challenge to see if it can be done. A PIN would still be cheap insurance and an additional step that would better guarantee that the data was kept safe.

 

The FCC does provide lifetime license grants based upon operator and technical skill which grants the person the license to operate and/or work on the radio equipment. Although if I am correct no callsign is associated with such licenses.

On the other hand are station licenses, to which callsigns are issued, granted on a lifetime or an indefinite bases?

I read something that pointed out how out of date callsigns are so perhaps calls should be eliminated too?

 

I am at a loss as to how it is determined how the Operator's license and the Station license are distinguished. Lawyers would want to see how the license was worded to see if there is any weasel room for misinterpretation or for cutting an angle this way or that. The important thing is frequently not what you know but what you don't know that really counts.

 

If any Ham gets their license pulled for being a bad Ham, then it is not because they were perpetuated by permanent licensing.

Living in Oregon, you need only register your car every two years and need to renew your drivers license every eight. Hooray for less bureaucracy! Like I need to waste time sitting in some dank building waiting for my number to be called. What is the point anyway if you know how to drive, have been driving for decades, and will continue to need to? Short of privilege revocation due to bad driving and/or intoxicated driving, let the license be continued. I see no reason why Ham licensing should be any different.

If a person is a Ham, they don't forget much about what they do. Like riding a bicycle, do you still really need a license for it? To collect revenues. As if we need more of that to pay for more gov't. Not!

All around fine thought to give a Ham a permanent license privilege until he changes it.
I'm for less bureaucracy and therefore less humbug.

 

This entire argument is based on a shaky premise. While there will always be arguments between hams over who's earned what, done what longer, who's really proven whatever, the argument for lifetime licenses seems to be predicated on the FCC's inability to keep up with the "paperwork" or deal with budgetary constraints. Attempting to solve a problem based on a federal agency's inability to cope or function is not the solution. If there are other reasons to license in perpetuity, then let those reasons flesh themselves out. But it shouldn't be done because a government entity is poorly administered.

Paid licensing? Sure- if the FCC starts running more effectively. Or privatize ham licensing and let ARRL handle it. The cost of the license could be in part the cost of a membership in ARRL. Further build an organization with pride and member accountability. Then, Hams would be accountable to Hams, rather than a government entity. Regulation is different than policing. But if enforcement by the Feds isn't happening, I'm sure plenty of Hams could track down offenders more quickly and efficiently anyway.

 

All the arguments for and against lifetime licensing are very well and good - but people seem to forget that the FCC is not the ultimate arbitrator here. The amateur bands are agreed upon by an international organization, the ITU, and there is the IARU to represent amateur interests to that organization. Ham radio is an international hobby and the regulations have to take into account the international restrictions and privileges because radio waves to not stop at the national borders. Just as countries have agreed to honor foreign drivers' licenses, there are agreements to recognize foreign ham licenses, either by granting temporary privileges or issuing a local call sign. Not everyone in the ULS data base has a US SSN, nor a physical address in the US. But going to lifetime licensing won't change any of that. It might have some impact on the vanity call sign business, and that's worth thinking through if that sort of thing makes a big difference to you. The other major issue I would see might be the ability of someone overseas to "harvest" a dead guy's license before it is cancelled (i.e. hack into the ULS and print off a copy of the license) to get a reciprocal CEPT license or call sign outside the US. But I'm not sure how much of a real threat that would pose.

 

Now, there's an idea! Use any fee to establish that the fee-payers are also automatic members of the ARRL. Then the ARRL could provide a "service" by representing all hams before the FCC. But, would this guarantee that the FCC would go after the goat-roper offenders of the ham bands, wantonly and intentionally? This could also be an element of such an established agreement, that this would put Ham Radio more into a bona fide "self-policing" profile. The rationale for this could be, not automatically "would be," accepted by the amateur community. However, it would also imply accepting that while the body of good hams would not be affected, those who are the "lawbreakers" — the ones that push the envelope way too far — would not be able any longer to interpret the Rules and Regulations (R&R) any old way they want. After a few were advised that their activity was indeed unacceptable and then if they scoffed at the advice and continued their undesirable/unethical/illegal activity, they were take to task over it, more respect for the R&R would be forthcoming. For me, such approach to cleaning up the ham bands would be worthwhile and acceptable. The "policing" could be a function of the ARRL, the "enforcing" could be a function of the FCC as it should be. A lot of the time and burden would be off the FCC, which they would love and appreciate, and any extra effort and time for the ARRL could be done by the SP (Self-Policing) unit which could be entirely made up of volunteers much like the VE situation.

I wonder if such a plan would be acceptable to the ARRL and the FCC...???