|
|
FCC Vanity Call Sign SNAFU - RF Cafe Forums
|
Kirt Blattenberger |
|
Post subject: FCC Vanity Call Sign SNAFU
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:30 pm
|
|
|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm Posts: 712 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings: After waiting way too long, I finally earned my Amateur Radio Operator license (KB3UON).
So, then I decided to apply for a vanity call sign. I went to the FCC's Universal License System (ULS)
website and dutifully filled in the form. I got all the way to the part where the data is submitted, and
then a screen appeared asking for payment (which I expected), but suddenly I realized there were a couple
call sign options I had not listed and decided to back out and start over. No problem, I though,
since the page explicitly stated that no request submissions would be process without accompanying payment.
So, I started over and submitted the form with the additional vanity call sign options, then completed
the credit card payment screen. All seemed well. Silly me, I forgot that it was a Government entity.
About two weeks later I received in the mail a letter stating that my application had been rejected
because it was a duplicate filing (see below). The following day I received another letter stating
that the application was rejected because payment was not received within the required timeframe (see
lower image). The nebulous explanation was useless, so I contacted the FCC. They told me that the
application that I had paid for was rejected because it was received during the time the first was waiting
for payment, so that made it a duplicate application. The first one expired for non-payment and was also
rejected. The FCC happily kept my $13.40 filing fee. That will help to guarantee that the average
Federal employee's salary ($108,476 in 2008 inc'l benefits) is well above the average private industry
employee's salary ($69,928 in 2008 inc'l benefits). Source:
USA Today
3/8/2010. Given that the information screen I received explicitly stated that the first would not
be processed without accompanying payment, I confidently submitted the second form that also included
payment. I exhorted them to consider how a competent bureaucracy would have considered the circumstances
and acted accordingly. I requested that they process my application or refund my filing fee. It has been
three weeks now, and still no word. I am really looking forward to having my health care handled
by the Fed as well.
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
|
|
|
wb9jtk |
Post subject: Re: FCC Vanity Call Sign SNAFU
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:15 am
|
|
|
General |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:39 pm Posts: 58 |
I try to be optimistic as often as possible; so I will try to look at your un-rare experience positively.
You 'lost' $13.40 plus your time. In the early 70's when I got licensed, we had to take a train
into Chicago (take day off of work or school) and paid about $15 as I remember. This first part of the
test was receiving morse code. If you did not pass that, you did not even get a chance to take the written
test 'as practice'. Keep us informed how it all works out for you in the 'long run'. 73
|
|
|
|
|
Kirt Blattenberger
|
Post subject: Re: FCC Vanity Call Sign SNAFU
Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:56 am
|
|
|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm Posts: 712 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings wb9jtk: Yeah, it certainly was more difficult in the days of yore. I just wrote to another
guy, my unofficial website proof reader, who also earned his license many moons ago. He probably won't
mind my posting the same thing here: *******************Having
earned an Extra license in the pre-code days is certainly an accomplishment to be proud of. As with so
many other aspects of life, the requirements have had to be dumbed down in order to attract participants.
To some extent I can see the claimed need to make the hobby more accessible, especially given that the
primary reason for the ARRL, if you believe their claim, is to provide a ready cadre of able radio operators
to respond in times of crisis. The advent of relatively inexpensive, high performance radios negates
the need to even really know much about electronics, but what the hey, I tossed my mother's old IBM Selectric
typewriter years ago once the 286-powered Packard Bell computer and a dot matrix printer was affordable.
I doubt many sexagenarian surgeons look down on 30-something surgeons because they did not have to perform
exploratory surgery on patients to discover what a good CAT scan or MRI can reveal with no risk or discomfort
to the patient. The same kind of attitude exists to some degree in the model airplane hobby, where
old-timers hate the RTF (ready-to-fly) models because their owners never learn about aircraft structures
or aerodynamics. Somehow that makes them lesser hobbyists. An honest assessment of the result of those
RTF models is that the actual flying skill levels of the average modeler has gone way up because more
time is devoted to flying than to building. Maybe the same can be said for Ham radio operators.
I'll be getting study materials for the General class soon, then, hopefully, on to Extra. *******************
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
|
|
|
wb9jtk |
Post subject: Re: FCC Vanity Call Sign SNAFU
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:31 pm
|
|
|
General |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:39 pm Posts: 58 |
I hope no one interpreted my post as 'looking down' on anyone. I was trying to illustrate that things
have gotten easier. Thirty years ago you HAD to know what the buffer drive level pot did and why
you had to tune the oscillator multiplier correctly. You HAD to know what neutralization was, you HAD
to know what "dip the plate current" meant. Today, there is absolutely no NEED to know those things; those
adjustments do not even exist (except on 'antiques' and high-power amplifiers). The things not
on the test (and should not be in my opinion) are how to use the computer for advanced modes - PSK31,
WSJT, and others that use the computer for digital signal processing. As long as the operator understands
over-modulation, modulation bandwidths and stuff, the signal will be clean enough to comply - even if
the software crashes. And I suppose I will comment on dropping the morse code proficiency test
(I operate mostly CW). It was time for it to go away. When I started, I could not afford
a radio that used any mode other than CW. Now, a really nice radio that is capable of most modes of transmission
is within the price of a high-school-student-mowing-lawns budget. If they understand why it takes
316,000 watt erp to send NTSC 100 miles and only 0.5 W to communicate with CW for 10,000 miles, it will
help them make choices as to the most appropriate emissions for the desired communications situation.
I wonder what we'll be talking about in another 30 years?
|
|
|
|
|
Kirt Blattenberger
|
Post subject: Re: FCC Vanity Call Sign SNAFU
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:41 am
|
|
|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm Posts: 712 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings Alan: Your post definitely did NOT have a condescending tone, but I have read letters
in QST and online forums where some of the old guard resents the dropping of the Morse Code requirement.
It was considered a filtering out mechanism for the unworthy. To some extent, I have to admit to having
that same attitude, even though I ultimately benefitted from the new rules. The ARRL study manual
emphasizes the advantage of learning code because of the relatively open bandwidth (not too many users)
and things like being able to identify repeaters that use Morse code IDs. Plus, there's just something
cool about listening to code being sent - even cooler if you can interpret it! •−• ••−• −•−• •−••−•
•
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
|
|
|
Richard |
Post subject: Re: FCC Vanity Call Sign SNAFU
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:29 pm
|
|
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:16 am Posts: 12 |
So have you reapplied yet?
|
|
Posted 11/12/2012
|
|
|