Comments on: Help Say No to This Proposed Rule

By: Dan KB6NU

Dan KB6NU — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:29:38 +0000

Actually, I think you’re misreading it, Moe. Should this change be approved, the rule will read. “After [date reserved], no additional club station license grant will be made to a club whose trustee already holds a club station license grant for that club.” Furthermore, in the supplemental information, the NPRM says the purpose of this rule change is to “to limit club stations to holding one call sign.” I guess it could be interpreted to mean that if a club has two stations they can have two trustees and each of them can be a trustee for a club callsign, but I don’t think that’s the intent of the change.

If it is as you say, though, then those folks in Southern California could apply for a station license grant, i.e. callsign, for each of their hospital stations. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s not like the number of callsigns is limited.

In Canada, as you may know, amateur radio operators can personally hold multiple callsigns. That seems to be working just fine for them.

By: Moe, NT7C

Moe, NT7C — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:00:22 +0000

If the NPR is as you have written, go back and read it carefully one more time. It says an individual (one specific person) may not hold two club call signs for the same club. It does not say you are limited to a single call sign per club. All you need is another trustee for the alternate (second) site as the NPR is currently written.

One of the big offenders was a club in southern California where they wanted a separate call for each hospital. Why not blanket them all with a single call and use tactical call signs (like the hospital name or city?) There is nothing wrong with a call sign such as W6ABC/Santa Barbra Memorial on the same frequency as W6ABC/Cedars’ They are both descriptive and legal…and they save on call signs.

Sorry Dan, I don’t see a need for multiple call signs, just the desire and an attempt at rationalizing that desire.

By: Dan KB6NU

Dan KB6NU — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:11:14 +0000

I’m with you, Floyd. Please be sure to comment on this NPRM.

By: Floyd, KK3Q

Floyd, KK3Q — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:05:28 +0000

I don’t see why a club can’t have more than one call. For instance, say they support a former US warship and want a call for the ship but the call isn’t all that great for Field Day. So they have a call for the ship and a shorter call for Field Day. I personally don’t see the point of limiting the number (within reason) of calls a club has. There is some abuse of them, so go after the abusers and don’t penalize everyone. in the case of club calls, one bad apple should not spoil the whole barrel.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:34:31 +0000

How about this:

Allow the club to have one call sign that can be changed. Then the club can apply for additional call signs but those will be assigned as next available

You can have a call sign that represents your club and any club station, remote repeater, etc can then have a sign.

By: Dave LaBat

Dave LaBat — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:42:41 +0000

There are some pretty clear problems with abuse of the Vanity callsign system. I understand your club wanting the callsigns selected and I would not have a problem with any of those. I think the problem is the paper thin clubs that hold one or more callsigns. See http://www.speroni.com/FCC/Clubs5.htm for a list of multiple callsigns held by the same trustee. Some of these are multiple clubs with one trustee for a group of clubs. That looks worse than what it might be. I recognize some of the trustees and understand why they have 5 calls for 5 clubs. I have more difficulty with a ham who is trustee for three clubs holding 15 calls! All the call selected are “high value” 1 x2 calls.. almost all ending in “A”. I have a fondness for calls ending in A (obviously!), I would have liked access to those calls when selecting a call when I moved to 6 land.

The counter argument would be that the FCC should deal with the abuse, not the rule. Changing the rule would also solve the problem, although perhaps heavy handed. A modification to the rule excluding memorial calls solve some of the issues. Perhaps also excluding 1 x 2 from club requests, unless it is a memorial callsign?