Kenwood Sales Manager

K7LXC at K7LXC at
Fri Oct 4 11:37:08 EDT 1996

In a message dated 96-10-04 00:56:55 EDT, you write:
>Is Kenwood selling radios to unlicensed operators at truck stops or not?

Dan --

     There is letter in QST this month on the same topic - selling radios to
unlicensed operators.  Let me point out that SELLING radios to unlicensed
individuals is not illegal.  In fact, a retailer cannot NOT sell it to them
or it would be discrimination.  If a law was passed requiring an amateur
license to buy amateur transmitting equipment, retailers could probably argue
in court successfully that the law would constitute a restraint of trade.  It
is only illegal for an unlicensed person to USE it, not to own it.  Your
concern has more to do with the ethics of the transaction.  People want to
buy things and retailers want to sell things to them so they will get
together regardless of the market or products.  

    I personally don't have a problem with Kewnood's plan to sell their
products through CB stores.  Many CB'ers are now hams and they are great
people.  We need new amateurs and here is a big pool of people already
interested in communications.  

     Here's food for thought for you.  This next sunspot cycle will be the
Golden Age of US Ham Radio.  Why?  Because the average age of hams is around
55-60+ years old.  They are in their peak earning years, the kids are gone
and now they have the ambition and money to build a station that they've
always wanted.  There have been numerous posts about "I've been waiting for
30 years to build this station", etc.  Most of them (us) won't be around or
active in the sunspot cycle after this next one.  After they're (we're) gone,
who's going to replace them  (us)?  Who is going to work who in SweepStakes
or any other contest?  

73,  Steve  K7LXC

>From floydjr at (Jimmy R. Floyd)  Fri Oct  4 14:34:47 1996
From: floydjr at (Jimmy R. Floyd) (Jimmy R. Floyd)
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 10:34:47 -0300
Message-ID: < at>

I have kept quite on all this vanity stuff but feel this is an issue that
needs to be addressed. The reason for posting this now is the recent FCC
notice that has came out. It states that if a person applied for a call
and changed his mind it could not be stopped. He could reapply in Gate 1
for his old call. If I am not mistaken a call has to wait two years 
before it can be reissued. This brings me to the reason for this post.

I am an advanced class operator and will be applying in the next gate. 
Due to how many extras are getting 1X3 calls most likely and turning in
1X3 calls I am not sure they will be that many left. 

When a ham turns his call in for a new one his old call is tied up for
two years. I have a hard time understanding why. I do understand that
there should be a two year period on a call that has lapsed to makes sure
this is what the ham wants to happen. The difference is these calls are
being turned in by the ham. He is signing a form and stating he does not
want this call anymore so why cannot it be reissued.

The two year period is going to cause a cascade effect in the vanity call
system. The extras will grab all the 1X2 and a lot of the 1X3 calls. The
advance class will take up the rest or most of the 1X3 calls. So the 
general is just out of luck for a 1X3 call. Something that no one has 
thought about is that every ham who gets a new call under the vanity call
system will have two calls tied up for two years. In an age of computers
this is crazy. I do agree there would be some confusion when you hear me
using a 1X3 of your best friend. It will take a period of adaptation for
everyone to straighten out who is who, but at least you do have the call
you wanted.

Simple solution to this is just to have a buffer period between the each
gate. In that time the FCC can compile a list of calls that were turned
in and those calls can be requested. I am sure they have a computer that
can at least generate this list without hiring 20 people or taking two
months to do it. 

I wish I knew how to present this to the FCC but do not want to call and
bother them. They are getting enough calls already. I do feel this is an
important fact that I have not heard mentioned yet. Thank you for you 
time in reading this.

73's Jim

           * Jimmy R. Floyd  (Jim)   Thomasville, NC                *
           *                                                        *
           * Amateur Call:              >> WA4ZXA <<                *
           * Packet Node:               >> N4ZC <<                  *
           * Internet Address:          >> floydjr at << *

>From cpenick at (Chris E Penick)  Fri Oct  4 16:36:58 1996
From: cpenick at (Chris E Penick) (Chris E Penick)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:36:58 EST
Subject: ForSale/Swap/Trade Addresses
Message-ID: <19961004.103930.5159.3.cpenick at>

I have received some addresses that I thought I would pass along to those
who were interested. I am re-typing these as I have received them, hpe
they all are correct:

That's all I have received, again I have typed them exactly as I have
received them from those who replied, so hpe they work. GL!!

73, Chris N4YGY

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list