Well, the interesting thing about the FCC paper license proposal, Dr. Jim, is that they are NOT proposing to change Part 97 rules at all, or at least in the docket proceeding commenced by the public notice that we just commented on. And they are willing to deliver, upon the licensee's request, PDF copies of the license by e-mail if the licensee wants to have them delivered that way rather than accessing it themselves through the ULS, or receiving a U.S. Mail paper copy.

I absolutely agree though that the only thing that needs posting these days is the callsign, licensee name and perhaps some contact information such as a telephone number of the person operating a remote ground station by telecommand. The continued relevance of posting a paper license under the current licensing scheme FCC uses is very much drawn into question. It is a throwback to the early days of broadcasting, marine and land mobile radio. In the broadcasting service it still makes some sense since the operating parameters of the station are specified on the license. Not so with other radio services.

73, Chris W3KD

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:28 PM, James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com> wrote:

If the FCC decides to do away with all paper licenses, I assume they will need to revisit many of their rules, and not just for the Amateur Service. Unless, of course, they will allow us to receive licenses by PDF, and print them out ourselves.

If the FCC’s proof of licensure is inclusion in the ULS database, It sounds like all they should need (or want) at the remote station is a callsign of each remote operator and the URL to the ULS. They would need to query the ULS to see if the license is valid anyway.

Thanks for the info, Chris! Please keep us updated.

’73 de JIM N2ZZ

From: Kermit Carlson [mailto:w9xa@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:05 PM
To: Chris Imlay; James F. Boehner MD
Cc: ODV
Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:23514] Re: Remote Stations

Hello Chris -

What effect would the proposed discontinuation of
paper licenses have on this detail?

73, Kermit W9XA

From: Chris Imlay <w3kd.arrl@gmail.com>
To: James F. Boehner MD <jboehner01@yahoo.com>
Cc: ODV <arrl-odv@arrl.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:08 PM
Subject: [arrl-odv:23514] Re: Remote Stations

To add to the debate on this subject, in recent conversations with Cross at FCC about the paper license docket, he noted that with respect to remote control operations, there is an FCC rule that requires posting of a copy of the license of the control operator at the transmitter. It is a rule which, Cross suggests, is not often followed in these new commercial remote control station contexts.
More on this shortly.
73, Chris W3KD

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 8, 2014, at 5:39 PM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Jim,

We have had extensive conversations about the remote operating issue in the PSC.

Can you resend the attachment? It did not come through for me.

Thanks!

’73 de JIM N2ZZ

From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 4:52 PM
To: ODV
Subject: [arrl-odv:23500] Remote Stations

Well, the discussions are heating up here in the NW as I assume they are in the rest of the Country. I don't recall anything on the ODV (but then I don't recall lots of things) <image001.gif> but I thought I'd share this article. 73 and good Hamming

Jim Pace, K7CEX
ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio
Northwestern Division
Director
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

Christopher D. Imlay

Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC

14356 Cape May Road

Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011

(301) 384-5525 telephone

(301) 384-6384 facsimile

W3KD@ARRL.ORG