[Dx-qsl] OX/NA1SA rejected by DXCC desk

[Alan Zack]

The fallacy of the system is anyone, anywhere, can get a US Ham License 
and callsign without ever stepping foot on US Soil. There are no exams 
given. All they need is a US mailing address and a couple of buddies who 
already hold a US license to sign off the VE paperwork. In the 
Philippines 100's of people have a US license and call who, because of 
strict visa requirements, may never enter the USA or a territory. There 
are PO boxes and these Mail Drop businesses addresses in Guam and Saipan 
that are used for their mailing address. A friend, relative, or radio 
club member picks up the license when the FCC mails it to Guam or Saipan 
and sends it to the ham in the Philippines. The JA's do the same thing 
but a few JA's do actually use their US Call when they travel to Guam or 
Saipan to contest.
I know, I've been there! I tried to get a DU callsign during a year long 
stay there but could not because I was not a DU citizen and did not DU 
permanent residency status (very difficult to obtain)
_______________________________________________________
Alan Zack
Amateur Radio Station K7ACZ
Official USCG Auxiliary Comm Station
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Delta Rocket Quality Engineer, The Boeing Company, Retired
Aviation Chief Warrant Officer,  U.S. Coast Guard, Retired

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Keane K1MK" <k1mk at yccc.org>
To: <dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] OX/NA1SA rejected by DXCC desk


> On 1/21/2009 10:48 PM, Steve Lund wrote:
>> This is an interesting one. My QSL was rejected last month, but QSLs
>> have been rejected since at least May 2008.
>>
>> The trustee for NA1SA is NT2Y.
>>
>> The operators for the OX/NA1SA operation were RW3GW, RW3AH, RA3MR and
>> UA3MQM. Doesn't it seem odd that 4 Russian operators were using a USA
>> call on a DXpedition to a third country?
>
> Well, perhaps not so odd.
>
> The Russian Federation hasn't implemented CEPT Recommendation T/R 
> 61-01
> yet <http://www.erodocdb.dk/doks/implement_doc_adm.aspx?docid=1802>.
> That implies they did not have a "CEPT radio amateur radio license"
> issued by Russia and therefore did not have the authority under their
> call signs to operate from OX under the terms of the  CEPT agreement.
>
> But then there's also the matter of there not being a reciprocal
> operating agreement between the US and Russia. So how could those 4
> Russian operators be the control ops for a US licensed station?
>
> I can see how an operation like this might raise even more questions
> than usual about the authorization to operate.
>
> 73,
> Mike K1MK
>