backwards callsign

[KC9SQR]

Hello fellow islanders,
I have a question, and the title of this forum says no such thing as a dumb question.. Well I'm gonna test that one a bit... :cool2:

If I happen to say rqs9ck as my callsign just being a smartass and screwing around, did I just meet part97 requirements by saying all the letters in my callsign? :shifty:

I'm thinking no because that is NOT my actual callsign even though all the letters my callsign contains were said, they were not said in the correct order... Not to worry any times I've done that I've said it correctly within a minute or two just because I really don't think that is part 97 compliant..
What are your thoughts?

[W3WN]

< snip >
If I happen to say rqs9ck as my callsign just being a smartass and screwing around, did I just meet part97 requirements by saying all the letters in my callsign? :shifty:
< snip >No.

[KC9SQR]

No.

That's what I figured.
Thanks
73

[XE1/N5AL]

Sec. 97.119 Station identification
(a) Each amateur station, except a space station or telecommand station, must transmit its assigned call sign on its transmitting channel at the end of each communication, and at least every 10 minutes during a communication, for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions. No station may transmit unidentified communications or signals, or transmit as the station call sign, any call sign not authorized to the station.

[WØTKX]

Glad that's cleared up, surprised it could be misunderstood. :chin:

http://www.odinartcollectables.com/images/point_of_law.jpg

[W3WN]

That's what I figured.
Thanks
73Glad to help.

Better to ask a (seemingly) silly question here, than to do the wrong thing on the air and get an OO notice, or, worse, a pink ticket.

(Does the FCC still send out violation notices on colored paper? I suspect that they send legal letters these days, or email, but anyone actually know?)

[NQ6U]

Last I heard, they send out a guy name of Vinnie "Big Fish" Bacala.

[kb2vxa]

"Does the FCC still send out violation notices on colored paper?"

No, but there is a very special pink slip.

[X-Rated]

This is radio station RX9N from Russia.

[XE1/N5AL]

This is radio station RX9N from Russia.
Sounds like a special edition fresh off the Mazda assembly line.

[N2NH]

Loint of Paw (http://www.fmschools.org/webpages/ejanicki/files/lointofpaw.pdf)

[X-Rated]

Sounds like a special edition fresh off the Mazda assembly line.
The RX9's were the size of Lincolns.

[KC9SQR]

I appreciate the input there guys.. There wasn't much confusion on that. I was really just testing the "No such thing as a dumb question."

However I could unsuccessfully argue the part of 97.119 that states "for the purpose of clearly making the source of the transmissions from the station known to those receiving the transmissions." As stated I was in QSO, and I do have a tendency to actually over ID with my actual callsign, forwards... Anyone listening if I say it backwards once, knows its from me, KC9SQR...



But I do suppose it IS in violation of the end of 97.119 as it's technically transmitting a callsign not assigned to me... I suppose I won't be doing that anymore....

BUT with the blatant FCC violations going on and the them not acting on 99.9999% of it, it's not like it matters if I even bothered to ID at all.. :(

[kb2vxa]

Actually they do act and ".0001%" of the NALs handed out to the 20M ruffians were for failure to identify. Yeah, it matters.

Oh and BTW now you've got me sniffing dollar bills.

[KC9SQR]

Actually they do act and ".0001%" of the NALs handed out to the 20M ruffians were for failure to identify. Yeah, it matters.

Oh and BTW now you've got me sniffing dollar bills.

hahahahahaha
My sig line doesn't say anything about SNIFFING em ;)

It is unfortunate though that the FCC doesn't seem to care about Amateur Radio. I know there is a lack of funding issue.. I do realize we're not their "honey pot money maker" and are more likely a pain in their asses, but I remember a time that people actually FEARED the FCC.. Not laughed at them because they were sent a mildly threatening letter.

They tell us to notify them of problems or issues, then fail to act on just about all of them... It seems unless you mess with broadcast FM or even AM, TV, or anything Cellular (those "honey pots" I mentioned earlier), they just don't care...

As for the lack of budget for enforcement.. I for one would support a license fee.. Nothing major of course, if it was low enough that any ham. Even a retired ham on social security or any other fixed income could afford.. Like 10-15 dollars a year if it meant that they would actually be doing their jobs and enforcing the regulations we're supposed to be following..

I had someone ask me if it was an "open invitation" for the FCC to come out when I was heard trash talking them a bit... I replied, yeah, actually it is... To the best of my knowledge my station is "up to code" so to speak, and I'm doing everything right on the air that I know of.. So sure, they are more than welcome to come on by... While they're here and in town though, we have some other local issues that need to be handled while they are enjoying their stay here in Rockford, IL...

[W4GPL]

The FCC might not care, but the majority of operators care. You can't let a few bad apples be an excuse for ignoring the rules. I certainly won't communicate with an amateur who blatantly ignores proper operating procedure and I know I'm not alone in this opinion. Why would you even consider looking for loopholes in the rules that you know to be against conventional wisdom? Don't play into a vocal minority. Most of us lead by example, look to us, not them.

[KC9SQR]

The FCC might not care, but the majority of operators care. You can't let a few bad apples be an excuse for ignoring the rules. I certainly won't communicate with an amateur who blatantly ignores proper operating procedure and I know I'm not alone in this opinion. Why would you even consider looking for loopholes in the rules that you know to be against conventional wisdom? Don't play into a vocal minority. Most of us lead by example, look to us, not them.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't disregard the rules.. I follow them to the best of my ability in fact.. I've even been complimented by many in my area for my operating practices...

As for the original post, I was wondering about that in general.. I'm not looking for any loopholes, believe me, it's actually more effort to say the callsign backwards than it is forwards.. I've only done it I think twice, and both times I have said my actual callsign just to cover my rear so to speak.. And was DEFINITELY within 10 minutes as I usually just say my callsign every few transmissions, or if in a net every transmission as I'm not sure if I'll be transmitting again within the 10 minutes...

And as for my FCC lack of enforcement, there was a bit of sarcasm in there, I'm afraid you didn't pick up on that, and I'll try to make sarcasm a bit more clear in the future..
For example..
/sarcasm on
RQS9CK
/sarcasm off

That sarcasm and disgust of lack of enforcement is spurred from having local problems in the area, reporting them, following up with them, documenting, and recording everything... For nothing... Many hams in the area have all done "what we're supposed to do" and the FCC fails to act on ANY of it..

I personally don't believe that rules or regulations mean a single thing if they're not enforced.. I could use an example but the example I have in mind is probably political in nature so I just won't even go there...

[kb2vxa]

Actually the FCC does care and there are many examples that come to our attention from time to time but not like they used to due to operating budget cuts. These led to severe manpower losses and the closure of those famous monitoring posts save one that is a marvel of modern science but I won't bore you with details. When it came to Amateur Radio and CB for that matter the FCC was a stand alone operation and yes, it was feared by both for the wolf tickets that flowed like water thanks to all legal bases covered by authored personnel. Now they rely on complaints backed by gathered, documented information giving them "probable cause" to launch their own investigation. Most complaints are undocumented or improperly documented so for lack of sufficient evidence they won't chance wasting much needed manpower on a wild goose chase. The notion that they don't enforce CB rules prevails until a renegade gets a knock on the door and the field engineers go Gomer Pyle on him, surprise, surprise, surprise. Yeah, I noticed the sarcasm so this is for those who didn't.

It's not so much that broadcast and commercial communications being a honey pot but more because of the fact they're inspected regularly that gives the false impression they're rules are more heavily enforced. Oh you'd be surprised at how many NALs are issued, there are just so darn many violations that make hams look like angels. BTW they have many more rules which opens the door to many more violations, we have it easy. For what it's worth I haven't seen NALs for wire line communications, frankly I wonder why, nobody's perfect.

I haven't been involved with any cases of them failing to act on well documented cases because I was only involved with one complaint and in that case the culprit was uncovered because the FCC didn't receive the documentation. He had us fooled for ages but met his Waterloo when he, our liaison failed to deliver the goods. On the other hand I have heard of cases where hams did all they could do and no action was taken but not knowing what those hams actually did I reserve comment. Maybe they did all they could do but didn't do what they were supposed to do? Never assume, ask precisely what evidence is required, it MUST meet strict legal requirements so ask what those requirements are. Basically it must hold up in court but legally, not being gathered by authorized personnel it won't so the FCC being legally authorized theirs will. Seems like duplication of effort but we're dealing with an Administrative Law judge and/or Tribunal here, the FCC being a commission has no law enforcement powers.

"I could use an example but the example I have in mind is probably political in nature so I just won't even go there."
Political and nature are conflicting terms so don't go there unless you want to be a walking contradiction. (;->)

"My sig line doesn't say anything about SNIFFING em."
I know, but aside from being a sick mofo if there was some sort of disclosing fluid I wouldn't have to use olfactory perception. Then considering where I've seen most of them... never mind, I won't tell you about licking poles either.