eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress

Don Schellhardt KI4PMG (CALLSIGNPENDING) on November 6, 2006
View comments about this article!


****

SEVEN NEW STEPS TOWARD HOA ANTENNA REFORM

By Don Schellhardt KI4PMG

In July, several other hams joined me in starting up a new, Net-based advocacy group: HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA). We filed a Petition For Rulemaking with the FCC, urging the FCC to adopt partial overrides of the currently total bans on outdoor ham antennas by Homeowners' Associations (HOAs) and landlords. At the same time, since there is no guarantee the FCC will act on our Petition, we began to lay the groundwork for advocating Congressional legislation, more vigorously than ARRL has done so far.

Now HFA has taken 7 new steps toward passing HOA antenna reform legislation:

1. OPENING A WEB SITE -- We have opened up a new HAMS FOR ACTION Web Site at www.hamsforaction.net

2. IDENTIFYING CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORTERS OF HOA ANTENNA REFORM -- We have compiled a list of “Antenna Allies” in Congress: that is, 42 U.S. Representatives who sponsored or co-sponsored the Israel/Ross HOA antenna reform bill at least once during the last three Sessions of Congress. The complete list is being posted on http://www.freewebtown.com/amherst_alliance/index.html and www.hamsforaction.net In addition, the list is set forth at the end of this article.

3. THANKING CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORTERS OF HOA ANTENNA REFORM -- We have sent letters of commendation to all 42 of these legislators, with three variations in text that are tied to the frequency of their past support. One sample of each group of letters is being posted on www.hamsforaction.net

4. IDENTIFYING CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORTERS OF PRO-HAM LEGISLATION IN GENERAL: We have also prepared HFA CONGRESSIONAL RATINGS for all incumbent U.S. Representatives and Senators, measuring their overall support, during the last three Sessions of Congress, for legislation endorsed by ARRL. That is: We measured not just their support (or lack of support) for the HOA antenna reform bill, but also their record of support on restraining high-interference Broadband Over Powerlines (BPL) technologies and preventing a net loss of Amateur Radio frequencies to commercial interests. We found that only 12 of the 100 incumbent U.S. Senators, and 134 of the 438 incumbent U.S. Representatives, have supported any pro-ham legislation at all during the last three Sessions of Congress. Among the 34 Senators whose seats are up for re-election this year, only three have backed any pro-ham legislation in the past 6 years: Senators Daniel Akaka, D-HI, 44%; Conrad Burns, R-MT, 22%; and Olympia Snowe, R-ME, 7%. The full text of the HFA CONGRESSIONAL RATINGS is being posted on www.hamsforaction.net

5. THANKING SENATE SUPPORTERS OF PRO-HAM LEGISLATION IN GENERAL: We have sent a letter of commendation to each of the 12 U.S. Senators who provided some degree of support for pro-ham legislation during the 6-year study period. Unfortunately, we did not have the human or logistical resources to send letters to all 134 of the pro-ham legislators in the House -- but we believe HFA's resources will expand as more hams learn of our actions and choose to join HFA. In any event, the text of the letter to the 12 Senators is being posted on www.hamsforaction.net

6. ANNOUNCING THESE ACTIONS: HFA has sent a press release, announcing some of these actions, to various print publications and Web Sites. Like the other referenced documents, the press release is being posted on our Web Site.

7. GAINING COVERAGE IN RADIO WORLD: An article about HFA is being published in the November 8 edition of RADIO WORLD. The article will be accessible through a link from www.hamsforaction.net

Once again: The list of “Antenna Allies” is set forth below. If your U.S. Representative is on the list, we hope you will convey your own personal “Thank You”.

73,

Don Schellhardt KI4PMG

************************************************************************

“ANTENNA ALLIES” IN CONGRESS

Here is a list of the ham community's “Antenna Allies” in Congress.

This list was prepared by Don Schellhardt KI4PMG, Esquire of HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA). His E-Mail Address is pioneerpath@hotmail.com

Additional information can be found at www.hamsforaction.net

“THE PRIME 9”

These 9 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives took every opportunity, during the last 3 Sessions of Congress, to sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to override total bans on ham antenna by Homeowners' Associations (HOAs):

  1. Steven Israel, D-NY

(INTRODUCED BILL in 2002 and 2003 … CO-INTRODUCED BILL in 2005)

  1. Mike Ross, D-AR

(CO-INTRODUCED BILL in 2005)

  1. Stephanie Herseth, D-SD

(Backed bill in 2005 … Not in office before then)

  1. Mike McIntyre, D-NC

  1. Michael McNulty, D-NY

  1. John Olver, D-MA

  1. Todd Platts, R-PA

  1. David Price, D-NC

  1. Rob Simmons, R-CT

2-TIMES-OUT-OF-3 ANTENNA ALLIES

These 12 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives sponsored or co-sponsored antenna ban override legislation in 2002 and 2003 -- but, for reasons unknown to HFA, failed to support this legislation in 2005:

  1. Tammy Baldwin, D-WI

  1. Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD

  1. Marion Berry, D-AR

  1. Rick Boucher, D-VA

  1. Ken Calvert, R-CA

  1. John Duncan, Jr., R-TN

  1. J.D. Hayworth, R-AZ

  1. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA

  1. Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY

  1. Pete Sessions, R-TX

  1. Patrick Tiberi, R-OH

  1. Greg Walden, R-OR

HFA hopes these legislators will “return to the fold” in 2007, if they are re-elected.

1-TIME-OUT-OF-3 ANTENNA ALLIES

These 21 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives sponsored or co-sponsored antenna ban override legislation only once, in either 2002 or 2003:

One-Time Sponsors or Co-Sponsors of 2003

  1. Shelley Berkeley, D-NV

  1. Jo Bonner, R-AL

  1. Jeb Bradley, R-NH

  1. Ed Case, D-HI

  1. Ken Calvert, R-CA

  1. Barbara Cubin, R-WY

  1. Jo Ann Davis, R-VA

  1. Anna Eshoo, D-CA

  1. Bob Filner, D-CA

  1. Barney Frank, D-MA

  1. Ralph Hall, R-TX

  1. Rick Larsen, D-WA

  1. Donald Manzullo, D-IL

  1. Michael Michaud, D-ME

  1. Marilyn Musgrove, R-CO

  1. Mark Udall, D-CO

One-Time Sponsors or Co-Sponsors of 2002

  1. Mary Bono, R-CA

  1. John Boozman, D-AR

  1. Sherrod Brown, D-OH [Now a U.S. Senate candidate]

  1. Dennis Rehberg, R-MT

  1. Charles Taylor, D-NC

Perhaps these legislators will decide to sponsor antenna ban override legislation again, in 2007, if they are re-elected.

ABOUT THE U.S. SENATE:

Although antenna ban override bills have been introduced in the House during each of the last 3 Sessions of Congress, no Senator has introduced a “companion bill” during any of these 3 Sessions.

This fact alone demonstrates why more intensive lobbying is needed on antenna ban override legislation.

HAMS FOR ACTION was founded to provide for such lobbying by hams who care deeply about this issue.

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
FIRST:

I want to thank EHAM for running this article on short notice.

As I told the Articles Editor, in an E-Mail, I should have submitted this article a week ago -- instead of a few days ago -- but life got in the way.

I apologized to him, and I apologize to each of you, for not completing these materials earlier.

If you read the complete article -- and then read all of the related documents which are posted at www.hamsforaction.net -- you will see that I covered quite a bit of ground in my analysis and my writing. I just wish I had covered that ground a little faster, so that you (and Clinton Herbert) would have had a little more time to ponder this information before Election Day.

****

SECOND:

Please note that CALLSIGNPENDING is my OLD handle for EHAM. I have been DONKI4PMG for a while now.

When my life calms down a little bit, I will work with EHAM to get my NEW handle back into their data base.

****

HAPPY ELECTION DAY!!

73,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
HAMS FOR ACTION URL: www.hamsforaction.net
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KG4RUL on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Of the three founding members currently under antenna restrictions which, if any, owned their homes prior to becoming Hams?

As far as antenna rights, I believe efforts to influence legislation should ONLY go in the direction of banning unreasonable restrictions in FUTURE CC&R documents. Existing CC&Rs are contracts which should not be overturned. If you signed on the dotted line, you must live with the consequences.

Dennis KG4RUL
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KB9GPN on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The point about existing C&R being contractual, and therefore 'etched in stone' is premised on the purchase contract being a higher form of contract than it is.

Civil contracts fall under the laws of society, and do not usurp them.

Usually it will be found that law, and the court decisions interpreting law, will prevail over a contract, whether it is existing or newly to be entered into. Contract language usually incorporates a reference to this along the lines of "if any clause of this contract is found invalid, the remaining contract will be held to survive and remain valid" - the wording is tailored to the type of contract, but it is usually there.

Without subverting civil contracts to law, a citizenry would be able to write "private laws" by contracting between each other.

Interesting area, isn't it?

73

Steve
K9ZW (ex-KB9GPN)
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K0BG on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Interesting concept.

Everyone should be concerned with any restriction which limits our capabilities. Certainly writing our respective members of congress is part of the overall effort. However, to some extent this particular effort duplicates the ARRL's charter. While I applaud the effort, I'm still leery that it will erode an already tenuous foothold.

Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W9OY on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL is interested in selling books not making law, unless the law allows it to sell more books.

73 W9OY
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W9WHE-II on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
This is excellent.

I'm so glad that someone is actually DOING something on this issue. As is so frequently said, what good are new hams if they get discouraged because they can't put up an antenna?

Bravo!
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KI6CDF on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
And your point regarding the ARRL is what? Let's focus on the issue here, which is changing the law regarding antenna restrictions.

For those that take the position that existing CCRs are "etched in granite", what about changes in technology that has lead to satellite dishes and reasonable accomodations for those antennas? I would be sympathetic to the idea that neighbors got together and reasonably agreed to govern their homeowners common area. The reality is that the vast majority of CCRs are written by developers who care about one thing: Selling homes for a profit. These CCRs are created for that purpose alone. Further, municipalities love homeowners associations and common areas because it reliefs local government of tax burdens for maintaining streets and lighting as well as deflecting local neighborhood disputes to a Board of Directors that often does not afford reasonable due process for those disputes.

I'm not sympathetic to the notion that contractual rights are cast in stone. Hogwash.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W9WHE-II on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K0BG writes:

"However, to some extent this particular effort duplicates the ARRL's charter".

Charter?
arrl ONLY represents about 20% of licensed hams.
arrl does NOT and CANNOT speak for the majority of licensed hams. Moreover, arrl's efforts have been a failure. I'm for encouraging, not discouraging, potentially successful efforts. Since arrl can't get it done, let's try different things with different people.
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by WW5AA on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Very good information. I however will not simply vote for anyone just on how they voted on the antenna issues. I will spend my time at the local level which can be more effective. We cast a sticky net when we attempt to have the Federal Government fix things like not being prepared for natural disasters or moving into CCR houses.

73, de Lindy
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KI0QM on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
It isn't fair to everyone else that bought property and agreeed to the CCRs to be able to change them because we want to.

If you bought a piece of property that has CCRs that prohibit antennas then that is what you agreed to. It is unreasonable to expect everyone else to allow us to change them.

What if people wanted to start putting in mobile homes? Portable buildings? Irregular fences? Odd house colors? Or any other violation that one might oppose. Is that ok too? No.

The CCRs exist so that everyone in that area knows what to expect from the other property owners. Going back and changing them will do nothing but harm the ham community as a whole.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K8MHZ on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I agree with Lindy.

Yes, that is good information. But my vote will depend on much more important issues.

The antenna issues are indeed important to us. As we represent only a very small portion of the populace, only a fraction of one percent, our voices will be difficult to hear.

Even if every one of use cast a vote for a pro-antenna politician, what impact would a fraction of a percent of voters have?

Instead our case would be better made by keeping up with the times along with mastering tried and true communication means. We need to come up with antenna installations that won't be considered an eyesore to our neighbors. We need to educate those that are in decision making positions and we need to present ourselves in a manner considered positive by those we wish to influence.

That aside, the article is one of the better one's we have seen lately. The information seems correct and the article was not full of spelling and grammatical errors.

Thanks to the author.

73

Mark K8MHZ
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K5UJ on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Don, thanks for providing this information. Much appreciated as always. Best regards.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K5UJ on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hi Don, thanks for providing this information. Much appreciated as always. Best regards.
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by WA1RNE on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Don, KI4PMG;

I certainly feel for you and other hams that may be subjected to the restrictions imposed by various HOA's. According to your website, this appears to be your only justification to overturn the restrictions on antennas:


"This means affected neighborhoods are now being denied the potential protection provided by Amateur Radio emergency communications during and after a natural or man-made disaster."


This is really not a justification to overturn any HOA agreement.

Any USEFUL emergency communications provided by hams is either from a field location while portable or mobile or while operating inside an EOC or command post.

Hams operating from their condominium have very limited capabilities during an emergency, other than acting as a spotter on a weather net - hardly enough to justify overturning provisions of a CC&R.

Sorry, but I think you guys are looking for your cake and to eat it too.


Chris, WA1RNE
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K5UJ on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<<<It isn't fair to everyone else that bought property and agreeed to the CCRs to be able to change them because we want to. >>>

I think you're confused about the issue. This isn't about getting rid of current CCRs so much as it's about curbing a trend and preventing them from spreading. yes, right now there's a choice to some extent. But how would you like it if _everywhere_ you wanted to live CCR neighborhoods were the only option? This is something that needs to be prevented. Surely you will agree that compromise hidden antennas are simply unacceptable for most ham activities?
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KI0QM on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<
<It isn't fair to everyone else that bought property and agreeed to the CCRs to be able to change them because we want to. >

I think you're confused about the issue. This isn't about getting rid of current CCRs so much as it's about curbing a trend and preventing them from spreading. yes, right now there's a choice to some extent. But how would you like it if _everywhere_ you wanted to live CCR neighborhoods were the only option? This is something that needs to be prevented. Surely you will agree that compromise hidden antennas are simply unacceptable for most ham activities?>

I'm all for making it so that future CCRs can't prevent communication antennas. However that is not what this group is seeking. From their own website:

"1) Draft a bill, to override ham antenna bans, for possible introduction in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate *(Post-election):"

They want legislation to override current CCRs. I think that is wrong and in fact violates the rights of the other owners that are (for the purpose of this discussion) honoring their agreement to obey the CCRs.

I think there are two very different issues here and unfortunately this group is going after the wrong one.



 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KG4RUL on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"I'm not sympathetic to the notion that contractual rights are cast in stone. Hogwash."

I challenge anyone to cite an example where CC&Rs were specifically overriden to force the erecting of antennas? Sure, they are not cast in stone but, the extreme cost of achieving the goal may make the victory Pyrrhic in the end.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by N0PWZ on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"I challenge anyone to cite an example where CC&Rs were specifically overriden to force the erecting of antennas?"

That's so easy. It's already been done with satellite dishes & CCR's where federal law has overridden local cc&r's. Now anyone can erect sat dishes (they ARE antennas, and Federal law HAS overridden local CC&R's prohibiting their erection).

Do not be blind to precedent. Federal law overriding CC&R's prohibiting antennas has already happened, and can happen again with the proper amount of political power.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W9WHE-II on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
K8MHZ writes:

"We need to come up with antenna installations that won't be considered an eyesore to our neighbors".

Very true.
You don't need a tower and yagi to work DX. I have confirmed 256 with a fan dipole laying flat on my peaked roof. You too can work DX with a "discreet" antenna.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W9WHE-II on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
WHILE it is true that Federal law (OTAR) pre-empts PRIVATE restrictive covenants, DO NOT EXPECT that to happen for ham radio. Here is why:


a) There are 200-300 MILLION potential sattelite dish users that can potentially produce millions in TAX revenue from sattelite service. However, there are only about 700,000 hams, which produce zero tax revenue from hamming. Tax dollars!

b) Sattelite dishes are very small, less then 18". Ham antennas, in contrast, are HUGE, ugly and unsightly to non-hams. Aestetic concerns.

c) Sattelite dishes do NOT cause RFI. Hams can and occasionally do. Backlash concerns.

So the differences between 18" sattelite dishes and ham antennas make useful compairison impossible.

 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KC8VWM on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I challenge anyone to cite an example where CC&Rs were specifically overriden to force the erecting of antennas?

-------------

...Which one? :)
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by AH6FC on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I guess better late than never.

Never believe ANYTHING cannot be changed, i.e. existing CC&R's. Yes, we signed them, no excuse, however it is often the spirit (i.e. interpretation) of the restrictions that can cause the problems. My cynical perspective is that if you think they are usually good, simply you're interests have not yet been impacted.

Rulings to afford reasonable antenna facilities, including to pre-existing CC&Rs, would be a very welcome change. As always the devil is in the details...and that's always the problem.

Nice effort.
73, Bill
AH6FC/7
 
A Clarification -- and A Promise  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
[Current Handle, not yet reflected in EHAM's data base: DONKI4PMG]


Here's the clarification --

I can see I need to emphasize that HFA is NOT asking anyone to vote for any of the listed legislators, solely on the basis of their positions on HOA antenna reform. As our press release puts it: "These are not endorsements. These are acknowledgements."

Frankly, having worked for more than one elected official, I know that politicians get criticized, by everyday voters, a lot more often than they get thanked. A sincere and well-deserved "Thank You" to a politician, or to ANYONE, can be a powerful thing -- and these legislators have earned that "Thank You".

If you are a constituent of one of the listed legislators, HFA asks you to CONSIDER the legislator's position on HOA antenna reform as ONE of the factors in determining how you will vote this year.

That's it. That's all we're asking.

********

Here's the promise --

Yes, I WILL address the question of contracts. And yes, DENNIS, that includes your question.

Right now, however, I am very short on time. So I will address contracts later. I promise.

73,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
 
RE: A Clarification -- and A Promise  
by KC8VWM on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
A sincere and well-deserved "Thank You" to a politician, or to ANYONE, can be a powerful thing.

--------------

I agree and at this point I would like to elaborate further on that particular point.

It is most likely that those same politicians are the powerful tip of the proverbial iceberg surrounding this entire legislative issue. The main focus and objective should be to influence these decision makers from a most positive perspective.

We should not discourage or confuse them with an over abundance of technical mumbo jumbo nor should we start crying the blues about the "grave injustices to hams" or any other negative impact implications associated with our intentions to install antenna's in CC&R neighborhoods.

The message we send should be positive, clear, concise, to the point and serve everyone'
s best interests in a positive manner. Basically, what you want them to say at the end of the day is not just Yes or No to this idea but rather, "Of Course."

The less wriggling room they have on their plate for consideration on the subject, the better off the political decision making outcome will be in our favor.

This is probably going to take a lot of advanced preparation and consideration in order to ensure the cards are played on the table in just the right order.

Well on a similar note. Thank you Don for your efforts that clearly address the more IMPORTANT & REAL CHALLENGES hams are increasingly forced to contend with today in 2006.

Just to show you my good intentions, I am going to contribute and offer your organization my financial support at www.hamsforaction.net.

(A quick side note suggestion for potential contributors visiting your website. "Paypal Account.")

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by N1DCA on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Is this a Federal issue? Laws governing real estate and what you can do with it, how you transfer it, etc. all seems to be the domain of the states, not the feds.
 
Ham radio - an avocation, not an obsession.  
by AI2IA on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
While it is important to know who is for protection for ham antennas in Congress, and it is important to know this, yet for voting someone into office, this issue has to be assigned its actual place in priority.

There are too many urgent issues such as the terrorist threat, the war in Irag, right to life, definition of marriage, illegal immigration, economy, etc., that the deciding factors on the selection of a candidate should not pivot on the issue of antenna protection for hams. It belongs on the list, but not near the top.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K5UJ on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
<<<"We need to come up with antenna installations that won't be considered an eyesore to our neighbors". >>>

Nonsense. K8MHZ, your house's exterior is an eyesore, please change it. That potting shed/garage/fish pond/dog house/compost heap..all eye sores, please get rid of them. And by the way, that car of yours in the driveway?....eye sore. OW! My eye's hurt. Please bend yourself into a pretzel to please me, neighbor.

You may need to wrap your antennas around yourself to make your neighbors happy but I sure don't. So instead of all this We stuff, please speak for yourself.
 
About FEDERAL Authority and PRIVATE Contracts ...  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
[NOTE: My CURRENT handle on EHAM is DONK14PMG, but for some reason the updated handle has been dropped from the EHAM database. I will find out how to correct this after the elections, when I have more time.]


------------------------------------------------------


POINT #1:


Overrides of HOA antenna bans CAN be a Federal matter IF the Federal Government -- either the FCC or Congress -- decides to make them a Federal matter.

They do not HAVE to do this, but they CAN do this. According to various court decisions that have interpreted the United States Constitution, Congress has the legal authority to do this directly OR to do this indirectly (by enacting a statute, such as the Communications Act of 1936, which delegates this authority to a government agency, such as the FCC).

You can say the Federal Government SHOULDN'T do this, but America's courts will disagree with you if you say the Federal Government CAN'T do this.


****


Whether or not these interpretations by the courts actually reflect the intent of the nation's founders can be argued either way. Still, there is no real argument over whether America's courts SAY that the Federal Government has these sweeping powers under the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

[NOTE: The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to "regulate commerce among the several States" -- which, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, can include regulating commerce INSIDE a State IF that intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court has further concluded that just about every intrastate economic activity affects interstate commerce. The basic decisions of this nature began during the New Deal, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and have largely continued in the same vein ever since. The New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Great Society and most of the other major Federal Government programs of the last 70 years would have been legally impossible without this Supreme Court interpretation of the Commerce Clause.]


****


Overall, Congress and/or Federal agencies override local governments and property rights ROUTINELY.

The civil rights laws of the 1960's established that:

(a) Individuals cannot stretch their personal property rights to the point of denying people access to "public accommodations" and/or housing, on the basis of race;
And
(B) State and local governments cannot block these Federal mandates by enacting, or maintaining, laws to the contrary.

These basic points have been upheld in a string of Federal court decisions, including some by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Federal economic and environmental statutes regulations similarly override personal property rights and/or State and local prerogatives on a ROUTINE basis.

For example: If you are a small business owner and you want to pay your employees $4.00 an hour, Federal law will nevertheless require you to pay the minimum wage. And if your local State passes its own law, stating that $4.00 an hour is OK with them, that law will be unenforceable to the extent it is in conflict with the Federal law.

Your State can set its own, HIGHER minimum wage -- which I personally hope voters in Colorado will do, by referendum, in tomorrow's election -- but your State cannot lawfully set a minimum wage that falls BELOW the Federally mandated level.

In the case of antenna regulations, the FCC's PRB-1 regulations require State and local GOVERNMENTS to provide for "reasonable accommodation" of ham antennas (with the details to be worked out case-by-case).

The ARRL-endorsed Israel/Ross bill simply extends the PRB-1 approach to NON-govermmental entities, in the form of HOAs that are enforcing restrictive covenants.

HFA's Petition to the FCC applies the same basic principle, but goes a bit farther on the details. We try to avoid costly and time-consuming court battles by defining the general parameters of "reasonable accommodation" right in our proposal.

As other commenters have noted, above, Congress -- not the FCC, but CONGRESS -- has already overridden HOAs to require that they must allow satellite dishes and certain other commercial antennas. Nobody has been able to overturn this mandate in court, and I'm not sure anybody has even tried. The authority of Congress to do what it did is just too clear to make a court challenge very attractive.

Congress just interfered with HOAs again, this year. Representative Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD -- who also supported the Israel/Ross HOA antenna reform bill in 2002 and 2003 -- sought and won enactment of new legislation to block HOAs from banning displays of the American flag. (HOAs have, in fact, banned American flags in Virginia and other States -- with the incredible "justification" that displays of the American flag reduce property values.)

Under Representative Bartlett's new law, HOAs can still REGULATE displays of the American flag -- but they cannot BAN American flag displays.

This is no different, in principle, from the basic proposition embodied in both the ARRL-endorsed Israel/Ross bill and HFA's independent Petition to the FCC. That is: HOAs should be allowed to REGULATE outdoor ham antennas, but their regulations must be "REASONABLE" -- and must definitely stop short of banning outdoor ham antennas completely.

I am not aware of any efforts to challenge Representative Bartlett's flag display law in court. Indeed, the trade association of HOAs -- probably sensing an embarrassing defeat if they "took a shot" -- did not even oppose enactment of the bill in the first place.


****************


POINT #2:


In answer to the question from DENNIS, 3 of the 5 original founders of HFA(including me) live under antenna bans -- and at least 2 of those 3 ere indeed hams before they moved into their present residences. I am not sure whether the third one was a ham before he purchased his home, but I THINK he was.

In my own case, I have been a full-time graduate student for the last 2 years and am still completing my Master of Arts Thesis. I am a student, therefore I rent. And: I am a tenant, therefore I am subject to the almost universal ban on ham antennas by landlords.

However, when and if I am willing and able to be a homeowner again, I will probably have to move out of Colorado if I want to put up an outdoor ham antenna. That's because Colorado LAW requires that almost all housing developments must be governed by HOAs -- almost all of which ban all outdoor ham antennas.

As for the other 2 HFA founders who are trapped by ham antenna bans:

In one case, a County STATUTE requires all new housing in the County to be governed by HOAs. Going outside of the County would have turned a 60-minute commute into at least a 90-minute commute.

In the other case, bankers throughout the entire metropolitan area refuse to lend money to any housing developer who does not impose an HOA upon the homebuyers.


****


I certainly can't stop someone from claiming that the 3 of us entered into "freely negotiated" contracts -- created by "market forces". However, County STATUTES, and UNIFORM commercial lending practices in which the ultimate homebuyer has no voice at all, and UNIVERSAL practices by landlords, sure don't count as "market forces" in MY book.

It's not a market system when none of the "competitors" are offering you a choice.

That's a rigged system, not a market system.


****************


POINT #3:


A word about my personal credentials ...


I know something about the law because I am a Member of the Bar in both Virginia and Connecticut.


I am telling you about my credentials for 2 reasons:

(A) To demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the Federal Government's authority to override both private contracts AND State and local governments ...

And

(B) To demonstrate that I have a "track record" of successes in advocating new legislation and new regulations -- which means HOA antenna reform has a real fighting chance, IF I can gather enough resources to wage the battle for HFA.


****


Regarding my ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS:


I received my law degree from George Washington University, in Washington, D.C. During my third year at that law school, I served on the Editorial Board of THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & ECONOMICS (a student law review).

I also hold a B.A. in Government (aka Political Science) from Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.

Further, as I noted above, I have almost completed a newly minted Master of Arts degree. This is a Master of Arts in Liberal Studies (MALS) degree, with a focus on Cross-Cultural Politics, from Hollins University in Roanoke, Virginia.

The coursework for the pending MALS degree includes a semester of East Asian Studies at the Center for the Pacific Rim, based at the University of San Francisco in California.


****


Regarding my CAREER EXPERIENCE:


Although I do not practice courtroom law any longer, I have 5 years of courtroom experience. I also have more than ** 25 ** years of experience in GOVERNMENT RELATIONS law -- advocating both new legislation AND new regulations, at both the Federal AND the State and local levels of government.


****


During the 1970's and the 1980's, I was a key player in enacting two key pieces of Federal energy legislation:

Allowing natural gas use in new powerplant combined cycle turbines ...
And
Authorizing the phased deregulation of natural gas at the wellhead (that is, the point of production).

I was also involved in successful advocacy to shape the Federal regulaions which implementation these Congressional statutes.

In addition, during the same general period, I helped to promote and establish State and local programs to foster commercialization of natural gas and electric vehicles. I helped to get this ball rolling in Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and California.
In addition, I advised the South Coast Air Quality
Management District when it set up a "low-emission vehicle" mandate for the Los Angeles Basin.


****


More recently, I was a key player in the FCC's decision to authorize a LOW POWER FM (LPFM) Radio Service -- composed of new community-sized, community-oriented and locally based FM radio stations, broadcasting at 100 watts or less.

NICK LEGGETT N3NL of Virginia, who helped me to found HFA in July, was my key colleague in the successful LPFM authorization effort.


****


In between these Government Relations achievements, I also acquired some trial law experience in Connecticut and Virginia.


I spent 3 years as an aide to judges in 5 different New Haven courts:

The JUVENILE COURT (which I liked the best) ...

The then-experimental DRUG REHABILITATION COURT (which became a success, and a model for other jurisdictions around the country) ...

The SUPERIOR (or civil law) COURT, where I heard more private contract disputes than I care to remember ...

The CRIMINAL COURT, where I learned to say phrases such as "the snitch dropped the dime on the perp" ...

And

The HABEAS CORPUS COURT, where prisoners' grievances were heard, along with prisoners' assertions of inadequate representation by their criminal defense attorneys.


More recently, I spent 2 years as a Family Lawyer in Virginia, specializing primarily in Child Custody cases.

First I worked for a year as a Staff Attorney with BLUE RIDGE LEGAL SERVICES of Harrisonburg, Virginia.

After that, I spent a year in private practice. Among other Family Law activities, I was certified by the Commonwealth of Virginia as a Guardian Ad Litem for Children.

This meant that I could, and did, represent children directly in 4 different courthouses in and near the Shenandoah Valley. I completed both the Basic and Advanced Training Courses for GALs representing children in Virginia.


****


My total package of career experience now includes work in all 3 of the basic branches of American government: Legislative, Executive AND Judicial. I have earned this expertise at both the Federal AND the State and local levels of American government.


****************


Once again, I have gone on here, at some length, in order to convey two basic messages:

1. You can believe me when I tell you that either the FCC or Congress have the legal authority to do what HFA is asking ...

And

2. I have the personal experience AND the personal motivation to provide a real fighting chance for HOA antenna reform.


****


Now here's the THIRD basic message:

3. I cannot do it alone. I need your help.

IF enough people to join HFA, we will have the resources to win. If enough people don't join HFA, we won't.

It's as simple as that.

IF you agree with me that HOA antenna reform is needed, and in fact long overdue, PLEASE do more than just talk about it here. Please go to HFA's Web Site, at www.hamsforaction.net, and read the postings -- INCLUDING the Membership Application Form.


****************


THANK YOU!!


73,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
HAMS FOR ACTION URL: www.hamsforaction.net
2617 East Uintah Street
#D
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909
 
Voting For Congressional Legislators  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Dear AI2IA,


I agree with you that "one issue voting" should usually be avoided.

Please scroll up the discussion thread and read my posting entitled "A Clarification -- and A Promise".

In that posting, I quoted HFA's press release statement that "These are not endorsements. These are acknowledgements."

Then I added, in the posting, that HFA is asking constituents of these Congressional legislators to CONSIDER the legislator's support for HOA antenna reform as ONE factor in deciding how to vote.

HFA just wants these legislators to know that we noticed they helped us -- and that we told YOU they helped us.

A public "Thank You" is not an endorsement. It's common courtesy.

It's also good politics, if you expect to be asking many of the same people for help in the future.

I hope this current posting has cleared things up.

73,



Don SchellhardtKI4PMG
 
THANK YOU, KC8VWM!!  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Dear Charles KC8VWM,


Speaking of public "Thank You" statements ...

THANK YOU, KC8VWM, FOR CONTRIBUTING TO HAMS FOR ACTION!!


I look forward to working with you in the future.


73,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
 
RE: THANK YOU, KC8VWM!!  
by N9XCR on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Great job, Don!!! I look forward to seeing the progress HFA makes.

You're absolutely correct about the need to thank those who supported us. I'm sure it would be helpful and encouraging to the politicians for people to thank them for every good move they make, as you said. I don't think a lot of people think about that, myself included. It's always nice to hear someone at work tell you what a good job you did.

I'm sure most of us can agree that most politicians are liars and dirtbags, but then again, how would you be if most of what you heard was bitching and moaning? Feedback is important, whether complimentary or otherwise.

Chris
N9XCR
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by N0AH on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Don,

I think you are missing a call to action in your posting. And if you are, my apologies for missing it.

I suggest we each send a chunk of trash from the shoreline of the Gulf Coast to our representatives in Washington to remind them that amateur radio is of vital national interest.

Most won't get it but I bet the MS. and LA. offices will.

Awesome article, informative, and talk about research.

You should work with the ARRL to build upon your efforts. They don't have anything like this I've seen but perhaps you are paralling their efforts on unannounced efforts?

This is professional. Very FB-

Paul N0AH
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by BHARDIMON on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think that's the problem. Hams are NOT a vital National Interest. This is only in the minds of Hams. Especially after Katrina, everyone else knows better. Yes, Hams do play some role in an incident such as Katrina, but it's very small and nowhere near "vital". Relaying messsages about cots and a few welfare messages doesn't have anything to do with erecting 60FT towers in Suburban America. The arguement could have been made in 1970 but this is 2006. Update yourselves, you might gain some respect.

 
Thoughts On Politicians -- and Other Humans  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I appreciate your comments.

I don't mean that voters should never "give 'em Hell" when the politicians -- or the business leaders, or the union leaders, or Whomever -- deserve it.

In fact, overall, I personally don't believe the average incumbent Member of Congress DESERVES re-election. And I'm not just talking about the Republican incumbents!!

But SOME Representatives, and Senators, DO deserve re-election. We have to look carefully at the record, and the attitudes, of each one. Further, the GOOD incumbents are spread across BOTH political parties -- and across ALL of the ideologies that are presently represented in Congress.

The labels placed on leaders DO tell you something, and the voting records on specific issues DO matter, but it may be the personal attitudes that matter the most. Character DOES count, in very tangible ways.

I was once told this, Off The Record, by a VERY liberal Senator from a large Democratic State:

"When I'm in a [Congressional] Committee meeting, and I see Barry Goldwater entering the room, I silently thank God. I thank God because I KNOW that Barry Goldwater wants what it is best for the country. Now, his idea of how to get there is very different from mine, but we BOTH want to get there and we can often compromise on the details. I can work with Barry Goldwater because we have the same goal.

"The kind of Senator I CAN'T work with is the guy who is only thinking about how he's gonna look on the 6:00 news. Unfortunately, THAT kind of Senator is definitely in the majority."

As I recall, I heard those words in 1979.

I believe they are more true than ever in 2006.


****


So ... My overall personal advice is this:


(1) Be skeptical of ANY incumbent -- or challenger!! -- but also be willing to see the good if it's there. Don't fall into Groupthink. Look at each politician as an INDIVIDUAL.


(2) When assessing a politician, or any other kind of leader (including a boss!!), put CHARACTER first. An open, honest, caring liberal is usually better than a ruthless, self-serving conservative -- AND vice versa!

AND remember that CHARACTER is not a strictly private quality. CHARACTER also reflects itself in what public policy positions are taken, and why, and how, and with what level of respect (if any) for honorable opponents. "Cash register honesty" and happy children at home (if applicable) are very good starting points, but they aren't everything. Real CHARACTER will show up in a person's public life, as well as his or her private life. Look at both!


And, finally ...


(3) Even if you think someone is an S.O.B., and even if you're right, you should still thank him or her when he or she does something right. Even S.O.B.s do something right sometimes, and they might do so more often if they receive "positive reinforcement" for it. That doesn't mean you have to praise them, hug them, marry them or vote for them. It DOES mean you should thank them when (and if) they deserve it.

As I was once told by a child therapist:

"When you deal with a child, you should be as specific in your praise as you are in your criticism."

Children? Politicians? What's the difference?


Your fellow, fallible Child of God,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by N0AH on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Hey Bhard,

Have you ever spent 4 weeks in Oklahoma in May of 1999 working 16 hour days to help clean up Bridgecreek, Oklahoma and the surrounding area? We're you there to fill in for police and fire communications while they were out for 10 days for them?

What about Katrina? Were you there to call in assistance to the Red Cross for health and welfare for residents in rural Mississippi?

From the sounds of it, you have zero clue.............

I've heard a lot of people say how thankful and surprise they are when a team of hams show up at a forest fire to enhance communications. But of course, you don't get it- Because anything like a tornado or hurricane will never happen to you, right?

We need every antenna out there we can get- Instead of being a whacked out appliance operator with a CB handle, why don't you join us and get your license?

10-4 Moron?
 
Your clarification well taken - AI2IA  
by AI2IA on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"HFA is asking constituents of these Congressional legislators to CONSIDER the legislator's support for HOA antenna reform as ONE factor in deciding how to vote."

"HFA just wants these legislators to know that we noticed they helped us -- and that we told YOU they helped us."

"A public "Thank You" is not an endorsement. It's common courtesy."

Informed voters take many factors into consideration when voting and this is as it should be. Certainly recognition of a helping hand and expression of gratitude are both courteous and wise. Don, KI14PMG, your point is well taken. - Ray Mullin, AI2IA




 
Paul -- ARRL Staff Doesn't WANT My Help!!  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 6, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
My most recent message, directly above, was a response to the posting by Chris.

Chris, I apologize for forgetting to mention your name.


********


THIS message is a response to the posting by Paul.


********


Paul, thank you for your compliment!


Unfortunately, I am afraid you unintentionally brought up a personal sore point when you suggested I should work for -- or with -- ARRL.


********


Paul, in 2003, I applied to work FOR ARRL. Twice. Even at the below market salaries they usually pay, I wanted to do it -- because I believe in ham radio, and especially in its EmComm potential.

I was turned down flat.


********


Later in 2003, and again in 2004, and again in 2006, I abandoned my earlier aspirations to work for ARRL. Instead, I simply offered to work WITH ARRL.

No pay involved ... just cooperation.

As before, I was turned down flat each time.


********


First as Vice President of the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM, and this year as President of HAMS FOR ACTION, I asked to address the ARRL Board of Directors about developing a joint position and strategy on HOA antenna reform.

In the case of the NAC request, made early in 2004, I also wanted to discuss the possibility of a joint position and strategy on BPL.

The 2003 request, made on behalf of NAC, was met by a polite but firm "No".

The 2006 request, made on behalf of HFA, did not receive any response at all.


****


Later in 2004, while I was still Vice President at NAC, I invited ARRL staff to exchange thoughts and ideas about how to fight BPL. I even proposed that we should file Joint Comments at some stage, at least once, to display solidarity on the points where our two organizations agreed.

ARRL staff told me, basically, that ARRL wanted to fly "solo" and did not care to work with NAC -- on BPL, HOA antenna reform or anything else.

ARRL staff did not care to WORK with NAC and ARRL staff did not even care to TALK with NAC. ARRL staff did not even care to offer unofficial, Off The Record input to NAC about what ARRL would prefer to have us do. Nor did they care to receive any input or information from us.

Later that year, ARRL sought an extension of the BPL Written Comments period and was rejected by the FCC. NAC filed an Extension Request and gained another 3 weeks.

Maybe a LONGER comment period extension could have been gained if ARRL staff had been willing to pool resources with NAC -- or at least compare notes.


****


This year, before HFA filed with the FCC its independent Petition on HOA antenna reform, we sent a draft to ARRL staff. HFA invited ARRL staff to provide input -- On The Record or Off The Record -- on what we planned to propose.

Was there anything in our draft Petition that ARRL wanted us to remove? Was there anything NOT in our draft Petition that ARRL wanted us to include? We weren't promising in advance to make every change ARRL might suggest, but we wanted to identify any possible conflicts in advance -- and avoid them if we could.

As in 2004, ARRL staff told us to go off on our own. They did not want to cooperate and/or coordinate with HFA. They did not want to even TALK to HFA, unofficially or otherwise. They did not want any sort of connection, On The Record or Off The Record, that could link ARRL in any way to any proposal by HFA.

ARRL staff took this position even though ARRL and HFA are THEORETICALLY "On The Same Side" when it comes to HOA antenna reform ... Just as ARRL and NAC had been THEORETICALLY "On The Same Side" when it came to BPL ...

This puzzled me no end. Why didn't ARRL want an ALLY? I wondered. What kind of politically savvy group doesn't want an ALLY?


****


I also chewed over some statements, from various ARRL leaders, that ARRL wasn't doing much to promote HOA antenna reform because it was too pre-occupied with BPL.

Well ... OK, I thought. At first.

But then I thought:

If ARRL is too burdened by the battle against BPL to press for HOA antenna reform, wouldn't they WANT another group to "take HOA antenna reform off their hands"? Wouldn't they WANT a group like HFA to "assume responsibility" for action in this area -- so that ARRL could concentrate on BPL? Wouldn't ARRL staff be bending over backwards to help HFA -- or, before that, NAC -- to "carry their water" on HOA antenna reform?


****


Then I began to think back on an offer I had made to Dave Sumner, late in 2004.

Maybe, I had thought at the time, the problem is that ARRL is really "pre-occupied" with BPL -- but still cannot bear to see any other organization taking a leadership role on any other ham-related issue.

NAC didn't care whether it got all the credit for overriding HOA antenna bans. We just wanted to see them overridden! So NAC "floated" a tentative proposal to ARRL:

NAC could re-organize itself, WITHIN the ARRL structure, as a special ARRL Task Force on HOA Antenna Reform. The new Task Force could be self-financing, like ARRL's existing Spectrum Defense Fund. It could do its own fund-raising, totally separate from the Dues assessed by ARRL, so that it would not be a drain on the overall ARRL budget. The discontented antenna ban reformers within ARRL, eager for an outlet for their energies, would be given one -- but it would be INSIDE the ARRL organization, rather than outside of it in their own independent group. And all of it could come at no cost to ARRL's budget.

As I entered the meeting with Dave, I thought to myself:

"ARRL gets FREE labor for HOA antenna reform, with no diversion of ARRL's existing energies away from BPL? ARRL keeps the antenna reformers as Dues-paying Members of ARRL, and avoids the rise of a potential competitor organization, at no cost to ARRL's budget? And, meanwhile, those hams who fervently favor HOA antenna reform finally get an official organizational 'home' -- inside ARRL? This is Win/Win. What's not to like?"

Well ...

Dave Sumner didn't like it. The meeting was Off The Record, but I can tell you this: Dave is unlikely to like anything that is going to raise the profile of HOA antenna reform within the ARRL Membership.


****


And now ... I am thinking the unthinkable.

Is it possible that ARRL staff really doesn't WANT to see HOA antenna reform enacted?

That ARRL staff isn't just "too pre-occupied" with BPL -- but might actually be PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED to HOA antenna reform? Or have some other unstated reason for not wanting to see it happen?

Is it even conceivable that ARRL's "lip service" to HOA antenna reform, unaccompanied by any real action, is designed to keep leadership on HOA antenna reform in the hands of people who DON'T want to see it happen?

IF this is the truth (and I'm not sure it is):

Is ARRL's Board of Directors "in on the game" -- or does the Board THINK that ARRL staff is doing more to promote HOA antenna reform than it actually is?


****


Maybe we'll find out during the ARRL Board's Winter Meeting in January -- to be held just before the new Session of Congress convenes.

To his credit, Dave Sumner has himself recommended a "zero based legislative review" of ALL of ARRL's official public policy objectives -- including HOA antenna reform -- at the Winter Board Meeting. The Board has agreed to do this.

HFA still has a number of ARRL Members in its ranks, including me, and we may have some input for the Board about these deliberations. In fact, I expect that HFA Members will be voting by early December on what HFA should say to the Board.

We may be encouraging other ARRL Members to communicate with the Board as well.

Personally, I think the ideal outcome would be Board action to put HOA antenna reform at the top of ARRL's Priority List -- or, at the very least, just behind BPL and well ahead of the Spectrum Protection Act.

However, still speaking for myself alone, I would add this "fallback" wish:

If the Board ISN'T willing to do make HOA antenna reform a key priority for ARRL, then I hope the Board drops HOA antenna reform from ARRL's list of objectives completely.


****


Right now, in its efforts to recruit more Members, HFA has to compete with the ILLUSION of a commitment to HOA antenna reform by ARRL.

IF ARRL's Board is NOT going to step in and tell ARRL staff to start treating HOA antenna reform as a serious legislative objective -- whether they like it or not -- THEN the Board should at least have the decency to dispel the illusion of ARRL commitment that has been created.

AT LEAST until the Board meets in January, and perhaps beyond:

Anyone who truly wants action on HOA antenna reform will have to support HAMS FOR ACTION. You can't count on getting any real action on this issue from ARRL.


****


Thanks again for the compliment, Paul.

If ARRL had actually hired me, AND let me do my job once I had been hired, we might have enacted HOA antenna reform by now.


73,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG


 
RE: Paul -- ARRL Staff Doesn't WANT My Help!!  
by W6TH on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
.
I really don't want to comment about the ARRL, but in this case I must, as many do not understand the purpose of the ARRL.

In simple and plain language the ARRL is government controlled and cannot say anything in regards to opposition. When an organization accepts government grants, what should be the first that comes to our minds. The ARRL is a "non-profit organization", the ARRL has many restrictions as to opposition to the government.

This is the America of today, as the voters want, so please live with it.

Democracy: Where 51 percent get what they want and the other 49 percent go without.

W6TH

.:
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by QSYING on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
What US group has ever done more to advocate amateur radio than ARRL? Facts, not anecdotes, please.

73,

Bob - KC9JUB
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W6TH on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
.
QSYING on November 7, 2006
What US group has ever done more to advocate amateur radio than ARRL? Facts, not anecdotes, please.

73,

Bob - KC9JUB
....................................................

Yes, advocate for ARRL. That's no joke.
.:
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KC8VWM on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
What US group has ever done more to advocate amateur radio than ARRL? Facts, not anecdotes, please.

73,

Bob - KC9JUB

--------

True Bob, but consider this question for a moment:

Why hasn't the ARRL done more to aggressively advocate for specific HOA antenna legislation on behalf of amateur radio?

Should BPL such an important primary issue when some ham's can't even put up an antenna in the first place?

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by QSYING on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!


KC8VWM wrote:

<<True Bob, but consider this question for a moment:

Why hasn't the ARRL done more to aggressively advocate for specific HOA antenna legislation on behalf of amateur radio?

Should BPL such an important primary issue when some ham's can't even put up an antenna in the first place?

73 Charles - KC8VWM>>

Charles:

That is a good question. I have no answer as to why the ARRL takes a particular position or course of action.

What I do know, is that the public flogging of ARRL and/or its leadership, which I see done here pretty often, will not help with CC&Rs, potential BPL interference issues, potential loss of spectrum, potential regulatory actions, or any number of other issues.

Any organization that purports to speak for an interest will have its detractors and supporters.

If I have issues with ARRL (which I currenly don't), I will address them with ARRL. I do feel ARRL should solicit and publish regular survey feedback from members. I am not sure if it does or doesn't, as I am newly back into ham radio after a brief 42 year absence.

I just moved to a community that has some restrictions as to size and type of outdoor amateur radio antennas. It is not draconian, but it is not nearly as free as from where I moved. However, I knew the story going into it, eyes wide open. Would I like fewer restrictions? Sure. Will that happen. Not likely.

73,

Bob - KC9JUB
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K4RAF on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
What Don & the other poor suckers forget is you SIGN(ed) a CONTRACT. It is private property you have AGREED to make conform to certain restrictions. PERIOD...

Until you can define a maximum permissable ham installation, like FCC OTARD, you are wasting your time. That is unless you are Democra#s, who believe in socialist solutions to minor obstructions like waived rights or more like "do overs"...

Study & understand what FCC OTARD is. Binding & INCLUDES defined maximums, wireless internet & covers rental property. I have run into this with wireless internet installs. 19dBi panels are smaller than a pizza box. Go away!
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K4RAF on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"$25 makes you a Voting Member of HAMS FOR ACTION"

$25 to vote? On what? Don Schellgame at it again... Nothing more than a commercial & belongs in the ads, not in the topic or news.

I voted today, for free, where it counts for something!
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W6TH on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
.
That is a good question. I have no answer as to why the ARRL takes a particular position or course of action.


I told you, the ARRL is restricted because they are a non-profit organization receiving money grants from the government.

The ARRL can't bite the hand that is feeding them.
.:
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KC8VWM on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
You bring up some valid points too Bob.

I agree with your statement that the ARRL has received it's fair share of floggings recently, especially on here and over on QRZ, but I do openly support the ARRL and it's endeavor to preserve amateur radio for the most part. I admit they really have done a tremendous job over the years.

However, I am left wondering if they have been doing enough to serve our best interests more recently. I am not so sure if what the ARRL has done in the past is going to be enough to get us through into the future?

As you are probably aware, amateur radio is now faced with many new challenges in 2006. The ARRL are currently focused on issues that primarily revolve around issues ranging from the great no code debate and "omnibus" ride, BPL, spectrum defense campaigning, grassroots political lobbying campaign efforts, attracting and retaining new membership, selling educational training materials and programs for hams etc..etc..

The main point being is that ARRL currently need's to take a hard look at it's priorities and set themselves straight if the overall intention is to:

A) Increase overall revenues and maintain it's membership.

B) Meet it's current agenda, goals and objectives.

C) Meet it's members agenda, goals and objectives.

As Don, has pointed out there seems to be an inherit lack of interest in "rolling up the sleeves" and moving ahead with some serious antenna restriction legislation at ARRL. This should be a paramount issue high on the list of priorities at ARRL, but oddly enough it isn't.

While all the whiz bang programs ARRL offers it's membership like "visa card" enrollment are all fine and dandy.. they still need to address and "resolve" the real issues and root of our problems at hand.

In my mind, it is the "resolutions" that account as actual achievements that will get my membership dollars mailed into the ARRL year after year. On the other hand, it's not this recent window dressing trend that merely "implies" that they are actively pursuing certain issues with no actual results or conclusion taking place. I might be mistaken, but I don't think I am the only one that feels this way recently. This is not intended to slam ARRL, it is just my objective observation recently.

On a more positive note, I will say that Joel Harrison is probably good for the organization. He seems to have a "can do" attitude and perhaps we will see things turn around for the better at the ARRL.

But in the meantime, we still need to address the age old issue of antenna restrictions and Don has simply decided to move ahead to get this job done. Don has the right background, education, the experience and is well qualified for the job. I vote that we openly support him with tackling this endeavour. Is there any reason we shouldn't offer our support? It seems we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by WB2WIK on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Interesting article and discussion.

Waiving amateur antennas from restrictive covenants is a nice start, but I wouldn't be even minimally satisfied with that. I have CC&R documents on file here that are more than one hundred pages long. The antenna restrictions occupy one paragraph. There are 600 other paragraphs prohibiting a lot more stuff. Most of it is unreasonable, yet people sign agreement with them, anyway.

I think a lot of folks doing so don't know what they're agreeing to until it's too late.

I can understand restrictive covenants when developments are drafted in places having no zoning at all, so it's like the Wild West. If the city or county will allow "anything," up to raising wild animals and having a shooting range in the backyard, then maybe some restrictions are a good thing, to make the area a bit more residential in nature.

But when zoning ordinances are already in place and already prohibit insane activities in residential neighborhoods, CC&Rs are superfluous and just add unnecessary restrictions. The real way to fight this is with your wallet, by simply not buying any property with restrictive covenants. There's lots of places to live -- everywhere -- without them. I just pick those places. So far, it's been very easy.

WB2WIK/6
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KC8VWM on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

What Don & the other poor suckers forget is you SIGN(ed) a CONTRACT. It is private property you have AGREED to make conform to certain restrictions. PERIOD...

------------------

Agreed...,

Also, to ensure these contracts are not ever violated or ever going to change in anyone's favor in the immediate future for any hams living in antenna restricted neighborhoods, I would recommend that people simply do absolutely nothing at all.

I can assure you that doing absolutely nothing at all will ensure these contracts remain exactly the same way as they are right now and absolutely nothing will change.

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by WA1RNE on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!




Don;

I've read your responses to everyone so far but it doesn't seem anyone has really taken the time to read what your are proposing to the FCC.

As well, considering your petition's "Proposed "Fixed Requirements" To Address Aesthetic Concerns", I highly doubt any of the "Prime 9" have read through this either.


IF you scale the first hurdle - getting everyone to accept that amateur stations based in a condo or other residential dwelling are critical to local EMCOMM, they will have to agree with your solution to solving the aesthetic issues which are the main driver against ham antennas:


>> From the petition, quote:

"As one “fixed requirement”, the Petition proposes that conditions for an ECO self-certification must include *painting of the ham’s exterior antenna. **"

"The ECO must certify that all owned or used exterior antennas, and equipment, have been painted a color which matches, at least approximately, the immediate surroundings. As a fixed requirement for re-certification, the Petition proposes a “3-Year Rule" HFA’s 3-Year Rule requires that every ECO, at 3-year intervals after the initial certification (Years 3, 6, etc.), must certify to the FCC that he or she has physically inspected the exterior antenna within 60 days of the anniversary date, or more frequently if needed. The ECO must also certify that, based on the inspection(s), he or she has re-painted and/or repaired and/or otherwise maintained the equipment, if needed."


You have got to be kidding.....PAINTING ANTENNAS? How many hams are going to go along with painting their antennas "camo-green" or to match siding colors and "re-certify" compliance every 3 years? This may be possible for the 25 year old crowd, but as you know, a large majority of the amateur population is made up of senior citizens who will not be able to comply with this.


As for the 33 members who either supported this legislation once and/or chose not to re-introduce it, maybe they took the time to really understand what you are asking - and decided it wasn't sensible - and dropped it like a hot potato.


You may be a very qualified attorney but I think your proposition is a bit of s-t-r-e-t-c-h of reality.


CC&R's are a part of modern life. My sister lived in a local town where they didn't allow you to store a small speed boat and a trailer in her yard. The town probably didn't allow large TV antennas either. Since they could afford to live in this "upscale" neighborhood, they also had the means to store the boat somewhere else and could also afford cable TV. The same goes for hams, and hams are certainly the minority in these developments.


Can you honestly say that a condo complex would not look unsightly with a dozen camo-green multiband verticals and G5RV's hanging all over the place?? Forget about a 3 element yagi.........


Chris, WA1RNE
 
RE: Paul -- ARRL Staff Doesn't WANT My Help!!  
by W9OY on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL is a publishing house. No more no less. Its goal is to maximize profits. It uses its tax exempt status to keep down the competition. It uses changes in the communication law to sell more books. It is a perversion to free enterprise and should be made to pay taxes.

73 W9OY
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W9OY on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
It would be nice to settle on at least the guarantee that acquiring a ham radio license would allow one a simple wire dipole or a simple self supporting vertical regardless of CCR. These antennas are unobtrusive and can not really be indicted on their aesthetics except by the unreasonable and would allow the licensee access to what he is licensed for.

73 W9OY
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by K1CJS on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
At least this post isn't 23 pages long--but it still could have been shorter! :-)
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KE7IPY on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I'm going to start a new group that lists all of the members of Congress and the Senate that have supported the FCC's archaic Morse code requirement for the amateur radio service. That oughta shake'em up inside the beltway...
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KI4ENS on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
One comment,

I keep hearing people say don't buy a house with CCRs if you want antenna's etc, but no one mentions how hard it is to buy a house without CCRs.

Least in Fayette county KY, its almost impossible to buy a new house without CCRs. I know of no new development that does not have antenna restrictive CCRs. Now obviously you could buy an existing home in an older neighborhood but then you have all the older home issues. It seems you must choose between country or older homes with possibility of antennas or a new house with CCRs out the wahzoo.

I chose the older home since I like the architecture better. But I am handy about the house etc and it would not be the best choice for many.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by WB2WIK on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Re: "Older homes." Ah, the myths.

Older homes are exactly the same as newer homes, they're just older. Many are better built, of longer lasting materials than newer homes are. If the previous owners maintained their properties inside and out, appliances, heaters and A/C units and everything else won't be old because it will have all been replaced.

Having owned both "brand new" and "older" homes, I much prefer "older." Brand new is a route I'd never go again, after trying it twice. Lots of reasons, but a couple of big ones are landscaping (lack of it) and swimming pools (lack of them -- most new homes don't come with pools, and of course we always want one...the cost and incredible "mess" of adding a pool is amazing...much easier to buy a home already having a nice pool that someone else paid for and cleaned up after).

I always have home insurance which covers all appliances, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, roofing, pool equipment, chimneys and firepalces, electrical wiring and everything else, so for me an "older" home has exactly the same "warranty" as a brand new one has.

Since I prefer older homes, the choice is obvious for us. But even if I didn't, faced with the choice of older and free of restrictions, or brand new with restrictions, the choice would still be obvious.

WB2WIK/6
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by N0AH on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
ARRL......my money is going to a magazine that prints MFJ ads all over the front to back..............what was I thinking! I'm still dizzy looking at all the band plan changes. Everytime I think things will calm down or remain stable, HOA's come up!

After 9-11, what does it take????? I say just blast away. In 1996, I put up a backyard vertical antenna. In a covanant zone. I got a few questions of "what is that" but no one got in my face. Then after one year, my broken covanant was grandfathered in so I never had to take my antenna down. When I put up the Beam on a 45 crank up, the HOA came knocking. My attorney fired off the Colorado Law about my situation, and a copy of the FCC regulation enforcing my rights, and bingo- They backed off. So did Adams county. The HOA tried getting them to write me a nasty gram. Sometimes, you can find loopholes. Think outside the box for possible solutions. In my situation, an outdoor ham antenna was an outdoor ham antenna, regardless of model. Consult an attorney, sometimes they actually breath and work.
 
Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W4ABW on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I thought Charles Taylor of NC was a republican ?

Al Watson
W4ABW
Raleigh, NC
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KG4RUL on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"My attorney fired off the Colorado Law about my situation, and a copy of the FCC regulation enforcing my rights, and bingo- They backed off. So did Adams county."

What FCC Regulation are you talking about?
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by NC2F on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I'm guessing he's referring to PRB-1

http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html

-Dennis
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KG4RUL on November 7, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If that is the case, PRB-1 had no provisions to negate contracts such as CC&Rs. If he managed to bluff the HOA into letting him keep his antennas, more power to him but, it was only a bluff.
 
He is Back!!!!  
by W1DUD on November 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
....Before you send this guy a dime check this link......http://www.recnet.com/fcc/RM-11287_petition.pdf....a petition for low power AM stations. Check out previous threads on eham for MY discussions with Don and the threats of suing me. I won't speculate on his motives but just do some research on the Amherst Alliance and you will be able to read in between the lines. "73" W1DUD
 
Response To W4ABW  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Dear Paul,


About the partisan affiliation of Representative Charles Taylor:

You are right and I was wrong. Charles Taylor IS a Republican.

I apologize for my error. When I am juggling information about hundreds of Congressional legislators, I sometimes drop a fact or two. Again: I apologize.

BTW --

I used to live in Roanoke, and I have a dear friend who lives in Capitol Hill. So I am familiar with your "neck of the woods" and enjoy visiting it.


****


As for other comments which have been posted in this thread in the last 24 hours, I will respond to some of them later. I was deeply involved in some volunteer campaign activities on and before Election Day, and now I need to spend a little time getting back to the rest of my life. But I WILL be back here -- soon.


73,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
 
I Said "Paul", But I Meant "Al"  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Dear W4ABW,

I called you "Paul" when I should have called you "Al".

Sorry about that. I was up until 4 in the morning, tracking and analyzing election returns, and I am still a little groggy.


73,



Don KI4PMG
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by N0XMZ on November 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
HOAs piss off a lot more people than us hams. RV owners, gardners, anybody who wants a shed in the backyard... HOAs rain on the parades of many people because they have too much power.

Sure, it's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't live there". A lot of people have little to no choice. I have to live within a reasonable distance to work.

As K5UJ said "But how would you like it if _everywhere_ you wanted to live CCR neighborhoods were the only option?". My fear is that in 50-100 years, these damned HOAs are going to be everywhere and our decendants won't have a choice.

HOAs are becoming small de-facto governments and that's not good. Sorry, but I don't want anything to do with dictatorships.

I disagree with the idea relating to landlords. They own the property so they have every right to make such restrictions.
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by KG4HZT on November 9, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
It's a moot point now that the Democrats control the House and maybe the Senate. Many of you will be selling your rigs to pay the hike in taxes you'll soon receive.

 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by WB2WIK on November 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
>RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress Reply
by N0XMZ on November 8, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
HOAs piss off a lot more people than us hams. RV owners, gardners, anybody who wants a shed in the backyard... HOAs rain on the parades of many people because they have too much power.<

::Of course they do, but it's freely given to them.

>Sure, it's easy to say "if you don't like it, don't live there". A lot of people have little to no choice. I have to live within a reasonable distance to work.<

::There isn't any zip code in the country that I've been able to find that doesn't have covenant-free housing. It's a matter of choosing to invest and live in the covenant-free housing that exists, or not.

>As K5UJ said "But how would you like it if _everywhere_ you wanted to live CCR neighborhoods were the only option?".<

::Not likely, unless you tear down all old houses everywhere. I've owned and lived in homes that were 150 years old and still just fine. Houses don't only last 50 or 75 years and then cave in. About 90% of all residential housing build prior to 1960 is covenant-free...that's literally millions of homes.

>My fear is that in 50-100 years, these damned HOAs are going to be everywhere and our decendants won't have a choice.<

::Well, they will, because (i) even 100 years from now, >50% of all the available land in the U.S. won't have been built on yet -- so if they buy rural property that's not part of any development, they can do whatever they want; and (ii) as stated above, houses don't just cave in after 100 years. My "condo" in Boston was a conversion of a private single-family home that was built in 1756 and stood through the Revolutionary War...it doesn't have any covenants or any HOA. Thousands -- no, millions -- of older homes without restrictive covenants are everywhere. It's matter of choosing to invest and live in one.

>HOAs are becoming small de-facto governments and that's not good. Sorry, but I don't want anything to do with dictatorships.<

::Don't blame you, neither do I, which is why I've owned 15 homes now and all of them were restriction-free and HOA-free, including the one I just bought.

-WB2WIK/6
 
Post-Election Update  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Of the 41 U.S. Representatives who were acknowledged on HFA's "Antenna Allies" List, 4 will not be returning to the House.


****


REPRESENTATIVE SHERROD BROWN, D-OH, will not return to the House because he has been elected to the Senate.


****


REPRESENTATIVE JEB BRADLEY, R-NH,was not re-elected.

REPRESENTATIVE J.D. HAYWORTH, R-AZ, was not re-elected.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES TAYLOR, R-NC, was not re-elected.


****************


Two other "Antenna Allies" may or may not be returning to the House in January.


REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA CUBIN, R-WY, has a race that is currently too close to call.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB SIMMONS, R-CT, has a race that is currently too close to call.


****************


An updated List of "Antenna Allies", which incorporates this information, will be posted within a few days of www.hamsforaction.net


73,




Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
 
PS -- RE: Post-Election Update  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 10, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Of the Representatives listed above, only REPRESENTATIVE ROB SIMMONS, R-CT -- who might still win his battle for re-election -- was one of "The Prime 9" who have supported HOA Antenna Reform legislation in all 3 of the last 3 Sessions of Congress.

REPRESENTATIVE J.D. HAYWORTH, R-AZ -- who was not re-elected -- supported the HOA Antenna Reform bill in 2 of the last 3 Sessions of Congress.

THE OTHER FOUR CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATORS took only one of the 3 opportunities they had to sponsor or co-sponsor the HOA Antenna Reform bill.

73,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
 
There is more than one way to skin a cat!  
by W1DUD on November 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Let's see, if I live in a location that dosen't allow antennas, I might want to start with this book-Stealth Amateur Radio -- Operate From Anywhere by Kirk A. Kleinschmidt, NT0Z. Isn't part of this hobby about experimentation and overcoming obstacles to communicate? There are many types of stealth antennas commercially made or you can save some money and build your own. My HF dipole can't be seen by neighbors and gets out just fine. So save your money from ALL the organizations that promise you the world and get to it!!!
 
RE: There is more than one way to skin a cat!  
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
HFA involves working WITHIN the law to CHANGE the law.


Sincerely,



Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
 
So let me understand this...  
by W1DUD on November 12, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Don, are you trying to tell me a attic dipole is not allowed in these CC&R restrictions? How about a flagpole antenna or running a wire either in or just under a gutter. The book I proposed people read is approved by the ARRL. Are you trying to tell me that the ARRL would advocate illegal activities? I would propose to you to do your homework and understand the options you have for a antenna in a restricted location.
 
RE: So let me understand this...  
by K4RAF on November 13, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I stapled a 75M dipole to the ceiling in an apartment when my outdoor one was cut down by a whackjob LandWench. I also ran 500W on an SB-220 on 110AC just to use the house lights as a modulation monitor...

Then I moved to a farm where I can put up a 199' tower & the problem was solved.

Shellgame is at it again, just under a new name. He represents the interests of AM/FM "microbroadcasters" as revealed by his own admissions on the Amherst "Alliance" website of past. He has tracks right back to pirate radio operators who want to put towers up just LIKE ham operators. Just because he now finally has a call does not mean he has a clue to change his screen name to his call... That clue is still pending...

Listen Shellgame, you can change your "alliances", aliases & emails but the yellow chameleon's song remains the same...

When will eHam ever figure out this belongs in advertisements & not in news?

K4RAF
 
RE: So let me understand this...  
by KF7CG on November 16, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
That depends upon the restrictions and whether or not illegal means you might get caught at it!

Many CC&Rs specfically forbid hidden, disguised, or camoflaged antennae. If you are in a condo where the attic can be considered part of the common space or part of the physical plant, antennae can't go there either.

There is even a catch-all for other than minor emissions such as those from a baby monitor. Some of the restrictions now prohibit the release of any foul, obnoxious, objectionable, or disrupting substance, sound, material or energy from a property. Guess who defines foul, obnoxious, objectionable and the like.

Given the ubiquity of CC&R prohibitions, we need a PRB1 type override for Ham Radio. CC&R type restrictions can't stop a business from utilizing OTARDs or from utilizing wireless internet, but they can stop Ham Radio.

By the way, mobile radio operation is not protected from BPL or other interference to the same degree as fixed, therefore it is not always a viable alternative.

KF7CG
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by W9WHE-II on November 16, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
W6TH wrote:

"The ARRL can't bite the hand that is feeding them".

Really?
What do you call it when arrl floats proposals with FCC that a majority of its PAYING members don't like?
 
RE: Group Lists 'Antenna Allies' In Congress  
by IAMAHAM on November 16, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
When is the election?
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Related News & Articles
New Group Forms: Hams for Action:
6M Square Copper Dipole
Needed - A New Mobile Antenna Paradigm
MP-1 to FT-897 Antenna Mount:
Current in Antenna Loading Coils


Other Regulatory Articles
Bandwidth versus Keying Speed
Fact or Fallacy?
HFA Spotlights ARRL Board Meeting
Kiss 33cm (900 MHz) Goodbye?
New 80 Meter Allocation