Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
Don Schellhardt (KI4PMG)
on
April 9, 2007
View comments about this article!
HAMS FOR ACTION Appeals Denial of Petition by FCC
by Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA) has taken action again. On April 5, 2007, HFA filed with the FCC a Petition For Reconsideration of the recent denial, by members of the Commission's staff, of HFA's July 31, 2006 Petition For Rulemaking.
HFA's Petition For Rulemaking was denied on February 28, 2007. The blocked Petition For Rulemaking urges the FCC to establish reasonable regulation of outdoor ham antennas by Homeowners' Associations (HOAs), and other private land use regulators, in place of the total antenna bans which currently prevail in many neighborhoods. HFA's new Petition For Reconsideration is, in effect, an appeal for the 5 FCC Commissioners to review and reverse the decision of the Commission's staff.
As many of you know, HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA) is a small but nationwide advocacy group for HOA antenna reform. Founded on July 10, 2006, HFA maintains a Web Site at:
http://www.hamsforaction.net/
Noting that the FCC staff's denial of HFA's Petition For Rulemaking was based entirely on the assertion that private covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) are “voluntary contracts”, HFA's appeal to the FCC stresses that many CC&Rs are in fact the product of involuntary contracts. “At the very least,” HFA declares, the FCC should override CC&R antenna bans that were put in place by HOAs which were made mandatory by law in certain State, County and municipal jurisdictions. “Preferably,” HFA continues, the FCC should also override CC&R antenna bans which result from the absence of market competition -- as evidenced by a complainant's demonstration that total antenna bans are present are present in at least 80% of all housing developments within 10 miles of a given neighborhood.
HFA's appeal also spotlights the Commission staff's admission, in its statement of February 28, that the FCC has discretionary authority to override even those contracts which are truly voluntary. The staff has conceded that the FCC's policy of not overriding voluntary contracts can be overturned or modified if “a strong countervailing reason” is shown. HFA's Petition For Reconsideration then asserts that such a “strong countervailing reason” has indeed been presented in HFA's Petition For Reconsideration.
This public interest imperative is the apparently rising frequency of “megadisasters”, as opposed to relatively small scale and temporary “conventional disasters” -- plus the fact that the Hurricane Katrina megadisaster and the Asian Tsunami megadisaster, which were still years in the future when the Commission last addressed HOA antenna bans, have now demonstrated both the vulnerability of centralized communications and the resilience of decentralized ham operators with battery-operated transmitters.
For those among you who may be interested in reading the full text of HFA's appeal to the FCC, the Petition For Reconsideration has been set forth below. The text of HFA's appeal will also be posted on:
http://www.hamsforaction.net/
************************************************************************
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Partial and Conditional Overrides of ) Docket DA 07-898
Certain Bans on Amateur Radio Antennas )
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE COMMISSION STAFF'S DECISION IN DA 07-898
HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA) is a small but nationwide advocacy group, composed of Amateur Radio operators (aka “hams”). We advocate reasonable regulation of external ham antennas by Homeowners' Associations (HOAs), and other private land use regulators, rather than the total bans on such antennas which now prevail in many privately regulated neighborhoods.
On July 31, 2006, HFA filed a [corrected] Petition For Rulemaking with the Commission, urging a new rule to establish partial and conditional overrides of total bans on external ham antennas. On February 28, 2007, the Petition was denied by the Commission's staff. Through this Petition For Reconsideration, we ask members of the full Commission to review and reverse the denial of HFA's Petition For Rulemaking.
An Explanation of Our Appeal
HFA is filing this Petition For Reconsideration for four primary reasons:
HFA challenges the Commission staff's depiction of all private land use covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) as “voluntary”. Some are voluntary, but some are not. Some are actually imposed by State, County or municipal law. Others are effectively imposed by the de facto absence of market competition: that is, the absence, in many geographical areas, of neighborhoods which do not have CC&Rs. At a minimum, the FCC should address those CC&R's which are not restrained by either market competition or government regulation.
HFA further challenges the Commission staff's assertion that CC&Rs which are truly voluntary may not be regulated by the FCC. This is a self-imposed restriction. The policy does not flow from either statutory law or a court decision, but rather from discretionary judgments made by the FCC in 2001 and previous years. What the Commission put in place under its own authority can also be removed under the Commission's own authority.
Since the Commission has the legal power to undo what it has done under its own discretionary authority, HFA contends that its Petition's references to changed circumstances -- such as the re-demonstrated importance of Amateur Radio operations during recent mega-disasters, and HFA's preparation of a proposal which is more sensitive to HOA concerns than previous proposals -- are indeed relevant and material. The FCC's staff should not have dismissed such new facts as irrelevant to the policy at issue.
As another implication of the fact that the Commission has the legal power to undo what it has done under its own authority, HFA also considers it relevant that none of the current full Commissioners were “on duty” when the previous policies on private land use CC&Rs were put in place. HFA does not make the assumption that the current Commissioners will necessarily make exactly the same decisions that their predecessors made. We urge the present Commissioners to take a new look at the policies they inherited.
The Need For The Commission To Address Involuntary CC&Rs
The Commission's staff harkens back to earlier decisions by the Commission,
in 2001 and years before, which draw a distinction between State and/or local regulation of exterior Amateur Radio antenna regulations and those antenna regulations -- or even outright antenna prohibitions -- which are imposed under private CC&Rs.
The Commission's staff reiterates the Commission's standing belief that a ham “must comply” with State and local regulations, while CCR's “are contractual terms to which an amateur operator voluntarily subjects him- or herself.”
This belief, however, is accurate for only some CC&Rs. Other CC&Rs are not voluntary.
The clearest cases of involuntary CC&Rs are those imposed by HOAs which are in turn imposed on all home buyers by State, County or municipal law. In these cases, a home buying ham must agree to HOA regulation, which often includes total bans on ham antennas, because the law requires acquiescence to HOA regulation.
We are aware of at least two jurisdictions, collectively governing millions of people, which require the establishment of HOAs in neighborhoods. One such jurisdiction is Fairfax County, Virginia: a huge suburban County, with which many Commissioners and Commission staff members are undoubtedly familiar. The other jurisdiction is the entire State of Colorado.
These are the only two jurisdictions of which HFA Members have direct knowledge, but we doubt our list is exhaustive. If the full Commissioners decide to proceed with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on HOA antenna regulation, it seems likely that more information about governmentally required HOAs will be forthcoming through the public comment process.
Other CC&Rs are effectively rendered involuntary by the absence of market competition in many geographical areas, including Southern California and the suburbs of Washington, DC. Just as housing developers in some geographical areas are uniformly required to establish HOAs in response to the mandates of governments, housing developers in other areas are uniformly required to establish HOAs in order to obtain financing from lending institutions.
In neither case is there really any negotiation -- or, to use a term from contract law, any “meeting of the minds” -- between the home seller and the home buyer.
In each case, the home seller is simply serving as the agent for third parties -- governmental bodies and/or commercial lenders, respectively -- with whom the home buyer is unable to negotiate directly. Nor, in many instances, can the home buying ham go anywhere else for a different deal -- because the uniformity of the applicable law, and/or the uniformity of the local commercial lending policies, has led to the establishment of HOAs in all of the suitable neighborhoods in his or her area.
In short, in these cases, the home buying ham is trapped by an act of government and/or by an “adhesion contract”, in which the applicable contract provisions are so standardized that they acquire the market power of an oligopoly.
HFA is a small, though nationwide, group. HFA's Members can speak of their own unsuccessful attempts to avoid HOAs, followed by their unsuccessful attempts (and/or the unsuccessful attempts of others) to erect external ham antennas, but we cannot report on the experience of every ham in every location.
What HFA can state is that many individual hams, across the country, are agitated over this issue. Indeed, enough hams were agitated enough to have prompted the Board of Directors of the AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE (ARRL), during its Meeting in January 2007, to declare that antenna reform is now ARRL's #1 priority in Congress.
All of this smoke implies some actual fire: a real need for the FCC to act.
We are confident that actual issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with its public comment period, will produce many examples of antenna-banning HOAs whose authority has been involuntarily imposed by law and/or by adhesion contracts, which blocked competition among home sellers and thus denied choice to home buyers.
As we discuss below, HFA asserts that even voluntary private land use contracts may be regulated by the Commission when and if it is shown that the public interest demands such regulation.
Nevertheless, even if the Commission is not willing to regulate those CC&Rs which are indeed truly voluntary -- that is, those CC&Rs which are not the product of laws and/or choice-denying “adhesion contracts” -- it should at least take the minimum step of issuing a proposed rule to address the involuntary contracts.
At the very least, the FCC should propose to override CC&R antenna regulations when and if antenna bans are imposed by HOAs which are required to be put in place by law in certain State, County or municipal regulations. Preferably, the FCC should also propose to override CC&R antenna bans, as the product of another kind of involuntary contract, when a complainant can show that antenna bans are present in 80% or more of all housing developments within 10 miles of a given neighborhood.
The Need For The Commission To Reconsider Its Policy of Forbidding Itself
To Regulate Those CC&Rs Which Are Truly Voluntary
The Commission's staff, in denying HFA's Petition For Rulemaking, acknowledges that HFA's Petition is significantly different from Petititions which were denied in the past. The Commission's staff denies, however, that HFA's Petition “addresses the Commission's reasons for excluding CC&Rs in private covenants from its limited preemption policy”. The staff clarifies that the Commission “is reluctant to preempt private parties' freedom of contract unless it is shown that private agreements will seriously disrupt the federal regulatory scheme or unless there is another strong countervailing reason to do so.”
Actually, the Petition For Rulemaking did address this core concern of the Commission, by stating what HFA re-stated in this Petition For Reconsideration:
That is, not all CC&Rs are the result of “voluntary” agreements.
Some antenna-banning CC&Rs result from State or local laws, and some result from adhesion contracts that block market competition and consumer choice, and some result from both. In the former case: Why should a State or local government be authorized to do indirectly, through a mandate for the imposition of mandatory CC&Rs, what the PRB-1 program would prevent that same government from doing directly? In the latter case: How is the Commission honoring “private parties' freedom of contract” when the home buyers, and for that matter the home sellers, are blocked by third party practices from negotiating with each other?
In any event, even if these involuntary contracts are put to one side and addressed separately, there remains no inherent legal restriction on the Commission's ability to regulate even voluntary private CC&Rs which adversely affect communications.
The Commission's staff cites no statutory directive that the FCC must always honor “parties' freedom to contract”. Nor does the Commission's staff cite any judicial mandate flowing from a court case. It is clear, then, that the Commission's policy of not pre-empting private land use CC&Rs is a self-imposed restriction: that is, an exercise of the Commission's discretionary authority. It is not an iron directive, from Congress or the courts, that the Commission must follow.
What the Commission has done, using its discretionary authority, can be undone through its use of the same discretionary authority.
The Commission's staff recognizes this much in the second half of the statement we have quoted. The staff states that the Commission's will not pre-empt voluntary CC&Rs “unless there is another strong countervailing reason to do so”.
HFA states now, as it stated in the Petition For Rulemaking, that there are “strong countervailing reasons” to pre-empt even voluntary CC&Rs. These reasons can be found among the arguments and evidence which the Commission's staff has evidently regarded as irrelevant and/or immaterial.
Why Changed Circumstances Are Relevant and Material
The Commission's staff mentions, but dismisses, the differences between HFA's Petition For Rulemaking on antenna regulation and previous Petitions.
These differences are indeed relevant and material, because they are designed to:
Make the proposed rule much more workable for HOAs than past proposals;
Assure, through the Emergency Communications nexus, a much more direct and definite public interest benefit for the neighborhoods that host the hams.
Even more relevant and material, however, are points in the Petition which the
Commission's staff does not mention at all.
The Petition notes that the nation, and the world, seem to be shifting from an era of relatively conventional disasters to one marked by more frequent megadisasters. Traditional levels of Emergency Communications preparation may no longer be enough.
A definition of “megadisaster” was provided by Don Schellhardt, now President of HFA, on page 13 of personal Written Comments filed on April 21, 2002 -- years before Huricane Katrina and the Asian Tsunami -- in FCC Docket RM-10412:
A life-threatening disaster, either natural or man-made, of sufficient intensity and scale that it: (a) destroys or disables much, most or all of the basic infrastructure and services over an area of at least 10,000 square miles, for a period of at least weeks or months; and (b) prevents or significantly restricts the flow of relief supply and personnel, from areas which are not directly affected, for a period of at least two weeks.
Some of the heightened frequency of megadisasters is due to the natural timing of natural forces. Geologically, the nation is literally overdue for “The Big One” in Southern California, another “Big One” in Northern California and a rare but huge
earthquake on the New Madrid Fault in Missouri. The Pacific Northwest may be overdue for another major volcano eruption and/or another 9.0 quake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, like the one that sent a tsunami all the way to Japan 300 years ago.
Compounding these natural forces are the human ones.
One of these human forces is population growth -- and population density. For example, many more people and structures dot a given megadisaster region than was true during the same region's last megadisaster. Further, a much higher percentage of those residents and guests are highly dependent on relatively vulnerable infrastructure -- including transportation and communications -- than was the case centuries ago.
Even more serious, potentially, is advancing human technology, with its heightened potential for good or ill. Human beings can now use a nuclear weapon to destroy a city -- or even, through a high altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), use a thermonuclear weapon to destroy an entire nation's electronics.
Through America's “real world” encounter with Hurricane Katrina, we have seen how widely and quickly an established infrastructure, including the communications infrastructure, can collapse. Yet we also saw how frequently Amateur Radio operators, with their decentralized and battery-operated equipment, were able to come through “when all else failed”. One ham even connected the President of the United States with the Mayor of New Orleans after the American military's communications went down.
By quoting with approval a Commission comment from 2001, the Commission's staff of 2007 shows that it is still thinking in terms of relatively temporary and small scale disasters, rather than the much broader and longer term consequences of a megadisaster. In the quotation from 2001, the FCC questioned why some hams insist on home-based antennas, operated indoors. Alternatives, it was said, include transmitting at “a location other than their residence, mobile operations, and use of a club station.”
Reliance on this pre-Katrina quotation implies that some at the FCC are still envisioning only relatively small scale and temporary disasters, such as a local tornado or power outage. However, in the new era of more frequent megadisasters, hams need to consider whether they can go outdoors at all, let alone drive, during a major hurricane -- or a period of nuclear fallout.
These are the relevant and material changed circumstances which justify HFA's call for the Commission to act.
A “Thank You” To The Commission's Staff
This Petition For Reconsideration would not be complete without a “Thank You” to the Commission's staff.
Although HFA obviously disagrees with the Commission staff's decision to reject HFA's July 31, 2006 Petition For Rulemaking, we strongly commend the staff for not keeping HFA's Petition in limbo.
Within seven months of the date on which HFA's Petition For Rulemaking was filed with the FCC, the Commission's staff gave HFA a clear decision. The staff acted with the promptness, decisiveness and clarity that the situation demands.
While a “Yes” would have been more justifiable than the “No” we received, and while HFA urges the full Commissioners to change the staff's “No” to a “Yes”, the fact remains that a “No” is still better than no answer at all. HFA has at least been paid the courtesy of being told where it stands.
Also: With the filing of this Petition For Reconsideration, HFA has now “exhausted its administrative options” at the FCC. This puts HFA in a stronger position to seek other relief, including Congressional legislation, in the future.
For the reasons that have been set forth herein, the undersigned Petitioner, HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA), urges the Commissioners of the FCC to reverse the Commission staff's denial of HFA's July 31, 2006 Petition For Rulemaking. Once the Commissioners have reversed the staff's denial of the HFA Petition, we urge them to open a new Docket which solicits public comments on the Petition as a possible proposed rule.
At a minimum, if the Commissioners are still unwilling to regulate those private land use CC&Rs which are truly voluntary, we urge the Commissioners to issue a proposed rule which at least overrides CC&R regulations when antenna bans are imposed by HOAs which are required to be in place by law in certain State, County or municipal jurisdictions. Preferably, the FCC should also override CC&R antenna regulations when a complainant can show that antenna bans are present in 80% or more of all housing developments within 10 miles of a given neighborhood.
Acting President, HAMS FOR ACTION
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by ONAIR on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Excellent. Now can we get a petition up that is signed by all amateurs, to back this appeal and show them that we are all in solidarity? Even if we hams can get Federally bqcked powers to just put up simple antennas that are not huge structures or eye sores, it would be a huge triumph for hams restricted by unfair CC&R covenants.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W2RDD on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Agree with ONAIR...especially antennas that are not hugh structures or eyesores. But you know, hams like to push the envelope.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Now can we get a petition up that is signed by all amateurs, to back this appeal and show them that we are all in solidarity?"
ALL amateurs?
I doubt anyone who understands basic contract law will...
I doubt anyone who understands the functions of the FCC OTARD preemption will...
I doubt anyone who understands the simple term 'NO' will...
Shellgame at his "finest", but he does not speak for me. My way "around" HOAs was to move to 44 acres in the country where I am waived to 199'...
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by VU2VKU on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Folks,
The HOA's wish to keep a closed wrap on even TV
antennas. There are elements that want to impose
their private opinions on others rather than go with
the consensus from neighbors who are fine with an
antenna proposal. So is the situation with my case.
Now, i am at a point where my board is divided. I
have 3 women who are in favour and one guy who is
kind of against. They are my other 4 board of
directors. I have got permission from all the
closest neighbors and have a strong case in favor.
My tower will not be seen from the street when
cranked down. The stepper blends with the trees and
i am on the board and it is still a headache to
get permission for the antenna. The city has given
a green on my bracketed crankup.
If there is anything i can do to support the
"hams for action" proposal, please let me know. I
have been on boards for 7 years now.
73's
Krish
w4vku
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can only second K4RAF's response. This is not an FCC issue but one of black letter, contract law.
The ONLY way to deal with this issue is through Congress and Federal legislation. And the through Courts because of the inevitable flood of laswuits that will result if Congress does pass such leglislation.
Even if Congress successfully passes legislation and the Courts uphold it, it will not be able to overturn existing CC&Rs, only new created CC&Rs will be regulated.
HFA may have their hearts in the right place but their heads definitely are not.
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W3BC on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> My way "around" HOAs was to move to 44 acres in the country where I am waived to 199'...
...
Sounds like just the thing for me. Since I can't afford to do it, maybe you can deed over a couple of acres to me, and find me a job in your neck of the woods...
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Even if Congress successfully passes legislation and the Courts uphold it, it will not be able to overturn existing CC&Rs, only new created CC&Rs will be regulated. "
Why would they write the law that way? That would not be effective. There is plenty of precedent to correcting existing contracts.
|
| |
|
American Freedom of Movement:
|
|
|
by AI2IA on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I do not question the right of individuals or groups to petition the civil government, but I do believe that in the case of antennas that it is not the best approach.
We can live anywhere we choose. It is a test of one's determination to practice ham radio for such a person to up and move to a location most suitable for the antennas they deem best for their own radio endeavors.
You can break any covenant and restriction by selling and moving. - Ray Mullin, AI2IA
|
| |
|
Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by AB7R on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree. It does not seem reasonable, or even rational, for a ham to move to a location with CC&Rs that are restrictive to the hobby, and then later complain about them. Yes indeed, they may not be fair, but you still chose to move there and thus abide by them. I move a couple years ago and checking CC&Rs was the first thing I did. Second was local and county zoning regs.
I think there are some things worth fighting for (BPL issue), but this is not one of them.
GL
Greg
AB7R
|
| |
|
RE: American Freedom of Movement:
|
|
|
by KF7CG on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Please allow me to border on the crass and insensitive with this comparison, but it really does appear to be the way things are going now.
Hams are the new "N-word deleteds".
The CC&Rs and HOAs are the new segregated communities. If you are an HF Ham you are not welcome here.
Riverview, Florida, used to have a sign that said "N-word" read this and run and if you can't read run anyway.
NOW
The sign would read:
Ham read this and run and if you can't read this run anyway.
The developers want us and our money but not our life style.
KF7CG
|
| |
|
RE: American Freedom of Movement:
|
|
|
by W5GNB on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would initially agree to and sign up for a HOA agreement if your intention is to eventually put up antennas or otherwise go against the HOA agreements.
If you wnat to put up antennas, DON'T move into a HOA antenna restricted area in the first place. If you decide later to put up antennas then you need to MOVE!!
If folks who want to live under such restrictions they have the right to do so but if you don't like the terms then you should not consider living in the area.
I live WAY OUT in the country primarily for the reason that I don't want some jerk dictatating how I should use my property.
If I want to put a bath tub full of roses in the front yard, I have that right to do so and to H... with the neighbors.
Needless to say, I have up SEVERAL VERY LARGE antennas!
73's
Gary - W5GNB
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It does not seem reasonable, or even rational, for a ham to move to a location with CC&Rs that are restrictive to the hobby, and then later complain about them."
A. Often you have very little choice. There are NO subdivisions being built here without CC&Rs. Not one.
B. Did you ever consider that someone may already live in a house when they become interested in ham radio and get a license?
|
| |
|
Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HFA wants the FCC to overturn it's February '07 ruling not to override existing and future bans on ham antennas by HOA's.
This is pretty cut and dry. Let's see if this holds water:
The basis and justification for this petition is to enable amateurs to provide emergency communications during "mega-disasters" and other events, including EMP which implies a nuclear strike has occurred, that take down normal communication infrastructure. According to HFA, Amateurs will be indispensable for providing emergency communications and back up for downed commercial infrastructure - from their residential home, condo, etc.
>> That's utterly ridiculous. Backing-up or replacing commercial communications, no way - at least not from their homes. Hams are needed where their local and state emergency management officials need them most, usually in the field, mobile locations, EOC, or shelters - not sitting at their mahogany desks using their 1/8th acre antenna farms in some residential district - which may also be affected by the disaster!
Weather spotting, maybe. But that's not justification to overturn a signed contract concerning private use. If HFA is really after the right to put up a 2 meter vertical for weather-spotting purposes they should just say so.
The reference to communications after an EMP event is a real doozy. Most amateur rigs will be toast anyway unless their shacks are surrounded by 1/8" thick or better copper plate.
>> Time for a reality check. It really makes you wonder how much HFA has thought this out. As a ham in support of this petition, are you willing to risk you and your loved one's safety to be a weather-spotter during the middle of an earthquake or flood? (forget the EMP nonsense.)
Do you think you will be allowed to remain in the middle of a disaster area and ignore orders to evacuate just because you are a ham radio operator? Better think again.
I'm not against hams who want to get a little slack from HOA's and put up some antennas - even a yagi TV antenna to receive over the air HD broadcasts. But based upon the justification in this petition, I would consider looking for a more antenna friendly neighborhood.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W1XZ on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I sorta smell a little K1MAN here. I especially like the HFA honor roll.
|
| |
|
We all understand.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To address the situation where an individual living in an antenna restricted community discovers the pleasure and value of ham radio and then the frustration of trying to operate:
There are many solutions to this. First, we must accept all opportunities as a challenge. Few good things are handed to us on a silver platter. The best thing is to up and move. Other alternatives are to operate mobile, to enjoy operating in the field with portable antennas and equipment (which by the way is a very enjoyable pastime and very valuable for emergency service), and to consider operating in a clandestine manner. With hidden antennas and operating at least interruptive times in an unobtrusive manner, you can do amazing things. Low profile and good mannered ham operation has great merits.
A final thought - an antenna restricted community is attractive to folks of a certain mentality. I think that ham radio is not really compatible with that sort of mentality, so ultimately the complete fix to the problem is not evasion, but escape.
|
| |
|
RE: We all understand.
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"But that's not justification to overturn a signed contract concerning private use."
I don't think anyone anywhere in this discussion has advocated overturning any signed contracts.
However:
1) Most CC&Rs are not signed contracts, but part of the contractors county filing.
2)They are not seeking overturn, simply reasonable accommodation.
We absolutely should NOT be accommodating such ignorance as the person who expressed a worry to me about the "radiation" from a cell tower she can see 5 miles away.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by WI7B on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't follow the logic here:
"The (FCC) staff has conceded that the FCC's policy of not overriding voluntary contracts can be overturned or modified if “a strong countervailing reason” is shown. HFA's Petition For Reconsideration then asserts that such a “strong countervailing reason” has indeed been presented in HFA's Petition For Reconsideration.
This public interest imperative is the apparently rising frequency of “megadisasters”, as opposed to relatively small scale and temporary “conventional disasters”...have now demonstrated both the vulnerability of centralized communications and the resilience of decentralized ham operators with battery-operated transmitters."
If centralizes communication is vulnerable AND decentralized ham operators with battery-operated transmitters are resilent, why do hams then need permanent, fixed antenna structures in housing areas with ample power lines?
If, on the other hand, the argument is for temporary antenna structures in the event of a "megadisaster" where power is cut-off, then I can find some credance for this line of argument.
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If, on the other hand, the argument is for temporary antenna structures in the event of a "megadisaster" where power is cut-off, then I can find some credance for this line of argument."
If my community needs me in the event of a disaster, and if I need to put up an antenna to help my fellow citizens, then I will do so immediately, and those little HOA fiefdoms can just be damned!!
It really is that simple!!
Reasonable accomodation for small everyday antennas is quite another matter.
|
| |
|
Private Groups one thing, State entities another.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If small private communities want to impose antenna restrictions that is okay by me, because we already have vegetarian communities, religious communities, odd little groups that mind their own business and don't bother anyone. However, if it has reached the point that some counties, municipalities, or other state entities impose antenna restrictions on hams without reasonable cause or reasonable accomodaton, then I begin to get a little uncomfortable with that. As always, a line must be drawn somewhere.
|
| |
|
RE: Private Groups one thing, State entities anoth
|
|
|
by AC7DX on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you do not like the CC&R's...DON'T buy a place there.
You are not forced in anyway to purchase the property so shut up and deal with it :-)
Most of the whiners bought, then decide to get into radio. There are thousands of places you can live that does not have restrictions..go there and leave the rest alone.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by KI6CDF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In reply to "Shellgame at his "finest", but he does not speak for me. My way "around" HOAs was to move to 44 acres in the country where I am waived to 199'... "
Well good for you but not all of us are so blessed. Its this type of attitude that gets nothing done.
But hey you got yours....
|
| |
|
RE: We all understand.
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think anyone anywhere in this discussion has advocated overturning any signed contracts.
However:
1) Most CC&Rs are not signed contracts, but part of the contractors county filing.
2)They are not seeking overturn, simply reasonable accommodation.
>> The Contractor's county filing hasn't got a thing to do with this. When you sign a purchase and sale agreement and that agreement makes reference to the terms and conditions of the HOA stating that in purchasing the property you will abide by those terms, yes you have indeed signed a contract or agreement. The Contractor's name comes off the deed and YOUR NAME or the mortgage company that holds the note goes in it's place.
>> Yes, HFA is indeed seeking to overturn. In their/his own words:
...."to ***reverse*** the Commission staff's denial of HFA's July 31, 2006 Petition For Rulemaking."
"At a minimum, if the Commissioners are still unwilling to regulate those private land use CC&Rs which are truly voluntary, we urge the Commissioners to issue a proposed rule which at least *** overrides *** CC&R regulations when antenna bans are imposed by HOAs which are required to be in place by law in certain State, County or municipal jurisdictions.
"Preferably, the FCC should also *** override *** CC&R antenna regulations when a complainant can show that antenna bans are present in 80% or more of all housing developments within 10 miles of a given neighborhood."
>>> "Reverse", "override" or "overturn", take your pick, all 3 are synonymous in the context they are being used.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: We all understand.
|
|
|
by KG6WOU on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CCR's stink. And the 'communities' that they spawn are horrible from the get-go.
HOWEVER, try today and find a development NOT subject to some sort of CCR. If you want a new house, good luck - it's tough, more so at the entry level. Around here it's impossible.
As to those of you who say why are we entitled? I ask you this: Why are TV satellite dishes allowed? I don't want them around. Oh, lets play FOLLOW THE [FREAKING] MONEY!
Yes, the DBS duopoly lobbied congress because so many were being "denied their right to competitive TV service" by those evil HOA's. So, now, Federal Law SPECIFICALLY exempts DBS dishes from CCR's nationally. You see, you have enough money and you can BUY the best laws around!
Well, forbidding Amateur's their antennas is tantamount to restricting their access to competitive communication services right?
Even if I think that HFA is only partially right, I'm in favor of more realistic and reasonable rules. Gee whiz, can any of these children remember when everyone had an antenna on their roof for TV?
I'm not asking for everyone to be automatically permitted a 200' tower, but certainly some allowance is reasonable. Wire antennas should be fine anywhere.
Not all of us can afford to move, nor want to live in the middle of the country just so we can be Amateur's, and we should not have to.
The good news is that if you put up the antenna at night, and use wire, your neighbors might never even notice. Mine don't.
|
| |
|
Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by KT4WO on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with AB7R... they should have checked this before they moved into areas such as these!!!
BPL is a MUCH better issue for ALL hams to get behind.
Im sorry... I just cannot have any sympathy for
these folks and more over...this is a HUGE WASTE of
the VERY LITTLE support we have in the FCC.
KT4WO
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W5WSS on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes,I would sighn such a petition. There are currently +/- 650,000 potential signatures, and that does not include the cb group. Go for it!
|
| |
|
RE: Private Groups one thing, State entities anoth
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you do not like the CC&R's...DON'T buy a place there.
You are not forced in anyway to purchase the property so shut up and deal with it :-)"
So you are saying they can just rent? Bad idea.
|
| |
|
RE: Private Groups one thing, State entities anoth
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Yes, HFA is indeed seeking to overturn. In their/his own words: "
Read it again. They are seeking to overturn the FCC's decision. The poster I was objecting to said overturn CC&Rs. MAJOR difference.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W5WSS on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Some of the comments here are so narrow minded. Here it is in simple terms. The current status quo will eventually reduce hams down to a few.to quote a few posts "Moving to places that dont have them","Dealing with the fcc is futile or a waste of time". I rather really hope it is part of the process that will lead to congressional intervention eventually to a solution. Please get involved now!
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by KL7IPV on April 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If given a choice I would not be here where I must hide any antennas I can put up. But I wasn't given a choice. Medical problems dictated a move from a 2 story home to a single story. In Las Vegas there are no new area homes being built without CC&Rs. NONE! If you want to buy a new home or one less than 10 years old, you MUST agree to their CC&Rs. That is NOT being given a choice. Therefore by design we as hams are being told that we cannot operate anywhere in the Las Vegas area IF we want to buy a newer home. If you try to get the CC&Rs redefined so you CAN use an antenna, the answer is always the same; "Buy elsewhere!"
When the FCC said we could operate mobile, that was not an acceptable answer either since they will not issue a station license to a vehicle. So if this group can get the FCC to require SOME accomodation for our needs, I support that. We are simply being shut out and if that continues we will outgrow our hobby since no newcomers will be able to operate therefore wont continue as hams. Our demise is assured if this is allowed to nibble away at our numbers.
I am also aware that any new platting for new home areas platted AFTER 2002 in Nevada MUST accomodate ham antennas. Many saw that coming and platted their areas before that became law. So much for that accomodation.
Frank
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by VU2VKU on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well folks,
The CC&R out there have all kinds of languagues.
My community has "All antenna requests should be
approved by the HOA" in the CC&R.
Now you got some elements who will impose their
opinions on you and hide behind the CC&R.
Krish
w4vku
|
| |
|
Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by N3NL on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How are kids who get ham radio licenses supposed to move and buy a new house without an antenna restriction? Do we want young people getting into ham radio?
73, Nick Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why should the FCC put themselves in the middle of this and expose themselves to the ire of thousands of HOAs representing millions of Americans who are just happy the way things are?
|
| |
|
Simple, State by State law is needed
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those who asked for it via email, here is the Virginia Statewide amateur tower law that is far MORE binding than PRB-1:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-2293.1
15.2-2293.1. Placement of amateur radio antennas.
Any ordinance involving the placement, screening or height of antennas shall reasonably accommodate amateur radio antennas and shall impose the minimum regulation necessary to accomplish the locality's legitimate purpose. In localities having a population density of 120 persons or less per square mile according to the 1990 United States census, no local ordinance shall (i) restrict amateur radio antenna height to less than 200 feet above ground level as permitted by the Federal Communications Commission or (ii) restrict the number of support structures. In localities having a population density of more than 120 persons per square mile according to the 1990 United States census, no local ordinance shall (i) restrict amateur radio antenna height to less than 75 feet above ground level or (ii) restrict the number of support structures. Reasonable and customary engineering practices shall be followed in the erection of amateur radio antennas. This section shall not preclude any locality, by ordinance, from regulating amateur radio antennas with regard to reasonable requirements relating to the use of screening, setback, placement, and health and safety requirements.
=-=-=-=
So there you have it. A State law that even my own county zoning official had no idea existed. After proving to him I did not need his permission nor was the county law capping amateur towers at 50 feet (not 75 as per the mandate) legal, his only remaining question was:
"will you be taking down your old tower?"
My reply:
"No sir, it is a support structure..."
Done... 199' in my under 120/sq.mile agriculture zone, not even 75'...
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
|
| |
|
RE: Simple, State by State law is needed
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL, in the past when Congress
has overridden C&CRs, they have been
retroactive. The terms are still in
the restrictions, but not enforceable.
I have an overridden one in mine.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: Simple, State by State law is needed
|
|
|
by WI7B on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"How are kids who get ham radio licenses supposed to move and buy a new house without an antenna restriction? Do we want young people getting into ham radio?
73, Nick Leggett, N3NL"
Here's an edifying article for the young ham in a CC&R hellhole about how young telegraphers a century ago strung their wires!
=> http://earlyradiohistory.us/1917verm.htm
"In the course of time, this line grew considerably, as my many friends can vouch for. Fellows, it was some line. After three or four years, it had grown to be six miles long, and had forty-two different fellows and girls on it. It stretched from one end of the city to the other. It even ran under ground for a distance of two and a half miles....We stretched this wire...on trees, telephone poles, over trolley wires, and on back fences. Needless to say, the line was working day and night...
"After the meeting disbanded, I called three or four of the fellows into conference--Conspiracy is what one girl called it--and told them that I intended to borrow some juice from a certain wire down on the corner...
Bright and early one morning, I got up and ran the wire down to the corner. I ran in a twisted telephone line, and put it up on real insulators, so that it looked exactly like a real telephone line. Of course when I came to our point where the tap was to be made, I continued the wire on up the street, so that it would not look as though it had stopped, and would throw any pursuer off the track. The line was run on telephone poles about ten feet above the wire we were going to tap, which also ran along the same line of poles. Being a good pole climber, I put on my belt and spikes, and started up the pole on which I had previously strung our line. When I got to the "feed wire", I took out some fine magnet wire, and wrapped it around the feed wire, then I carefully cut a slit in the wooden pole ten feet up to where our line was, and made fast to our line. I laid the magnet wire in the slit I had cut, and covered it all over with putty. It would have taken a greater detective than Sherlock Holmes to ever dig that tap up, or discover it. The fact is proven by the knowledge that we had the juice coming from this source for two years.
While I was up the pole however, I had two great scares. First one was a cop, who came down the street and saw me up the pole. I thought surely he was after me, but he evidently believed I was a lineman, as he passed right on under me...When I got home, sure enough, there was 550 direct current volts waiting to be used."
I hope one can read between the lines to figure out how one might run antenna wire - even without telephone or trolley poles!
73,
---* Ken
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by WB3DYE on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't agree with these bans however I do understand why some will fight to keep them.
The key: know EVERYTHING about purchasing the house BEFORE you sign on the dotted line.
I recently bought a home and at closing I made sure I read through the deed and other documents. I told the seller and real estate agents, if there were antenna restrictions there would be NO SALE.
I'm trying to understand how some hams can become "trapped". Sure there's a lot of pressure in that room--the lawyers and real estate agents and the XYL who loves the house. The secret READ and DON'T cave in!
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W7AIT on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Heck most can't even read and understand their loan documents (i.e. adjustable rate loans vs. fixed rate) let alone the difference between CC&R development and a tract without CC&R.
Its a buyer beware situation, and as hams we KNOW CC&R's will seriously restrict hamming, so if you like hamming, DON'T buy in CC&R places! Period!
I deliberately bought in a tract that ALLOWS HAM ANTENNA'S ergo, no problem putting up 7 ham antennas here!
It’s really simple, guys, just buy where there are no CC&R!
|
| |
|
RE: Simple, State by State law is needed
|
|
|
by W5WSS on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You guys with the high towers are way in the minority. Hmm.....guess the majority of ham operators shoud hush up cuz we might make waves huh? Oh dont worry we won't ruin your convenient 190' tower installations $$$lol. Seriously though, every ham should at least be able to install an antenna at their residence period! geez its a process and worth being THE priority of the arrl and all hams in general. I would be happy with hf monoband half wave verticals 20mtr-6mtr. On one support structure that will not fall.A hvy duty 45' crank-up would suffice. This series of antennas would serve well for dx or nvis simply by changing the height.(toa) Place the lowest band vertical at the top and work down using tower stand-offs raising or lowering the tower will effect a good performance on those bands. Shunt feed the tower for top band thru 40 and your in buisness.Oh we must not complain about a little noise or skewing now should we? And we must not feel too bad when THE FEW dust our britches such vanity! Well there it is. By the way you big gunns dont need to fret cuz you already have it your way huh?73 he he.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" The secret READ and DON'T cave in! "
If so, be sure to go to the County office and read all that is there. Many of the restrictions are NOT in the actual documents you get. AND be aware that most HOAs can change the rules any time they feel like it. So your "no antenna restrictionns" at closing can be changed by the time you move in.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by K4JF on April 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
'It’s really simple, guys, just buy where there are no CC&R!"
IF you have that option. In many areas you do not.
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by WY3X on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
New developments with new homes all have prices starting around $135,000, but with Nazi-like HOA's, who, in addition to proclaiming that you can't do what you please on the piece of property you think you own after signing on the dotted line, also charge as much as $3000 a year in fees for the "privilege" of living in snooty-butt heaven!
Amateur radio operators are a distinct minority, but don't even think that the American Civil Liberties Union will pick up the cause of our small group. You pretty much have to be an ethnic minority to get any help out of them.
Amateur radio operators are a minority of electronically educated people, who ARE being discriminated against, and until we attack the issue from this angle, I'm afraid that we'll not see any repeal of totalitarian HOA anti-antenna rules. We need a very high profile pro-amateur radio speaker to take up our cause and spiff up our image. The question is: who?
-KR4WM
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by AH6FC on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Though unsuccessful so far, keep up the efforts.
CC&R's are now and will continue to be the single largest threat to amateur radio operation in a very large portion of this country.
Yes, "I can move to the country," "There are plenty of places in town without CC&R's".......all true. Unfortunately many do not have the means or foresight to do these things. Nearly every new development, i.e. since the 1980's and even more stringently now, has very specific CC&R's.....prohibiting antennas, transmitters, etc. The reality is that it is a real problem. I just moved from a CC&R development for all of these reasons, but only at a significant cost $$.
Sure, the answer is to never sign that document.
I strongly doubt that the Congress will ever pass legislation that would benefit Ham's with respect to CC&R's, there are just too many special interests....developers, HOA lobbies, etc. Never happen. Besides, there is no realistic expectation that the Congress will ever respond to statistical data, i.e. disaster support (weak data that is likely to be). Their actions have little to do with science or fact.
Conversely, the FCC might (??) be more responsive to such data (wishful thinking). A selective ruling from the FCC to allow a single vertical or dipole antenna for amateur use could be inacted....without being tied to a bunch of other legislation tied to other pork....maybe.
Similarly, to think the FCC will rule that amateur radio is so important that we should be allowed to put up a huge yagi is dreaming.
Nevertheless, keep up the efforts.
73&Aloha,
Bill
|
| |
|
RE: American Freedom of Movement:
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The "solution" to a problem is not to "run" away.
Not many hams can "run" away from urban/suburban centers. HOA antenna restrictions are a MAJOR cause of the decline in ham radio. What good is the license if you cann't put up a REASONABLE antenna?
|
| |
|
RE: American Freedom of Movement:
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think part of the problem is what you and I might consider as perfectly reasonable is probably considered as an eyesore by others.
I also enjoyed reading Ken's link to the article describing similar restrictions back in the old telegraph days.
73
|
| |
|
RE: American Freedom of Movement:
|
|
|
by WI7B on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nothing new on my part, but wanted to pass on these ham-words-of-wisdom from two years ago...
"While federal preemption allows TV antennas (with a few very specific exceptions), TV antennas can be used as part of an effective stealth amateur antenna system. Consider exercising your right under federal laqw to have an outdoor TV antenna at the maximum height allowed (up to 12' over the roof line) you would bbe amazed how good a medium sized TV antenna works as a capacative hat for a vertical antenna.
Check to see if your homeowners association allows you to erect a flag pole. Flag pole antennas are a mainstay in stealth antenna technology.
Is there a local professional or college team? A small helium filled blimp with the team logo on the side can be tethered by a nice metal wire rope...which can be loaded up with a tuner, then winched down and stored in a small storage shed (blimp barn?). Since it is not a perminent structure, and simply a decorative device, your HOA may turn a blind eye.
Copper rain gutters last longer and add to the value of a home. They also can be soldered to and will load up nicely. Check with a continuous gutter company about having the gutters formed out of copper.
Lastly, if you have a standard 8' fence around your back yard, consider a Hustler mobile mount with ground radials run from the base. it might be visible from the air, but at ground levely nobody will see it sticking out over the fence. Hustler has resonators which are rated for legal limit power. There are several multiple resonator devices available which would allow you some measure of bandswitching. If you have an autotuner, placing it in a suitable weatherproof box at the base of the antenna will help you with additional bandwidth.
Good luck and 73
DE KA0GKT/7"
http://www.qsl.net/wm0g/Rain_Gutter_Antenna.html
-------------------------------------------------
"About antennas: *Be creative!*
I've used a balanced, open-wire-fed Delta antenna made of hard-to-see blue/blue-white telephone twisted pair that started in the attic, ran from the attic vent to and along a back-yard fence and back. A tuner provided an acceptable match on 80-10 meters, some bands of course working better than others.
You may be able to use as an antenna some object whose presence outdoors -- lawn chairs, barbecue, bird feeder, training wire for vines or roses, large window screens -- is tolerated. Coax might be concealed in or disguised as a piece of hose or drip tubing. Some folks have used a wooden patio umbrella as a top-hat-loaded vertical. Metal window frames may if large enough (I had one 12 feet long by six feet tall once) be tuned as shunt fed loops.
Everything is an antenna if you use your imagination.
Good luck!
Cortland
KA5S"
|
| |
|
Ham Radio soon to be hobby for rich only
|
|
|
by KF6IIU on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem is that virtually no new housing is being built that does not have CC&R's outlawing antennas, so it is not possible to make an informed choice, unless you're rich enough to buy a ranch outside of town. In 50 years, as current housing stock ages and turns over, there will be no place left to raise an antenna.
Anyay, by then your house will be loaded with cheap, poorly engineered switching power supplies, so there will be S9+40 RFI from DC to daylight, making it useless to put up an antenna less than 100 feet from your house regardless of whether your covenants allow it.
Enjoy the next sunspot cycle, it will be our last.
|
| |
|
How To Help HFA (If You Want): Think CONGRESS
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As the ham who posted this article, I want to address those commenters who expressed an interest in helping HAMS FOR ACTION.
Frankly, HFA's recent Petition For Reconsideration brings action at the FCC to a point of climax. We will either hit the final wall or break through it.
(1) IF the Petition For Reconsideration is granted, and the 5 FCC Commissioners review and reverse the FCC staff's denial of HFA's Petition For Rulemaking, THEN we will see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (or at least a Notice Of Inquiry) about reasonable antenna policies by private land use regulators. For HFA, this would mean: Getting as many people as possible -- not just hams, but also other interested parties, such as public sector "first responders" -- to file pro-reform comments with the FCC.
(2) IF the Petition For Reconsideration is denied (or simply ignored), THEN antenna regulation reformers will have "exhausted their administrative options" for HOA antenna reform at the FCC. The next step will be seeking action by Congress. For HFA, this would mean: Getting hams, and other supporters of reasonable antenna regulation, to contact key Congressional legislators about introducing a bill ... AND THEN, once a bill has been introduced, getting as many other Congressional legislators as possible to press for favorable action on that bill.
********
The current "fork in the road" creates two PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITIES for antenna reformers to help HFA:
A. Keeping in mind the POSSIBLE denial of (or ignoring of) HFA's Petition For Reconsideration, NOW is the time to send HFA your name and contact information if YOU are willing to contact one or more of your Congressional legislators about HOA antenna reform.
Should HFA's Petition For Reconsideration lead instead to a Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking (or to a Notice Of Inquiry), HFA can use the same information to let you know how to participate in the public comment period.
You may send your information, Don Schellhardt KI4PMG, at pioneerpath@hotmail.com
B. IF you might consider taking the additional step of becoming a Member of HFA, you may find information about this option at HFA's Web Site: www.hamsforaction.net
********
Let me provide a little more background information on where HFA stands right now.
That is: So far, HFA has done about as much as it can with its current level of support.
****
Since our group was founded on July 10, 2006, HFA has concentrated on persuading two different institutions to take more action on HOA antenna reform.
First -- THE FCC. As I discussed above, HFA filed
Petition For Rulemaking in July 2006, which was denied by the FCC's staff in February 2007 (a very quick turnaround by FCC standards). Now, in April 2007, it has appealed that staff decision through a Petition For Reconsideration ... If this appeal is not granted, there is little more that HFA can do at the FCC.
Second -- ARRL. In apparent response to letters from HFA, and related communications:
(a) ARRL's Board of Directors acted in July to release $5,000 in additional funding for its grassroots lobbying program
And
(b) ARRL's Board of Directors acted in January to make HOA's antenna reform legislation ARRL's #1 priority in Congress.
However:
During the 3 months since the Board's directive was issued, to the best of HFA's knowledge, Representatives Steven Israel (D-NY) and Mike Ross (D-AR) have not re-introduced the antenna reform bill that ARRL has traditionally endorsed. Nor has any other antenna reform bill been introduced in Congress in the past 3 months.
It may be that ARRL has some longer term strategy in mind. However, there is no way HFA can know about such a strategy. Since the Board issued its directive on HOA antenna reform in January, ARRL CEO David Sumner has refused several invitations from HFA to confer with ARRL staff, and/or with John Chwat of ARRL's outside lobbying firm, about strategy and tactics.
After the January Board Meeting, HFA had told ARRL's Board of Directors, in a "Thank You" letter, that we wanted to explore with ARRL the possibility of uniting behind "a single antenna reform bill" in Congress. However, there is no way HFA can lobby jointly with ARRL if ARRL staff is not willing to talk with us.
Having been flatly denied any access to information from ARRL about what it is doing on HOA antenna reform, we have apprised Dave Sumner that HFA will proceed with its own independent plans for lobbying Congress -- which might include efforts to find Congressional sponsors for HFA's own bill. Dave Sumner has not asked us to refrain from doing this -- which we interpret as a message that he sees no reason why our two organizations should even attempt to work together on the same issue.
********
In short:
HFA has probably accomplished all that it can do with respect to encouraging ARRL's more active involvement with this issue -- AND we are also down to the last of our options at the FCC.
The next "front" is likely to be Congress.
Where it appears that ARRL has no interest in cooperating with us ...
So ... IF you want to help HFA ... Lobbying Congress is probably the area where we need your help the most.
73's,
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
Acting President, HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA)
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
URL: www.hamsforaction.net
1520 Porter Street
Richmond, VA 23224
|
| |
|
Antennas and Contracts
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on April 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I want to add a word about CONTRACTS which embody, or authorize, antenna-banning covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs).
Having started several threads on antenna reform over the last several years, and having joined in even more threads started by others, I have gone round and round and round the issue of CONTRACTS.
********
When all is said and done, the debate boils down to this:
(1) CAN governments override private contracts? Even ones which are considered, rightly or wrongly, to be "voluntary"?
OF COURSE they can! Maybe not under the U.S. Constitution as our nation's founders wrote it, but certainly under the U.S. Constitution AS INTERPRETED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT since the New Deal Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930's (and, to a lesser extent, even before then).
Think about it. If governments couldn't modify voluntary contracts, even retroactively, how could Congress and State Legislatures ever raise the minimum wage? How could they require the use of NEW pollution control equipment in the manufacturing of products made under EXISTING contracts? How could they ban racial and gender discrimination in employment, housing and access to "public accommodations" -- regardless of any underlying private contracts to the contrary?
(2) Even if governments CAN override private contracts, old or new, "voluntary" or otherwise, SHOULD governments be able to do so?
There is no way you can answer this question on the basis of evidence -- because it is, ultimately, a PHILOSPHICAL question.
If YOU view all contracts as sacred, and I don't, there is no way to say who's right or wrong in some absolute, "objective" sense. What I CAN say is that there's not much point in arguing the point further. "The sanctity of contracts" is something you either BELIEVE IN or you don't.
To those who do believe in "sacred" contracts, I can only say: We'll have to agree to disagree. However, with those whose don't believe in "sacred" contracts as a matter of faith, or those whose mind isn't made up, we can proceed to a question which is more factual than philosophical.
In which of two otherwise neighborhoods are people safer: a neighborhood where residents are protected by "homegrown" hams, with modestly scaled antennas and EmComm capabilities, or a neighborhood where residents are not protected in this manner?
I say the answer is obvious, and private contracts be damned! I'd rather preserve a life than a contract.
********
Since I already serve a better and wiser God than the marketplace, I will not bow down before a contract any more than I will bow down before a President.
73s,
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG, Esquire
Acting President, HAMS FOR ACTION
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
URL: www.hamsforaction.net
1520 Porter Street
Richmond, VA 23224
|
| |
|
TO: KA0GKT/7
|
|
|
by WY3X on April 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Lastly, if you have a standard 8' fence around your back >yard, consider a Hustler mobile mount with ground >radials run from the base. DE KA0GKT/7"
Hey 7-lander! I have a question for you- and others here, although it's way off-topic (in an odd sort of way, anyhow).
I attempted to make a 160M loaded vertical and mounted it atop my chain link fence. It was more of an experiment than anything else. I deduced (probably incorrectly) that a 160M loaded antenna works fine using a car as a counterpoise (mobile use) so a well-grounded (yet untuned) chain link fence should work all the better! Yet, I was unable to find a match any where (says my trusty MFJ antenna analyzer, which hasn't let me down yet!). So I assume the answer to my problem would be TUNED radials. I also tried a tapped shunt coil to ground (fence) at the base of the antenna, and didn't get anywhere with it either (like the little shunt coils you see on mobile screwdriver antennas, only larger since I was working with 160M).
Anyhow, on to my question- if a 160M loaded whip will tune up fine on an untuned car body, why won't it tune up at all on a large chain link fence?
I have considerable experience at empiracal antenna work, this is the first time I've ever been completely stumped.
I'm going to cross-post this to the elmers forum as well.
73 all, -KR4WM
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W6EM on April 14, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE says:"The reference to communications after an EMP event is a real doozy. Most amateur rigs will be toast anyway unless their shacks are surrounded by 1/8" thick or better copper plate."
Why is it a 'doozy?' I'm a member of HFA and personally, don't believe for a minute the old EMP scare story. Why? Simply because with reasonable overvoltage protection on incoming antennas and reasonable metal cabinet shielding, effects will be overcome. If that were not the case, then why would military radios, that ARE expected to operate following such an event, so equipped (with surge arresters, etc.) and don't have 1/4 inch thick copper plate?
Yes, I agree, it would be difficult to, on one hand, claim both widespread electronic susceptibility to EMP, yet somehow exclude effects on amateur radio electronics.
So, in the same token, if one believes the enormity of a high altitude EMP phenomenon's destructive power, then why did our government work on an extensive 'star wars' defense concept that concentrated on x-ray lasing (from thermonuclear events in space) to knock out enemy satellites? Hint: Probably because the EMP from such space nuclear explosions would not be great enough, even in reasonably close proximity, to do the job. Or, could be easily defended against with proper design concepts. In other words, it was/would be much more effective to use concentrated x-ray energy to destroy electronics than depend upon any damage from EMP from the explosion.
Remember, its E - M - P. The "E" part, the electric field, is a piece of cake. The "M" part, is a bit more difficult. Induced voltages in conductors from a strong magnetic field are what must be confined and limited. That can be done with over-voltage protection. Finally, the "P" determines just how much of the spectrum would be affected. Lastly, how far?
It's a one-over-R phenomenon, assuming a linear model. Probably a one-over-R squared phenomenon if a point source.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W6EM on April 14, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Several have commented supporting the preservation of private use contracts using the logic that they are voluntary.
OK. Perhaps. But, are they really when you don't have a choice? As Don points out in the PR, in cities and even an ENTIRE STATE, (Colorado) there is NO CHOICE for anyone wishing to purchase a new home. So, how can the FCC continue to claim that people enter into such agreements voluntarily?
Oh, sure, being forced to buy an old, sub-standard, maybe even unsafe older home just to avoid CC&Rs is a choice? Being forced to make such a choice is not really a choice at all. And, as time passes, my example gets worse. Fewer of them to choose from and more decay/delapidation. Where is the equity in such an example? There isn't any. Give up one's job, standard of living, etc., to escape CC&Rs? How ridiculous.
The ARRL concept of "reasonable accommodation" is a loser. It contines to lose. Just look at this week's ARRL Letter (with respect to the Arizona Bill's death). The vision of a 5 band Yagi at 40 feet or higher on a property fence line is a nightmare to many folks. Even to safety-conscious hams. But, its a possibility that the "reasonable accommodation" concept allows. The perspective of reasonable accommodation and no definition of what's reasonable in terms of height, appearance, safety impact to neighbors, etc., is UNREASONABLE. Just as much so as the FCC's continual claim that all CC&Rs are "voluntary" contracts.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Temporary Antennas, "Hoodwinked Hams" an
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on April 15, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As the ham who posted this article, I want to address some of the miscellaneous points which have been raised in the discussion thread.
****
(1) Temporary structures: One person asked why emergencies in HOA-controlled neighborhoods cannot be addressed by the erection of temporary ham antennas.
This question -- which was first asked of me by ARRL CEO Dave Sumner, back in 2004 -- misses the worst problem with total antenna bans by HOAs: that is, their impact on the POTENTIAL recruitment of FUTURE hams.
To build the temporary ham antennas during an emergency, you have to have hams in the neighborhood in the first place. (Preferably hams who have some actual experience with Emergency Communications!) To have EmComm-trained hams in the neighborhood, you have to let them practice their craft. If you ban ALL outdoor ham antennas, as many HOAs do, you aren't going to get many hams to practice on the radio club transmitter for 10 or 20 years so that they can erect a temporary antenna after the next megadisaster hits.
Right now, some HOA-controlled neighborhoods MAY be able to "coast", a little, on a reserve of trained and motivated hams who have been "trapped" inside the neighborhoods. Many of them, while perhaps "rusty", can still "do the voodoo that they do so well" when and if a megadisaster hits. But what happens as the currently trained and motivated hams in these neighborhoods die off? As my friend NICK LEGGETT N3NL, of Reston, Virginia, puts it: How do we turn today's elementary students and high school students and college students into hams -- when so many of their parents are in no position to let them use ham antennas at home?
****
(2) "Hoodwinked hams": Another person asked how hams who review all of the relevant legal documents at closing could possibly be surprised to discover that a total ban on outdoor ham antennas is in place.
Well, there are a couple of ways this could happen.
For one thing, the CC&Rs are often an entirely separate document from the deed and mortgage agreement. The CC&Rs may be referenced in either or both of these documents, but they are not typically included in either document. Thus, the home buyer has to read the full CC&R document, which is often much longer than the deed and the mortgage agreement combined, in order to know what the restrictions really are.
To make matters worse, realtors and lawyers -- whether motivated by laziness, fear of losing the sale or some other reason -- are often not very diligent in pointing out this fact of life to the home buyers.
In fact, I have heard of some cases where the CC&Rs have not even been provided to the home buyers until AFTER the closing. IMO, as a lawyer myself, this kind of "oversight" could be construed as malpractice, or even fraud, by the lawyers and realtors involved. BUT I know it happens ...
Another way that a ham can be surprised is if the CC&Rs do not specifically refer to ham antenna bans at all, BUT leave the HOA leaders with relatively unrestricted power to regulate anything they see fit -- including ham antennas, how high the flowers can grow, what color(s) the house can be painted and God Knows What Else. Through the granting of this kind of "blank check" authority to the HOA leaders, an HOA-controlled neighborhood that has no antenna bans when a ham moves in can develop the affliction later.
By and large, however, like the point discussed in Item #1, this point misses the most severe impact of total antenna bans. Yes, I most certainly want to help out the "hoodwinked hams"! For every "hoodwinked ham", however, there are many more hams who know what they are accepting but see no alternative because the antenna-banning HOAs are EVERYWHERE in their locality. And for every currently licensed ham who feels he or she has been forced to accept total antenna bans by the lack of marketplace competition, how many POTENTIAL hams never pursue a license because they don't see the point? That, IMO, is the WORST long term impact of total antenna bans -- but to realize that you have to look beyond the hams of TODAY and think about all the people who will not be taking the place of those hams tomorrow.
****
(3) ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) -- Some have made light of HFA's references to an EMP attack on the United States. Personally, I do not consider this threat to be fanciful in the least.
For one thing, although you probably need a hydrogen (fusion, or fission/fusion/fission) detonation -- at a high altitude -- in order to "pulse out" electronics across the Lower 48 States with in a single shot, you can certainly "pulse out" a REGION of the United States with one atomic (fission) warhead. If you have several missiles of sufficient range, you could conceivably "pulse out" the whole Lower 48 States, region by region, with atomic warheads alone.
This point is significant because atomic warheads are much more evenly distributed throughout the world, at least at present, than hydrogen bombs. The countries that are known to have both H-bombs and A-bombs are the United States, Russia, Great Britain and mainland China. The countries that are known (or believed) to have A-bombs only are France, Pakistan, India, North Korea (which apparently needs to get its yields up), France and (unofficially) Israel. All of these countries also have missiles with ranges running into the thousands of miles -- while North Korea may have developed even longer range missiles, with the ability to strike the West Coasts of the United States and Canada.
As we all know, Iran is probably working to develop an A-bomb as well, with help from mainland China on developing the missile delivery system.
Here's one scenario for you:
The United States launches a conventional air strike to knock out North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities and missile sites. It misses a few of the missiles, however, and the government of North Korea -- angered and believing that its days may be numbered anyway -- launches its remaining missiles in a multi-missile EMP attack that knocks out electronics and electricity from Los Angeles through Seattle.
Move a few years into the future, and you can imagine a similar scenario for an "incompletely effective" U.S. strike against Iran. Except, in that case, the EAST Coast of the United States would be the most likely target for EMP retaliation -- along with Israel, of course.
I can also think of other scenarios that are not wildly implausible ...
On a related matter:
LEE McVEY W6EM of Alabama is correct in noting that it isn't THAT difficult, or THAT expensive, to provide at least moderately effective EMP shielding for most civilian electronics equipment (including ham radios). Just having your ham rig running on battery power, rather than plugged in, ought to help a little.
The fact remains, however, that the Federal Government has failed to mandate even the most basic EMP shielding for even the most vital civilian electronics equipment. There is more standardized shielding, some of it quite sophisticated, for MILITARY electronics equipment. However, this doesn't help to protect the civilian economy, or even the electronic ignitions in most of our motor vehicles, and EMP shielding for the military appears to be less uniform than it ought to be.
For additional information on EMP shielding, consider a look at the following items:
(A) Several years ago, NICK LEGGETT N3NL, the Restonian ham I mentioned above, wrote an article that was published in QST. It discussed "self-help" steps hams could take to protect their rigs against an EMP.
By separate E-Mail, I will ask Nick to post in this thread some information about how to locate his article.
(B) In October of 2001, a few weeks after the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, Nick Leggett and I filed with the FCC a Petition For Rulemaking (RM-10330) which urged the FCC to mandate EMP shielding for at least the most vital civilian electronics equipment. This was our second try, motivated by the events of 9/11, after the FCC's rejection of a similar Petition For Rulemaking we had filed in 1986 (RM-5528).
You can retrieve the public comments and other documents filed in RM-10330, over www.fcc.gov, through the FCC's Electronic Comments Filing System (ECFS.
The public record in RM-5528 is not comparably retrievable, because it pre-dates the ECFS, but you may want to visit the retrievable public record for RM-10412. That Docket concerns a related Petition For Rulemaking filed by Nick Leggett.
****
I hope this information has been helpful in addressing some of the miscellaneous concerns raised in this discussion thread.
73s,
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
1520 Porter Street
Richmond, Virginia 23224
|
| |
|
EMP, plus "Override" vs. "Overturn&
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on April 15, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello again!
****
Re the message posted immediately above:
The title got clipped. It SHOULD read "Temporary Structures, 'Hoodwinked Hams' AND EMP."
****
Also, I forgot to address the confusion that was apparently caused by my references to "overturning" the FCC staff's decisions and "overriding" private land use CONTRACTS.
To put it simply:
When HFA says it wants to "overturn" the FCC staff's decision, we mean we want to see it go away -- to be replaced by a decision, made by the 5 FCC Commissioners, that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (or, at the very least, a Notice of Inquiry) should be Docketed for public comments.
When HFA says it wants to "override" private land use contracts, we are talking about "surgical incisions" that excise the total antenna bans but leave the rest of the contract intact. The title of the Petition For Rulemaking itself references "PARTIAL AND CONDITIONAL OVERRIDES".
73s,
Don KI4PMG
|
| |
|
Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by N3NL on April 15, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
I did not write the QST article on EMP protection.
Dennis Bodson did. In fact he wrote a series of four
articles on Electomagnetic Pulse and the Radio
Amateur. These articles are available online on the
ARRL web site at the URL:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/lightning.html
My QST article was on radio wave exposure and
safety.
I suspect that residential ham radio antennas
would be very useful during a bird flu pandemic
where numerous families are quarantined in their
homes for long periods of time.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by N3NL on April 15, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Continuing from the email above:
My RF Safety article is posted on the ARRL web site
at the URL:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/7806011.pdf
In addition, I think that EMP-resistant communications
is a worthwhile public service opportunity for
amateur radio operators.
73, Nick Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: Antenna Group Appeals FCC Staff Decision:
|
|
|
by W6EM on April 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KI4PMG said: "However, this doesn't help to protect the civilian economy, or even the electronic ignitions in most of our motor vehicles"
I would not want to have to depend upon a Corvette as my only vehicle. Or, any other fiberglass/plastic hooded transportation for that matter.
A comment made on the QRZ.COM thread on this subject pointed out a Kansas city's ordinance that not only directed the establishment of HOA's, but, specifically ordered that their CC&R's forbid antennas, except small dishes.
My quick read, if its correct, would indicate that the city's ordinance very clearly flies in the face of PRB-1, and should have been used as an example to show the FCC just how abusive local governments can be.
73,
Lee
W6EM
|
| |
|
Nick's Information and Lee's Information
|
|
|
by KI4PMG on April 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all, to NICK LEGGETT N3NL of Virginia:
I don't know how I confused you with Dennis Bodson, the ARRL Director for the Roanoke Division, when I credited you with authoring HIS articles for QST on EMP shielding.
I guess all Northern Virginians look alike to me. (Smile)
Anyway ...
I hope hams will look up BOTH Dennis Bodson's QST articles on EMP shielding for hams AND your own QST article on limiting exposure to RF emissions.
****
Second, to W. LEE McVEY W6EM of Alabama:
I didn't include the Olathe, Kansas statute in HFA's Petition For Reconsideration because I didn't know about it until today.
Too bad I didn't! I agree with you that it's a very clear example of government action THROUGH the mandating of action by the "private" sector.
73s,
Don Schellhardt KI4PMG, Esquire
Acting President, HAMS FOR ACTION (HFA)
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
URL: www.hamsforaction.net
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:
Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
|
