Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Are we really serious about Emergency COMMS  (Read 4025 times)
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 153




Ignore
« on: October 22, 2017, 04:09:16 PM »

If we care about helping everyone with Emergency Communications, I believe our CC&R pre-emptive act should look something like the following:

    Homeowners Wireless Freedom Act of 2018
                    
AN ACT

To direct the Federal Communications Commission to amend its rules so as to prohibit the application to all Wireless Communications Devices of certain private land use restrictions, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Homeowners Wireless Freedom Act of 2018”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) In 2016, there were about 125.82 million households in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. Of the 125.82 million household it is estimated that 60 million homes have private land use restrictions that preclude wireless communications devices.

(2)  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates radio frequency (RF) devices contained in electronic-electrical products that are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means.

(3) There is a strong Federal interest in the effective performance of Wireless Communications Devices established at residences. Wireless Communication Devices may provide homeowners with a means to aid other homeowners or call for help when the standard communication paths are unavailable or destroyed. Such devices have been shown to be frequently and increasingly precluded by unreasonable private land use restrictions, including restrictive covenants.

(4) The Federal Communications Commission has sought guidance and direction from Congress with respect to the application of the Commission’s limited preemption policy regarding Wireless Communications to private land use restrictions, including restrictive covenants.

SEC. 3. ACCOMMODATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES.

Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall amend the Code of Federal Regulations, so that such applicable section(s) prohibits application to Wireless Communications Devices of any private land use restriction, including a restrictive covenant, that—

(1) precludes such communications;

(2) fails to reasonably accommodate such communications; or

(3) does not constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the legitimate purpose of the private entity seeking to enforce such restriction.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS:
   
In this Act:

(1)   WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE. —The term “Wireless Communications Device” means any Two-Way Radio Service licensed or unlicensed by the Federal Communications Commission that may allow a Citizen to communicate without the local or national telecommunications infrastructure. This Definition does not include Commercial Radio & Television Broadcast Transmitters and Antenna(s).



Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 551




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2017, 05:14:52 PM »

(1) In 2016, there were about 125.82 million households in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. Of the 125.82 million household it is estimated that 60 million homes have private land use restrictions that preclude wireless communications devices.

Close, but no Banana


just what LAW precludes wireless devices?

An ANTENNA is not a WIRELESS device.
Logged
ND6M
Member

Posts: 551




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2017, 05:22:31 PM »

(1) In 2016, there were about 125.82 million households in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. Of the 125.82 million household it is estimated that 60 million homes have private land use restrictions that preclude wireless communications devices.

Close, but no Banana.
 

just what current LAW precludes wireless devices?

An ANTENNA is not a WIRELESS device.


Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 153




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2017, 06:01:57 PM »

(1) In 2016, there were about 125.82 million households in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. Of the 125.82 million household it is estimated that 60 million homes have private land use restrictions that preclude wireless communications devices.

Close, but no Banana.
 

just what current LAW precludes wireless devices?


Let me get out my spoon, open wide so I can feed it to you:

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS:
   
In this Act:

(1)   WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE. —The term “Wireless Communications Device” means any Two-Way Radio Service licensed or unlicensed by the Federal Communications Commission that may allow a Citizen to communicate without the local or national telecommunications infrastructure. This Definition does not include Commercial Radio & Television Broadcast Transmitters and Antenna(s).

Sheesh, READ the WHOLE proposal............
An ANTENNA is not a WIRELESS device.


Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 153




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2017, 06:03:50 PM »

(1) In 2016, there were about 125.82 million households in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. Of the 125.82 million household it is estimated that 60 million homes have private land use restrictions that preclude wireless communications devices.

Close, but no Banana


just what LAW precludes wireless devices?

An ANTENNA is not a WIRELESS device.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS:
   
In this Act:

(1)   WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE. —The term “Wireless Communications Device” means any Two-Way Radio Service licensed or unlicensed by the Federal Communications Commission that may allow a Citizen to communicate without the local or national telecommunications infrastructure. This Definition does not include Commercial Radio & Television Broadcast Transmitters and Antenna(s).
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 153




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2017, 06:14:20 PM »

ND6M,

Please keep your Banana, and open your eyes........ Read the whole Act...

73,
Russ
Logged
W0DLM
Member

Posts: 155




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2017, 10:38:26 AM »

A baby monitor fits your definition: "...any Two-Way Radio Service licensed or unlicensed by the Federal Communications Commission that may allow a Citizen to communicate without the local or national telecommunications infrastructure."

I defy you to find any HOA, anywhere in the United States, that has rules that "preclude" the use of baby monitors.

You can't. Your paragraph (1) is simply not true.

HOAs write rules that prohibit antennas. The issue that needs to be addressed are the restrictions on antennas, not "wireless communication devices."
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 153




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2017, 10:58:41 AM »

A baby monitor fits your definition: "...any Two-Way Radio Service licensed or unlicensed by the Federal Communications Commission that may allow a Citizen to communicate without the local or national telecommunications infrastructure."

I defy you to find any HOA, anywhere in the United States, that has rules that "preclude" the use of baby monitors.

You can't. Your paragraph (1) is simply not true.

HOAs write rules that prohibit antennas. The issue that needs to be addressed are the restrictions on antennas, not "wireless communication devices."

Lets take your points one at a time:

#1. A baby monitor fits your definition: "...any Two-Way Radio Service licensed or unlicensed by the Federal Communications Commission that may allow a Citizen to communicate without the local or national telecommunications infrastructure."

That's True, the baby monitor is protected under the act..

#2. I defy you to find any HOA, anywhere in the United States, that has rules that "preclude" the use of baby monitors.

In the Sacramento area the were homes built in the late 70's / early 80's that have CC&R's that say, "No Radio Transmitters of any type are permitted".

#3. HOAs write rules that prohibit antennas. The issue that needs to be addressed are the restrictions on antennas, not "wireless communication devices."

An Amateur, GMRS, or CB station needs an outdoor antenna to function properly. Outdoor antenna ban(s) would be an unreasonable restriction.

See SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

(3) There is a strong Federal interest in the effective performance of Wireless Communications Devices established at residences. Wireless Communication Devices may provide homeowners with a means to aid other homeowners or call for help when the standard communication paths are unavailable or destroyed. Such devices have been shown to be frequently and increasingly precluded by unreasonable private land use restrictions, including restrictive covenants.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 11:01:14 AM by KN6SD » Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 3303




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2017, 02:32:10 PM »

I have posted links to HOA regulations that have attempted to regulate transmitter ownership in their community.  Unfortunately, there are some that feel they can override Federal jurisdiction.
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 625




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2017, 04:06:00 PM »

I have posted links to HOA regulations that have attempted to regulate transmitter ownership in their community.  Unfortunately, there are some that feel they can override Federal jurisdiction.

Which is on of the reasons I suggested that the Feds overturn any reference to amateur radio in CC&R's. By disallowing outside antennas the local communities have found a loophole which overrides the federal government jurisdiction over the RF spectrum which is firmly under the control of the FCC. If the CC&R exclusion were in place it would put another bow in our quiver when it comes to buying a house with a  HOA. It all comes down to negotiation at that point. Not many communities will willingly turn away someone willing to hand over $500,000 cash.Somehow I think that might be a motivating factor when negotiating with these communities. Right now we are seen as a pariah and that is a disgrace in my opinion.
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 153




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2017, 04:24:21 PM »

I have posted links to HOA regulations that have attempted to regulate transmitter ownership in their community.  Unfortunately, there are some that feel they can override Federal jurisdiction.

WHAT!!! I dare you to prove that such a community exists

 Grin
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 153




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2017, 04:27:58 PM »

I have posted links to HOA regulations that have attempted to regulate transmitter ownership in their community.  Unfortunately, there are some that feel they can override Federal jurisdiction.

Which is on of the reasons I suggested that the Feds overturn any reference to amateur radio in CC&R's. By disallowing outside antennas the local communities have found a loophole which overrides the federal government jurisdiction over the RF spectrum which is firmly under the control of the FCC. If the CC&R exclusion were in place it would put another bow in our quiver when it comes to buying a house with a  HOA. It all comes down to negotiation at that point. Not many communities will willingly turn away someone willing to hand over $500,000 cash.Somehow I think that might be a motivating factor when negotiating with these communities. Right now we are seen as a pariah and that is a disgrace in my opinion.

Hi KSP,

Does the language in my proposed Act look familiar? It was taken from the 2015 version of ARPA, I expanded it a little  Cool
Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 3303




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2017, 05:36:49 PM »

I have posted links to HOA regulations that have attempted to regulate transmitter ownership in their community.  Unfortunately, there are some that feel they can override Federal jurisdiction.

WHAT!!! I dare you to prove that such a community exists

 Grin

LOL..  I posted links on here in the past, but I won't spend a few hours to dig to info back up. 

Pete
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 625




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2017, 04:26:04 AM »

I have posted links to HOA regulations that have attempted to regulate transmitter ownership in their community.  Unfortunately, there are some that feel they can override Federal jurisdiction.

Which is on of the reasons I suggested that the Feds overturn any reference to amateur radio in CC&R's. By disallowing outside antennas the local communities have found a loophole which overrides the federal government jurisdiction over the RF spectrum which is firmly under the control of the FCC. If the CC&R exclusion were in place it would put another bow in our quiver when it comes to buying a house with a  HOA. It all comes down to negotiation at that point. Not many communities will willingly turn away someone willing to hand over $500,000 cash.Somehow I think that might be a motivating factor when negotiating with these communities. Right now we are seen as a pariah and that is a disgrace in my opinion.

Hi KSP,

Does the language in my proposed Act look familiar? It was taken from the 2015 version of ARPA, I expanded it a little  Cool


The point I am trying to make is that perhaps we are making this too complex. If we as hams only focused on CC&R's and left the HOA's out of the discussion for the moment, perhaps we could get something through. As of now, all HOA that I know of are covered by restrictive CC&R's. If that was out of the equation then we'd be in a position to negotiate. Just a single line stating that the placement of Amateur radio antennas can not be decided under a CC&R.
Logged
K7JQ
Member

Posts: 949




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2017, 06:35:17 AM »


The point I am trying to make is that perhaps we are making this too complex. If we as hams only focused on CC&R's and left the HOA's out of the discussion for the moment, perhaps we could get something through. As of now, all HOA that I know of are covered by restrictive CC&R's. If that was out of the equation then we'd be in a position to negotiate. Just a single line stating that the placement of Amateur radio antennas can not be decided under a CC&R.

KSP is correct. Everyone criticizes the HOA as the culprit, when they are only the vehicle to enforce the CC&R's, and manage the appearance of the common areas. CC&R's are originally put in place by the landowner/developer, and even in the absence of an HOA, any neighbor governed by the same CC&R's can sue you for a violation...and they will win.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!