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: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: S. 1534 Amateur Radio Parity Act pulled from Subcommittee markup  (Read 11742 times)
K7JQ
Member

Posts: 959




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: November 02, 2017, 07:14:48 AM »

I'd suggest using one of the rebuttals used by a hater--that this legislation only affects a very small percentage of those living under HOAs.  It is then obvious that the negative aspects, minimal and if any, will be far outweighed by the benefits offered by allowing licensed amateurs some consideration by Federal law.

Pete

Agreed. It's not as if every other house will sport a vertical or dipole. You might have maybe one or two hams (if that) in a large subdivision. There's much more chance of (unsightly) TV antennas, which are allowed by law, to spring up as people "cut the cord" and opt for free over-the-air TV. It could happen, as cable and satellite service prices continue to skyrocket...back to the days of rooftop aluminum.

Bob
Logged
N5BCN
Member

Posts: 28




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: November 02, 2017, 12:24:02 PM »

Actually, the CAI did not support ARPA at all...but it got passed in the House and got submitted in the Senate. They focused on Sen Nelson (and a Senator in CA...name escapes me right now) to get on their side. Nelson wanted more concessions even after the League agreed to several changes (see  my initial post in this thread) which many hams could no longer support (including me).

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm a little surprised, actually, ARPA appears to be a pretty good deal for the CAI.

73 Brian N5BCN
Logged
K4FMH
Member

Posts: 430




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2017, 12:57:05 PM »

BUT...they wanted an even "better" deal once the ARRL agreed to the prior antenna installation permission clause and the other language changes!

Frank

Actually, the CAI did not support ARPA at all...but it got passed in the House and got submitted in the Senate. They focused on Sen Nelson (and a Senator in CA...name escapes me right now) to get on their side. Nelson wanted more concessions even after the League agreed to several changes (see  my initial post in this thread) which many hams could no longer support (including me).

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm a little surprised, actually, ARPA appears to be a pretty good deal for the CAI.

73 Brian N5BCN
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2017, 05:39:55 PM »

To Anyone:

Any suggestions on how HR 555 / S 1534 can be made acceptable???


Nope, we would rather just complain about the ARRL...


I thought so.... So here's my latest ARRL complaint: They're studying another Entry Level Amateur Radio License scheme.  OMG: Here we go again, new license, NEW MANUALS to sell...
Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 3327




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2017, 06:22:49 PM »

that is silly and a waste of resources.
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2017, 09:55:58 AM »

that is silly and a waste of resources.

Not if you're caught in a "Loop"   Cheesy

Ya know, you just keep revisiting the same things over and over and over and over.....

Dang, almost got caught myself....  Roll Eyes
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2017, 10:23:39 AM »

(K4FMH) Dr. Howell,

I sent you a private message via the E-Ham Message feature...

73,
Russ
KN6SD
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 10:43:55 AM by KN6SD » Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2017, 11:12:30 AM »

So how does K4FMH respond to my message asking for his help at making ARPA better???

He blocks me!!! Wow, at this rate I don't see anything getting done by anyone, to many EGOS to stroke  Grin........
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: November 28, 2017, 11:16:47 AM »

BTW: Here's what I have suggested to the League (and Frank) this last week...

Hi Tom,

 
Thank you for your response. I'm writing you again after reading an interesting article on the website Independent American Communities, here's the link to the article https://independentamericancommunities.com/2017/10/09/reality-check-hoa-managers-face-decline-of-their-industry-like-it-or-not/ .. It talks about the decline in HOA controlled communities, and that got me thinking. What if you scrapped the current Amateur Radio Parity Act language, replaced it with something similar to the attached "Homeowners Wireless Freedom Act" and added an exemption to HOA Governed communities as long as they allowed at a minimum X & Y antennas... I'm thinking along the lines of a Diamond X-510 (example only) mounted 12ft above the roof and a ground mounted vertical (or wire) antenna for HF in the rear of the property.
 
Now, if they (HOA) allow a licensed amateur at least two modest antennas, and the other radio services at least one Omni-directional roof mounted antenna similar to the Diamond, then they're EXEMPT from a total pre-emption. Now in a condo more than one antenna would probably be a stretch, but in a detached single family residence, I don't see a problem.. If the HOA wanted to allow more, that would be permissible under the new language, but not mandatory like the minimum antenna requirements. So I am basically purposing you come up with an OTARD equivalent for Transmitting Antennas.  
 
It's not perfect by any stretch, but the new language would allow operators to get on the air with a decent signal. NO Tower or beam, but that was never going to happen anyway. And it gives the HOA clear and concise guidelines to abide by so there's little chance for litigation.
 
Of course, if the HOA is dissolved or the property was never governed by one, then the CC&R pre-emption kicks in all the way...
 
Just another idea to try to get some relief from Total Antenna Bans... Thanks for your time..
 
73,
Russ Brill
KN6SD


Does my suggestion sound unreasonable???
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   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!