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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: K1VR's paper on why S. 1534 is bad!!!  (Read 2807 times)
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« on: October 21, 2017, 11:48:03 AM »

You can review Fred's paper at http://www.kkn.net/~n6tv/Just_Say_No_to_S.1534_v4.pdf  ... Some interesting reading, it caused me to rethink my support for ARPA...

73,
Russ
KN6SD
Logged
WS4E
Member

Posts: 339




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2017, 06:30:44 PM »

Except all of these have been disproved already by the ARRL lawyers.

ARRL: The Amateur Radio Parity Act: Setting the Record Straight

www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/The%20Amateur%20Radio%20Parity%20Act%20FAQ.pdf
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2017, 06:52:59 PM »

Except all of these have been disproved already by the ARRL lawyers.

ARRL: The Amateur Radio Parity Act: Setting the Record Straight

www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/The%20Amateur%20Radio%20Parity%20Act%20FAQ.pdf

Here's a legal response to the ARRL facts pertaining to ARPA

http://files.constantcontact.com/40babb3f001/cd81cb95-e983-494b-a16a-13dfa693870a.pdf

The response to ARRL was written by Jim Talens N3JT, a former FCC Attorney
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2017, 07:12:18 PM »

For the Record, I am not Anti-ARRL, I am a member of ARRL.. I just believe they were in a hurry or were hurried to make a deal and got it wrong... Back to the drawing board...
Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 3327




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2017, 07:38:14 PM »

At this point I think hams would do well contacting the bill's sponsors and expressing their concerns.

It might be best to work on a sympathetic ear and reintroduce an amended version next year.  It is
obvious this bill isn't going to pass, no matter how ground the ARRL concedes.  When is Nelson going
to retire, if ever?

Pete
Logged
W2RWJ
Member

Posts: 330




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2017, 07:47:41 AM »

Here's a legal response to the ARRL facts pertaining to ARPA

http://files.constantcontact.com/40babb3f001/cd81cb95-e983-494b-a16a-13dfa693870a.pdf

The response to ARRL was written by Jim Talens N3JT, a former FCC Attorney

That file is being flagged as other than a pdf
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2017, 07:56:49 AM »

Here's a legal response to the ARRL facts pertaining to ARPA

http://files.constantcontact.com/40babb3f001/cd81cb95-e983-494b-a16a-13dfa693870a.pdf

The response to ARRL was written by Jim Talens N3JT, a former FCC Attorney

That file is being flagged as other than a pdf

Then go to Google and use the search term "Jim Talens N3JT Parity Response".. It should show up on the first page of search results..
Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 3327




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2017, 08:04:45 AM »

The link worked on this computer.
Logged
K4FMH
Member

Posts: 431




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2017, 05:21:24 AM »

This has already been done with my Senator, Roger Wicker (R-MS), as I was able to get it pulled from the intended Subcommittee markup session that the ARRL wanted it to go to. Sen Nelson (D-FL) wanted even more concessions so it was bound to get worse than even the last formal version.

At this point I think hams would do well contacting the bill's sponsors and expressing their concerns.

It might be best to work on a sympathetic ear and reintroduce an amended version next year.  It is
obvious this bill isn't going to pass, no matter how ground the ARRL concedes.  When is Nelson going
to retire, if ever?

Pete
Logged
KN6SD
Member

Posts: 166




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2017, 07:16:39 AM »

This has already been done with my Senator, Roger Wicker (R-MS), as I was able to get it pulled from the intended Subcommittee markup session that the ARRL wanted it to go to. Sen Nelson (D-FL) wanted even more concessions so it was bound to get worse than even the last formal version.

At this point I think hams would do well contacting the bill's sponsors and expressing their concerns.

It might be best to work on a sympathetic ear and reintroduce an amended version next year.  It is
obvious this bill isn't going to pass, no matter how ground the ARRL concedes.  When is Nelson going
to retire, if ever?

Pete

Let's pitch a broader law that allows not just Hams an ability to communicate from CC&R'd properties, but any homeowner that wishes to take advantage of the Personal Wireless Services that are currently available to all Citizens.

Here my Curve Ball I pitched to ARRL:

Gentlemen,
 
I have attached (see below) my idea for getting relief from restrictive CC&R's and HOA's. It will need some Legal tweaking, but I believe we need to approach the pre-emptive language in a way the can benefit all American Homeowners that wish to have communications options. Why should a homeowner only have amateur radio as an option? Why not offer GMRS, FRS, and yes, even CB? The more we make it all about Ham Radio, the more we look like another special interest trying to pull a fast one.
 
Right now millions of homeowners must choose between a landline or cell phone as their means of communication. The CC&R's and HOA Board do not allow any other options, so the citizen is dependent on one of those two paths working. Why would Government allow a private entity the authority to lock out millions of potential users from existing radio services that are FREE to the average citizen? 
 
The words "Option and Choice" are powerful words that can make a Politician think twice about opposing a piece of Legislation. The more people you offer the "Choice" to, the more VOTERS a Politician denies that choice if they kill the bill.
 
I believe we need to include all Radio Services that are offered by the Federal Government as "Option #3" for any citizen that wishes to take advantage of them.
 
Just my 1/2 cent idea...
 
73,
Russ Brill
KN6SD

    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
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2105




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2017, 03:01:46 PM »

Being more inclusive works for me. It was too narrow for me to support in the past, then flawed by the ARRL which made it worse.

Well written Russ!
Logged

Happy being an Amateur Extra!
Nothing says CB on my printed license.
Ares/Races but no lights or crown vic.
KOP
Member

Posts: 245




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2017, 12:56:49 PM »

Well done Russ. Most have read my distaste for the present bill. This in no way means I do not support amateur radio efforts in HOA and otherwise deed restricted properties. Quite the contrary, it's just that this particular bill is, well, crap.

Russ if you could get together with WA7PRC I'm sure you could find some meaningful language.
Trouble is I don't know what it would take to get Bryan interested. Whatever came out of that conversation would be better than what we have at the present .   
Logged

October 02, 2017, 07:53:41 PM
WA7PRC
Member

Posts: 1844


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2017, 06:01:57 PM »

Russ if you could get together with WA7PRC I'm sure you could find some meaningful language.
Dennis,
The problem is, based solely on the legislation advocates' evidence & testimony, there's no evidence any legislation is NEEDed by the public. It's all about WANT. And, if a ham WANTS to get on the air, there are several alternatives.

I WANT to have the speed limit removed on my street, so I can run my ET bracket "drag" race car at WOT. However, there's no public NEED for me to do that, and no NEED to change the law. The alternative is to trailer the car to the drag strip.
Logged
Pages: [1]   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!