eHam

eHam Forums => Antenna Restrictions => Topic started by: N5PZJ on January 30, 2019, 05:15:38 AM



Title: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: N5PZJ on January 30, 2019, 05:15:38 AM
H.R.466 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) 
Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2019

Sponsor: Rep. Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL-16] (Introduced 01/10/2019) Cosponsors: (2)

Committees: House - Energy and Commerce

 Latest Action:  House - 01/10/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. (All Actions)



With apologies to Eddie in Independence Day, hey we are here boyz.  Yep, its back.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W1BR on January 30, 2019, 08:23:54 AM
Been quiet on here... now I can make some popcorn with lots of butter and watch the show,

is there a link to the bill, was there any changes for the good in the language?


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on January 30, 2019, 08:36:36 AM
 It serves only to codify in Federal law the authority which HOAs already exercise:

"3) subject to the standards specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), permit a community association to establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio services."

Why anyone would think this serves any useful purpose is dewildering. Yet some apparently do.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: NN4RH on January 30, 2019, 12:48:37 PM
The ARRL has asked that this bill "not be advanced" pending ARRL's reevaluation of the whole approach to antenna legislation.

Maybe this bill popping up again was the work of certain ARRL now-ex-directors and/or now-ex-counsel just before the new Board took over.

Let's hope it does not have the effect of sabotaging the new ARRL Board's future legislative agenda.  

The attempt to undermine the new ARRL Board in this way, as well as pushing through that last-minute FCC petition last month, was in my opinion yet another manifestation of why a big change to the ARRL board was needed.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: NN4RH on January 30, 2019, 12:58:58 PM
is there a link to the bill, was there any changes for the good in the language?


It is identical word-for-word with H.R.555 from the 115th Congress.

Again, the new ARRL Board of Directors has asked Congress that it not be acted upon.

ARRL Board of Directors Issues Statement on Amateur Radio Parity Act. http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-board-of-directors-issues-statement-on-amateur-radio-parity-act



Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on January 30, 2019, 03:28:39 PM
Looks like it's return is just another bad joke regurgitated


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WB2KSP on January 31, 2019, 02:10:12 PM
If you have access to the minutes of the last Boadr Of Directors meeting it will explain what is occurring and why the league is pulling the current parity act legislation. From what I read I conclude that this is only a temporary move by the league until they have had time to rewrite their request with new council.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W9FIB on January 31, 2019, 07:29:42 PM
One can only hope it will be written in a form of real relief for HR. And not need a pack of lawyers and a court case just to lose because there is no minimum standard codified to be of any real help for either side.

Empty promises do not radiate well...except for ill will.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: N5PZJ on January 31, 2019, 08:14:16 PM
It serves only to codify in Federal law the authority which HOAs already exercise:

"3) subject to the standards specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), permit a community association to establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio services."

Why anyone would think this serves any useful purpose is dewildering. Yet some apparently do.

If this bill is so bad, then I would recommend CAI  to push it and get it moving since you see it would benefit their position to a great degree. Nothing like beating the herd to the drinking water, but always remember to drink upstream.    The community association Institute could Easily get this passed and Solidify their position.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 01, 2019, 06:48:32 AM
It serves only to codify in Federal law the authority which HOAs already exercise:

"3) subject to the standards specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), permit a community association to establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio services."

Why anyone would think this serves any useful purpose is dewildering. Yet some apparently do.

If this bill is so bad, then I would recommend CAI  to push it and get it moving since you see it would benefit their position to a great degree. Nothing like beating the herd to the drinking water, but always remember to drink upstream.    The community association Institute could Easily get this passed and Solidify their position.
They, the CAI, could do so if that was their intent. As they aren't/haven't, their act of omission implies there is nothing substantive here. Stated differently, the language changes nothing -HOAs had,  have and will always retain authority to define aesthetic considerations.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WB2KSP on February 01, 2019, 07:36:42 AM
It serves only to codify in Federal law the authority which HOAs already exercise:

"3) subject to the standards specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), permit a community association to establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio services."

Why anyone would think this serves any useful purpose is dewildering. Yet some apparently do.

If this bill is so bad, then I would recommend CAI  to push it and get it moving since you see it would benefit their position to a great degree. Nothing like beating the herd to the drinking water, but always remember to drink upstream.    The community association Institute could Easily get this passed and Solidify their position.
They, the CAI, could do so if that was their intent. As they aren't/haven't, their act of omission implies there is nothing substantive here. Stated differently, the language changes nothing -HOAs had,  have and will always retain authority to define aesthetic considerations.

Just like at some point in the past, HOA's could prevent "certain people" from moving into the neighborhood. That was another one of those, it'll never change, rules. All HOA's are doing is enforcing the covenant.  If at some point in the future the federal government overturns these land restrictions, then the HOA's might be open to allowing a homeowner to use their property as they see fit. Most ham ops aren't interested in turning their property into an antenna farm. Just like having a swimming pool in one's back yard (One that their neighbor who has adjoining property (OMG) can see. The ham op can put up the necessary antenna (Type can be negotiated) to use as they see fit. I am not in a HOA and I use wire antennas and a 100 watt station. With it I have confirmed 299 entities. I have 80 through 10 meter DXCC's (all 8 bands) and never once have I had a neighbor's complaint.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 01, 2019, 08:22:28 AM


Just like at some point in the past, HOA's could prevent "certain people" from moving into the neighborhood.

Are you actually comparing racism to antenna limitations? That's an interesting albeit abhorrent perspective...


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W9FIB on February 01, 2019, 09:26:22 AM
 If at some point in the future the federal government overturns these land restrictions, then the HOA's might be open to allowing a homeowner to use their property as they see fit.

That is my point. Why can't it be written so you don't need a federal judge to do something? No OP should need to go to court or even need a lawyer if the proper language is written. Why should the OP have to pay for something that already is regulated by the FCC that is too timid to take on the HOA industry?


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 01, 2019, 09:38:00 AM
 If at some point in the future the federal government overturns these land restrictions, then the HOA's might be open to allowing a homeowner to use their property as they see fit.

That is my point. Why can't it be written so you don't need a federal judge to do something? No OP should need to go to court or even need a lawyer if the proper language is written. Why should the OP have to pay for something that already is regulated by the FCC that is too timid to take on the HOA industry?
That's one way of looking at it but the FCC is on record indicating it has nothing to do with timidity but everything to do with not abrogating land use restrictions when it comes to a ham radio hobby not for the greater good and in the absence of any Congressional mandate.

Parenthetically, the right to install antennas isn't regulated, controlled or bestowed on anyone by the FCC. Nor are land use restrictions. They don't have the authority.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WB2KSP on February 01, 2019, 10:26:55 AM
 If at some point in the future the federal government overturns these land restrictions, then the HOA's might be open to allowing a homeowner to use their property as they see fit.

That is my point. Why can't it be written so you don't need a federal judge to do something? No OP should need to go to court or even need a lawyer if the proper language is written. Why should the OP have to pay for something that already is regulated by the FCC that is too timid to take on the HOA industry?
That's one way of looking at it but the FCC is on record indicating it has nothing to do with timidity but everything to do with not abrogating land use restrictions when it comes to a ham radio hobby not for the greater good and in the absence of any Congressional mandate.

Parenthetically, the right to install antennas isn't regulated, controlled or bestowed on anyone by the FCC. Nor are land use restrictions. They don't have the authority.

I knew you'd use this same old tired argument. It won't work with me. I am not saying that one is more important than the other or that the two are of equal importance. With that said, YES, I do equate the two as rules made which infringe on the rights of citizens and which the federal government in the case of HOA residency, had to step in and correct for the well being of our democracy. Don't like that? Tough (Insert second word). Both are arbitrary rulings which predispose an outcome based on ignorance & prejudice. Comparing the installation of an antenna on a persons property with a person raising farm animals or operating a garage and filling it with junked cars in a neighborhood  is ridiculous and insulting. I wouldn't complain if the neighborhood put in a rule that all installations must be done by a licensed professional. However finding a loophole in the law which effectively disallows the use of a federally issued license is something the federal government should get involved with. Don't give me that hidden antenna garbage either. Seen or unseen they are still illegal and for those operating with hidden antennas here's a clue, You are still breaking the law and could be prosecuted if anyone found out what you are doing. Is that the way a grown adult should be living in our country?


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W9FIB on February 01, 2019, 10:32:23 AM
 If at some point in the future the federal government overturns these land restrictions, then the HOA's might be open to allowing a homeowner to use their property as they see fit.

That is my point. Why can't it be written so you don't need a federal judge to do something? No OP should need to go to court or even need a lawyer if the proper language is written. Why should the OP have to pay for something that already is regulated by the FCC that is too timid to take on the HOA industry?
That's one way of looking at it but the FCC is on record indicating it has nothing to do with timidity but everything to do with not abrogating land use restrictions when it comes to a ham radio hobby not for the greater good and in the absence of any Congressional mandate.

Parenthetically, the right to install antennas isn't regulated, controlled or bestowed on anyone by the FCC. Nor are land use restrictions. They don't have the authority.

Mostly right, but they do have some regulations already...along with the FAA. And yes they could have the authority but refuse to act on it without a law giving them specific authority as they do with all other rules...that's the timidity. Otherwise any FCC rule could be thrown to the wind because there is no specific law passed by congress that specifically states or authorizes that specific rule.

And your right, the FCC doesn't want to do it. But yet they can have PRB-1 that tells local governments almost exactly that the FCC has the control and regulatory authority. Either they do or they don't have authority in all types of situations. They pick and choose which ones they will deal with...which means they are cowards to deal with a larger issues and want to make it so congress is to blame.

But you confirm my point that the language needs to be clear and concise to be of any use to anyone.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KA4DPO on February 02, 2019, 01:09:25 PM
 If at some point in the future the federal government overturns these land restrictions, then the HOA's might be open to allowing a homeowner to use their property as they see fit.

That is my point. Why can't it be written so you don't need a federal judge to do something? No OP should need to go to court or even need a lawyer if the proper language is written. Why should the OP have to pay for something that already is regulated by the FCC that is too timid to take on the HOA industry?
That's one way of looking at it but the FCC is on record indicating it has nothing to do with timidity but everything to do with not abrogating land use restrictions when it comes to a ham radio hobby not for the greater good and in the absence of any Congressional mandate.

Parenthetically, the right to install antennas isn't regulated, controlled or bestowed on anyone by the FCC. Nor are land use restrictions. They don't have the authority.

Mostly right, but they do have some regulations already...along with the FAA. And yes they could have the authority but refuse to act on it without a law giving them specific authority as they do with all other rules...that's the timidity. Otherwise any FCC rule could be thrown to the wind because there is no specific law passed by congress that specifically states or authorizes that specific rule.

And your right, the FCC doesn't want to do it. But yet they can have PRB-1 that tells local governments almost exactly that the FCC has the control and regulatory authority. Either they do or they don't have authority in all types of situations. They pick and choose which ones they will deal with...which means they are cowards to deal with a larger issues and want to make it so congress is to blame.

But you confirm my point that the language needs to be clear and concise to be of any use to anyone.

He is not mostly right, he is absolutely right, the FCC has no legal authority to influence or modify land use restrictions.  The business about OTARD is simply for commercial purposes, and HOA's can even put stipulations on the size of such antennas, and where and how commercial receiving antennas can be located on premises.  The FCC has absolutely no authority whatever in such cases.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W9FIB on February 02, 2019, 01:37:30 PM
He is not mostly right, he is absolutely right, the FCC has no legal authority to influence or modify land use restrictions.  The business about OTARD is simply for commercial purposes, and HOA's can even put stipulations on the size of such antennas, and where and how commercial receiving antennas can be located on premises.  The FCC has absolutely no authority whatever in such cases.

Maybe you can blame Mike at Ten Tec for this. Makes about as much sense.

And I didn't mention OTARD. Nice try though.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KA4DPO on February 02, 2019, 02:30:07 PM
He is not mostly right, he is absolutely right, the FCC has no legal authority to influence or modify land use restrictions.  The business about OTARD is simply for commercial purposes, and HOA's can even put stipulations on the size of such antennas, and where and how commercial receiving antennas can be located on premises.  The FCC has absolutely no authority whatever in such cases.

Maybe you can blame Mike at Ten Tec for this. Makes about as much sense.

And I didn't mention OTARD. Nice try though.

Maybe you can come up with a cogent argument, and leave the personal attacks out of it.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 02, 2019, 06:34:47 PM
He is not mostly right, he is absolutely right, the FCC has no legal authority to influence or modify land use restrictions.  The business about OTARD is simply for commercial purposes, and HOA's can even put stipulations on the size of such antennas, and where and how commercial receiving antennas can be located on premises.  The FCC has absolutely no authority whatever in such cases.

Maybe you can blame Mike at Ten Tec for this. Makes about as much sense.

And I didn't mention OTARD. Nice try though.
It has nothing to do with nor is anyone blaming anyone else. As to OTARD, that is an issue brought up repeatedly by proponents of parity legislation as though there is some nexus to ham radio, a fallacy perpetuated by the uninformed.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: AB3TQ on February 03, 2019, 12:31:05 PM
H.R.466 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) 
Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2019

With apologies to Eddie in Independence Day, hey we are here boyz.  Yep, its back.

Seriously. You can't even remember the characters name or bother to quote him correctly, but you understand exactly what the consequences would be for this stupid bill?

Just to refresh your memory, Russell said: Ha-ha-ha! Hello, boys! I'm BAAAAAACK!


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: N5PZJ on February 04, 2019, 09:06:51 PM
H.R.466 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) 
Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2019

With apologies to Eddie in Independence Day, hey we are here boyz.  Yep, its back.

Seriously. You can't even remember the characters name or bother to quote him correctly, but you understand exactly what the consequences would be for this stupid bill?

Just to refresh your memory, Russell said: Ha-ha-ha! Hello, boys! I'm BAAAAAACK!


I really don't care.   


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 07, 2019, 11:41:58 AM


I really don't care.   

Sure you do. Lets review - who posted this fallacy about resurrecting this farce?


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 17, 2019, 10:21:17 PM
Quote
by adding a new paragraph that prohibits the application to amateur stations of any private land use restriction, including a restrictive covenant, that—


(1) on its face or as applied, precludes communications in an amateur radio service;



(2) fails to permit a licensee in an amateur radio service to install and maintain an effective outdoor antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; or



(3) does not constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the lawful purposes of a community association seeking to enforce such restriction.



(b) Additional requirements.—In amending its rules as required by subsection (a), the Commission shall—


(1) require any licensee in an amateur radio service to notify and obtain prior approval from a community association concerning installation of an outdoor antenna;



(2) permit a community association to prohibit installation of any antenna or antenna support structure by a licensee in an amateur radio service on common property not under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; and



(3) subject to the standards specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), permit a community association to establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio services.

I thought I would show everyone the language of HR 466, just so that you can see what we're talking about.

I can tell you this.  The proposal would force HOA's to allow "effective outside antennas" for the first time.  They will fight this tooth and nail.  However, without Ben Nelson in the Senate blocking it (he lost his bid for re-election), it would likely pass (unless the HOA's find another Senator willing to block it).  I don't know what the ARRL is going to try to do to change the language, but HR 466 would change things for the better, in my opinion.  It's not perfect but it's an improvement.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WA7PRC on February 18, 2019, 01:11:21 PM
The proposal would force HOA's to allow "effective outside antennas" for the first time.
"Effective" is undefined, and means different things to different people.

However, without Ben Nelson in the Senate blocking it (he lost his bid for re-election) ...
Ben Nelson (D-NE) isn't the senator who blocked previous iterations of the legislation and was unelecterd. That was Bill Nelson (D-FL). Ben Nelson chose to retire in 2012.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 18, 2019, 07:35:19 PM
The proposal would force HOA's to allow "effective outside antennas" for the first time.
"Effective" is undefined, and means different things to different people.

However, without Ben Nelson in the Senate blocking it (he lost his bid for re-election) ...
Ben Nelson (D-NE) isn't the senator who blocked previous iterations of the legislation and was unelecterd. That was Bill Nelson (D-FL). Ben Nelson chose to retire in 2012.


You are right about Bill Nelson vs. Ben Nelson.  My mistake.

However, my point about the law's effect remains the same.  It will be a first breach in the wall that HOAs have put up against ham antennas.

I suppose a more precise definition of what would be allowable under the law is possible, but I'm not sure what it would be.  If you limit it to verticals, than there is no chance at having a yagi.  If you limit it to wire antennas, does that preclude a 160 meter loop?  What about the long receiving antennas some hams use?  What do you say about properties with trees available to hide the antennas vs. properties that have nothing around the homes to hide an antenna?  Are we going to proscribe boom lengths on yagis?  If we're going to allow verticals, do we allow radials, and if so, how many?  What about folks that want to have satellite arrays (like me)?  Do we have to use an actual dish or can we use CP yagis?  In essence, once you get more specific, you risk cutting out something else that may be equally effective or better.

Understand that I'm not saying the law couldn't be drafted better.  It's just that I'd like to hear a proposal for different language.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WA7PRC on February 19, 2019, 01:06:40 AM
However, my point about the law's effect remains the same.  It will be a first breach in the wall that HOAs have put up against ham antennas.

I suppose a more precise definition of what would be allowable under the law is possible, but I'm not sure what it would be.  If you limit it to verticals, than there is no chance at having a yagi.  If you limit it to wire antennas, does that preclude a 160 meter loop?  What about the long receiving antennas some hams use?  What do you say about properties with trees available to hide the antennas vs. properties that have nothing around the homes to hide an antenna?  Are we going to proscribe boom lengths on yagis?  If we're going to allow verticals, do we allow radials, and if so, how many?  What about folks that want to have satellite arrays (like me)?  Do we have to use an actual dish or can we use CP yagis?  In essence, once you get more specific, you risk cutting out something else that may be equally effective or better.

Understand that I'm not saying the law couldn't be drafted better.  It's just that I'd like to hear a proposal for different language.
The FIRST misconception is that there is any actual "public need or convenience", to having millions of contracts/agreements/promises abrogated. Hams have many other ways to get on the air to mostly ragchew/DX/contest. IOW, this legislation is a poorly worded solution looking for a problem.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 19, 2019, 06:27:24 AM



I suppose a more precise definition of what would be allowable under the law is possible, but I'm not sure what it would be.  If you limit it to verticals, than there is no chance at having a yagi.  If you limit it to wire antennas, does that preclude a 160 meter loop?  What about the long receiving antennas some hams use?  What do you say about properties with trees available to hide the antennas vs. properties that have nothing around the homes to hide an antenna?  Are we going to proscribe boom lengths on yagis?  If we're going to allow verticals, do we allow radials, and if so, how many?  What about folks that want to have satellite arrays (like me)?  Do we have to use an actual dish or can we use CP yagis?  In essence, once you get more specific, you risk cutting out something else that may be equally effective or better.

Understand that I'm not saying the law couldn't be drafted better.  It's just that I'd like to hear a proposal for different language.

All too prescriptive. Writing such detailed limitations inevitably constrains options plus it becomes more burdensome on an HOA which serves them no value added and therefore not in anyone’s interest.

Given the biggest concern is aesthetic, it’s simple, effective and consistent with HOA practices to write a rule which says - if you can’t see it, it’s not prohibited.

That is the best which could ever come from this effort regardless of what the ARRL tries.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF9BD on February 19, 2019, 06:45:32 AM
I believe the proposed rule is, as others have said, a good start.  The language is not very different from the FCC OTARD language.  The HOA I live in has CCRs that are actually sideways with the OTARD language and I am in the process of educating/assisting the Board revise the CCRs to come into conformance.  Hopefully the proposed rule will get passed this year. 

Danny - KF9BD


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: AC2RY on February 19, 2019, 02:01:14 PM


I suppose a more precise definition of what would be allowable under the law is possible, but I'm not sure what it would be.  If you limit it to verticals, than there is no chance at having a yagi.  If you limit it to wire antennas, does that preclude a 160 meter loop?  What about the long receiving antennas some hams use?  What do you say about properties with trees available to hide the antennas vs. properties that have nothing around the homes to hide an antenna?  Are we going to proscribe boom lengths on yagis?  If we're going to allow verticals, do we allow radials, and if so, how many?  What about folks that want to have satellite arrays (like me)?  Do we have to use an actual dish or can we use CP yagis?  In essence, once you get more specific, you risk cutting out something else that may be equally effective or better.

Understand that I'm not saying the law couldn't be drafted better.  It's just that I'd like to hear a proposal for different language.

One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.



Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 19, 2019, 02:02:31 PM
I believe the proposed rule is, as others have said, a good start.  The language is not very different from the FCC OTARD language.  The HOA I live in has CCRs that are actually sideways with the OTARD language and I am in the process of educating/assisting the Board revise the CCRs to come into conformance.  Hopefully the proposed rule will get passed this year. 

Danny - KF9BD
It’s difficult to conform to an as yet unknown rule if in fact one ever materializes from this litany of past failures and certainly, it seems counterproductive to suggest anyone conform to a failed concept. My suggestion is to be Up-front with your HOA about how OTARD has little relationship here and not mislead anyone about what form any future legislation might take.

If the HOA wants to be prospective here, it’s not difficult to write a local rule mirrored after many others which allow unobtrusive antennas which conform to the neighborhood aesthetic.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WA7PRC on February 19, 2019, 02:10:21 PM
One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.
One can argue that but, I suggest not betting the farm on it being accepted. An antenna's measure is how well it converts between conducted and radiated energy. This is gain, and is independent of an absolute signal level.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 19, 2019, 02:54:37 PM
One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.
One can argue that but, I suggest not betting the farm on it being accepted. An antenna's measure is how well it converts between conducted and radiated energy. This is gain, and is independent of an absolute signal level.
I’d like to be in the room when someone  tried to rationalize “effective” in terms of either power output or ERP.  Especially to a group concerned solely with appearance.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W9IQ on February 19, 2019, 03:04:56 PM
One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.
One can argue that but, I suggest not betting the farm on it being accepted. An antenna's measure is how well it converts between conducted and radiated energy. This is gain, and is independent of an absolute signal level.

The US regulations generally permit 1,500 watts of power out of the amplifier. Effective radiated power is calculated by multiplying power times the gain of the antenna system. It is therefore quite easy to get 15,000 watts EIRP. A basic backyard dipole with 1,500 watts can easily produce 9,500 watts EIRP. But in any case most, but not all, of our bands have no ERP limit.

The ratio of conducted to radiated energy does not establish gain. Antenna gain is efficiency times directivity.

- Glenn W9IQ


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 19, 2019, 05:55:39 PM
Quote
The FIRST misconception is that there is any actual "public need or convenience", to having millions of contracts/agreements/promises abrogated. Hams have many other ways to get on the air to mostly ragchew/DX/contest. IOW, this legislation is a poorly worded solution looking for a problem.

First, contracts are abrogated all the time for a variety of reasons.  An easy example is the government's power of eminent domain, which can run roughshod over all sorts of contractual rights.  There are a number of basic contractual analyses that allow for abrogating contracts independent of governmental action, such as contracts of "adhesion" (one-sided contracts by parties with unequal bargaining power), and unconscionable contracts (contracts in which one party's behavior justifies allowing the other party to escape from performance).  In the law, there's nothing particularly sacred about contracts in and of themselves.

Secondly, the actual "public need or convenience" is 1) the public's need to have effective emergency communications, and 2) the public benefit of having a cadre of experienced radio operators and experimenters. 

Third, as noted in the first thread on this particular forum (it's locked by one of the moderators from further comment), it's not helpful to state that hams have other alternatives than being able to build up an "effective" station in their homes.  In some parts of the country (including the Denver area, where I live), it's very difficult to find housing in which outdoor antennas are allowed.  If you are lucky enough to live in such an area, more power to you.  Many of us don't have that opportunity.

For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have.  However, I remember how hard it was to find a place in which I could do this when the XYL and I were looking to buy a house.  The prevalence of restrictive covenants seriously limited the options we had when selecting a home to buy.  And I should point out that I am the only amateur radio operator in the whole neighborhood (about 100 homes).  I wonder if the HOA will ever try to amend their covenants to exclude outdoor antennas entirely (it only takes a 3/4 vote of the neighborhood to change the covenants).  I don't particularly relish the fact that I might be vulnerable to some of my neighbors in this fashion after living here for almost 20 years.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 19, 2019, 07:12:07 PM

For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 19, 2019, 11:02:20 PM

For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.

I do make contacts with those antennas.  I make plenty. 

Having answered your question, the rest of your comment (sorry) makes no sense.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K7KB on February 19, 2019, 11:50:07 PM
There is too much ambiguity on what can be considered “effective”. One HOA might consider making a contact to another ham in the same city is “effective”, while another might consider might consider making a contact in another state being so. My thought is an effective antenna, useful for emergency services, is one that can consitently make contacts with hams within our own country 24 hours a day no matter where we live. We all have our own interpretation.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 20, 2019, 06:43:56 AM

For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.

I do make contacts with those antennas.  I make plenty. 

Having answered your question, the rest of your comment (sorry) makes no sense.
You just proved my point -that being, the term “effective” is ambiguous and therefore any language using it is essentially meaningless. The only certainty here is that HOAs can and will interpret any rule containing that term as they see fit. In other words, had any form of ARPA become law, nothing would change.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: AC2RY on February 20, 2019, 09:26:38 AM
The US regulations generally permit 1,500 watts of power out of the amplifier. Effective radiated power is calculated by multiplying power times the gain of the antenna system. It is therefore quite easy to get 15,000 watts EIRP. A basic backyard dipole with 1,500 watts can easily produce 9,500 watts EIRP. But in any case most, but not all, of our bands have no ERP limit.

The ratio of conducted to radiated energy does not establish gain. Antenna gain is efficiency times directivity.

- Glenn W9IQ

There is no antenna GAIN on its own. Total radiated power cannot exceed power applied to antenna. What we call gain is a result of directivity, when most of energy is sent to one direction. Thus antenna has effective gain comparing with anisotropic radiator. When we talk about total radiated power (in all directions), we can call it effective radiated power (applied power minus antenna system loss). That way we can argue about EFFICIENCY as a difference between applied power and radiated power. This removes subjective meaning of that term. When FCC allows use of 1500W transmitter with potentially zero loss in antenna, we can use that to request antenna that allows these 1500W to be radiated when applied.





Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W9IQ on February 20, 2019, 09:52:03 AM
There is no antenna GAIN on its own. Total radiated power cannot exceed power applied to antenna. What we call gain is a result of directivity, when most of energy is sent to one direction. Thus antenna has effective gain comparing with anisotropic radiator. When we talk about total radiated power (in all directions), we can call it effective radiated power (applied power minus antenna system loss). That way we can argue about EFFICIENCY as a difference between applied power and radiated power. This removes subjective meaning of that term. When FCC allows use of 1500W transmitter with potentially zero loss in antenna, we can use that to request antenna that allows these 1500W to be radiated when applied.

Your concepts are basically OK but of course in antenna engineering the term "gain" is well established and well respected so it isn't helpful to try to refute it. You particularly don't want to mess with engineering terms when applying them in a legal context.

But be aware that gain is not equivalent to directivity as you state. Gain is defined as directivity times efficiency. A common example of this is the small "magnetic" loop antenna. It has very good directivity - almost equivalent to a 1/2 wavelength dipole, but it has very poor efficiency. As a result the gain is greatly reduced.

Similarly, very small dipole antennas (<0.05 wavelengths) have a directivity that is only 0.4 dB less than a 1/2 wavelength dipole. But due to their very low radiation resistance, the inefficiency is often quite high so their gain is much lower than the directivity would indicate. Add to that the difficulty of efficiently matching the feedpoint impedance.

Your redefinition of effective radiate power does not align with the well accepted use of the term. The FCC regulations, including part 97, clearly talk about and define the use of the terms ERP (effective radiated power) and EIRP (effective isotropic radiated power). You should follow that lexicon to avoid confusion among peers and observers.

- Glenn W9IQ







Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 20, 2019, 12:53:55 PM

For the record, I do live in an HOA in which limited outside antennas are allowed, and so I have some outside antennas, though not what I'd like to have...
To put this in the proper context, do you make contacts with those antennas? Presuming you do, that should constitute the threshold question of efficacy.  The issue of what you would “like to have” is irrelevant.

I do make contacts with those antennas.  I make plenty. 

Having answered your question, the rest of your comment (sorry) makes no sense.
You just proved my point -that being, the term “effective” is ambiguous and therefore any language using it is essentially meaningless. The only certainty here is that HOAs can and will interpret any rule containing that term as they see fit. In other words, had any form of ARPA become law, nothing would change.

Actually, your point that; "the term 'effective' is ambiguous and therefore any language using it is essentially meaningless", is wrong.  There are multiple terms frequently used in the law that a lay person would consider ambiguous but which have a rich body of case law, or interpretations from an administrative agency, that render the term not ambiguous.  An example of case law is the term "reasonable".  There are actually multiple cases interpreting the term "reasonable", and the law does not consider the term ambiguous at all.  An example of an agency interpretation is PRB-1 which proscribes the ability of state and local governments to restrict amateur antennas.

Congress (and state legislatures) will frequently use terms like "reasonable" and "effective" with the expectation that either court interpretations or administrative agency interpretations will fill in any ambiguity.  This process allows legislatures to state broad principles without getting bogged down in the weeds.  It's tough enough to pass legislation without having extensive debate on whether "effective" means you can have a yagi vs. a ground mounted vertical (and to me, the answer to that question will vary depending on the specific location).

My point is that "effective" is not at all ambiguous once you consider how legislatures work, and how courts and the FCC would enforce the law.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 20, 2019, 01:32:53 PM




My point is that "effective" is not at all ambiguous once you consider how legislatures work, and how courts and the FCC would enforce the law.

Sigh...

We're discussing HOA implementation of imprecise language, not case law which, contrary to your opinion,  is as precise as the proverbial 'barn door' when it comes to meaning. And in the case of the governing body, an HOA, such terminology is going to be interpreted by them, not you or me. Therefore, using such language adds nothing to the status quo which was what I was trying to impart here.

HOAs would determine what is reasonable, effective or acceptable (under all prior ARPA iterations). Congrats - we win nothing.



Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: AC2RY on February 20, 2019, 03:15:46 PM

We're discussing HOA implementation of imprecise language, not case law which, contrary to your opinion,  is as precise as the proverbial 'barn door' when it comes to meaning. And in the case of the governing body, an HOA, such terminology is going to be interpreted by them, not you or me. Therefore, using such language adds nothing to the status quo which was what I was trying to impart here.

HOAs would determine what is reasonable, effective or acceptable (under all prior ARPA iterations). Congrats - we win nothing.



If parties (homeowner and HOA) cannot agree on interpretation of terms, then court will decide that for them. If there are no terms written, then there is nothing to argue about.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K7KB on February 20, 2019, 04:06:13 PM
Actually we can argue about this forever, but I think the new leadership in the ARRL has seen the folly of ARPA as it stands now:

"At its annual meeting January 18 – 19, 2019 the ARRL Board of Directors decided that the organization needs to “review, re-examine, and reappraise ARRL’s regulatory and legislative policy with regard to private land use restrictions.”

In order to effectively undertake such a review, the Board adopted a resolution to withdraw its December 18 Petition for Rule Making to the FCC, which sought to amend the Part 97 Amateur Service rules to incorporate the provisions of the Amateur Radio Parity Act (ARPA), without prejudice to refiling. The resolution also is asking members of Congress who had refiled legislation to enact the Amateur Radio Parity Act (ARPA) to refrain from seeking to advance that legislation pending further input from the ARRL."

There is more to the story on the ARRL website:

http://www.arrl.org/amateur-radio-parity-act


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: ND6M on February 20, 2019, 05:52:20 PM
...edit...

One always can argue that "effective" means that it allows to achieve 1500W of effective radiated power permitted by FCC license.



and you would be incorrect, there is no such regulation.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 20, 2019, 05:53:53 PM

We're discussing HOA implementation of imprecise language, not case law which, contrary to your opinion,  is as precise as the proverbial 'barn door' when it comes to meaning. And in the case of the governing body, an HOA, such terminology is going to be interpreted by them, not you or me. Therefore, using such language adds nothing to the status quo which was what I was trying to impart here.

HOAs would determine what is reasonable, effective or acceptable (under all prior ARPA iterations). Congrats - we win nothing.



If parties (homeowner and HOA) cannot agree on interpretation of terms, then court will decide that for them. If there are no terms written, then there is nothing to argue about.

I’m sure you are familiar with the saying “Be careful what you wish for”


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 20, 2019, 10:23:05 PM




My point is that "effective" is not at all ambiguous once you consider how legislatures work, and how courts and the FCC would enforce the law.

Sigh...

We're discussing HOA implementation of imprecise language, not case law which, contrary to your opinion,  is as precise as the proverbial 'barn door' when it comes to meaning. And in the case of the governing body, an HOA, such terminology is going to be interpreted by them, not you or me. Therefore, using such language adds nothing to the status quo which was what I was trying to impart here.

HOAs would determine what is reasonable, effective or acceptable (under all prior ARPA iterations). Congrats - we win nothing.



Actually, that's not true.  If you read the language of the proposed statute (and I'm aware that the ARRL has asked the sponsors to hold back on it for now), HOA's are prohibited from taking action that precludes effective ham radio operation.  The statute is clear that HOA's don't unilaterally get to determine "what is reasonable, effective or acceptable". 

If the HOA and the amateur radio operator can't agree, then it'll end up in court.  Eventually, the issue would get worked out to the point that people on both sides would know what to expect without court action.

By the way, if you're wondering on what I base my opinions regarding drafting legislation and enforcement of that legislation after passage, I practiced law for 38 years, and actually wrote several statutes and administrative regulations.  I've worked with bill sponsors, the executives who run administrative agencies, and have testified before both the Colorado legislature and Colorado administrative agencies.  I've also lobbied the U.S. Congress with regard to a number of legislative proposals, some of which passed.

I'm not saying the proposal is perfect, but as I stated earlier, if someone can come up with better language, I think we would all welcome that.  At least passage of the Act would give us more of a leg up than we do now.  And, indeed, the ARRL, despite their action in asking for a hiatus on pushing for passage of the Act, is still planning on trying to do something.  Here's an excerpt from their announcement:

Quote
The Board wants to make clear to its members, and to those whose policies and conduct prevent or impair the right of US Amateur Radio operators to operate from their homes, that this pause is not, and should not be interpreted as an abandonment of its efforts to obtain relief from private land-use restrictions. The Board noted that its intent is “to renew, continue and strengthen the ARRL’s effort to achieve relief from such restrictions.”


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 21, 2019, 04:36:00 AM

By the way, if you're wondering on what I base my opinions regarding drafting legislation and enforcement of that legislation after passage, I practiced law for 38 years, and actually wrote several statutes and administrative regulations.  I've worked with bill sponsors, the executives who run administrative agencies, and have testified before both the Colorado legislature and Colorado administrative agencies.  I've also lobbied the U.S. Congress with regard to a number of legislative proposals, some of which passed.


All I can say in response is I was the guy sitting on the Bench to whom you were pleading your case and in my opinion, your argument(s) lack clear or convincing merit.

You previously admitted the antenna (s) you currently enjoy are effective but are unsatisfactory indicating you possess the right to unilaterally  determine efficacy. Further, you imply statutory authority exists in the failed ARPA language requiring HOAs to determine efficacy. Pick one!


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 21, 2019, 10:16:23 AM

By the way, if you're wondering on what I base my opinions regarding drafting legislation and enforcement of that legislation after passage, I practiced law for 38 years, and actually wrote several statutes and administrative regulations.  I've worked with bill sponsors, the executives who run administrative agencies, and have testified before both the Colorado legislature and Colorado administrative agencies.  I've also lobbied the U.S. Congress with regard to a number of legislative proposals, some of which passed.


All I can say in response is I was the guy sitting on the Bench to whom you were pleading your case and in my opinion, your argument(s) lack clear or convincing merit.

You previously admitted the antenna (s) you currently enjoy are effective but are unsatisfactory indicating you possess the right to unilaterally  determine efficacy. Further, you imply statutory authority exists in the failed ARPA language requiring HOAs to determine efficacy. Pick one!

Your use of "clear and convincing merit" is an unusual use of that term.  Were you really a judge???

You also fail to accurately characterize my statements repeatedly.  It's an old trick to take an opponent's statements and twist them to try and make it sound like they say something completely different, i.e., something that's easier to refute.  An obvious example is your statement that I think I have the unilateral right to determine efficacy.  That's nonsensical in light of my prior comments.

Finally, I looked you up on QRZ.com.  It must be nice to make arguments against the passage of legislation to allow amateurs to have effective outdoor antennas when you had "the 80 ft tower with monobanders".  Must be nice.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: ND6M on February 21, 2019, 11:04:40 AM
... edit...I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access....

"...the rest of us who don't have such access...."  Now that statement confuses me, don't you have multiple YAGI antennas on your residence?


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 21, 2019, 12:54:04 PM





.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.

I can’t help noting your apparent act of commission by not explaining the inconsistency between your statements I described earlier. To reiterate, given your admission your antennas are effective in your HOA, what prompts you to think you rather than your HOA should decide or alter the community standard?

As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules.



Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: KF0QS on February 21, 2019, 01:24:26 PM





.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.

I can’t help noting your apparent act of commission by not explaining the inconsistency between your statements I described earlier. To reiterate, given your admission your antennas are effective in your HOA, what prompts you to think you rather than your HOA should decide or alter the community standard?

As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules.



Thanks for answering my question about your motive.  It's, at least, an understandable motive, though I can't agree with it.  And, it explains why you don't want to accept my invitation to draft alternative language.

I feel empathy for my fellow hams who live in similar areas where it's difficult to find a place where you can erect antennas.  My wife and I looked for over a year, and finally found my current home where the covenants do allow antennas, as long as they are not more than 6 feet above roof line.  That places my yagi only 24 feet off the ground which is a sub-optimal height.  My guess is that my HOA's current rules would not be affected by passage of the statute as currently drafted.

I worry that my HOA could decide to change the rules to eliminate my ability to have any outside antennas (they have changed the rules on another issue since I have lived here).  Since I'm the only ham in the neighborhood, and to the best of my knowledge I get along with my immediate neighbors, I'm guessing that changing the rules on antennas isn't a big issue.  But what happens if more hams move in?  Although that puts more people on my side, it may also antagonize more people to start pushing for a change.

To respond to your first point, I indicated that I make plenty of contacts with my current antennas.  Their effectiveness is compromised by my need to follow the HOA rules.  This doesn't denigrate my central point that, as a matter of public policy, it's a bad idea to completely eliminate outdoor antennas for the homes of amateur radio operators.  My other point is that, for the benefit of my fellow hams, I'd like to see all of them have a reasonable opportunity to erect an outdoor antenna.  Although your old QTH in New England may have allowed an 80 foot tower, places that would allow even a 40 foot tower are more and more difficult to find.



Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WB2KSP on February 21, 2019, 01:40:29 PM





.

I am trying not to be snarky (probably unsuccessfully).  But I just don't understand why someone who has access to whatever type of antenna they would like to have would be so resistant to legislation that would help the rest of us who don't have such access.  You've never really stated the reason you are so against this proposal.  Forget the back and forth and just tell us the source of your objection to the statute.  If it's the principle of abrogating covenants that run with the land (i.e., HOA restrictions), say that.  If it's a failure in drafting (i.e., the proposal is too vague), then please accept my invitation to come up with a reasonable alternative.  I just want to understand where you are coming from.

I can’t help noting your apparent act of commission by not explaining the inconsistency between your statements I described earlier. To reiterate, given your admission your antennas are effective in your HOA, what prompts you to think you rather than your HOA should decide or alter the community standard?

As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules.



Thanks for answering my question about your motive.  It's, at least, an understandable motive, though I can't agree with it.  And, it explains why you don't want to accept my invitation to draft alternative language.

I feel empathy for my fellow hams who live in similar areas where it's difficult to find a place where you can erect antennas.  My wife and I looked for over a year, and finally found my current home where the covenants do allow antennas, as long as they are not more than 6 feet above roof line.  That places my yagi only 24 feet off the ground which is a sub-optimal height.  My guess is that my HOA's current rules would not be affected by passage of the statute as currently drafted.

I worry that my HOA could decide to change the rules to eliminate my ability to have any outside antennas (they have changed the rules on another issue since I have lived here).  Since I'm the only ham in the neighborhood, and to the best of my knowledge I get along with my immediate neighbors, I'm guessing that changing the rules on antennas isn't a big issue.  But what happens if more hams move in?  Although that puts more people on my side, it may also antagonize more people to start pushing for a change.

To respond to your first point, I indicated that I make plenty of contacts with my current antennas.  Their effectiveness is compromised by my need to follow the HOA rules.  This doesn't denigrate my central point that, as a matter of public policy, it's a bad idea to completely eliminate outdoor antennas for the homes of amateur radio operators.  My other point is that, for the benefit of my fellow hams, I'd like to see all of them have a reasonable opportunity to erect an outdoor antenna.  Although your old QTH in New England may have allowed an 80 foot tower, places that would allow even a 40 foot tower are more and more difficult to find.

https://www




I don't care what VSK says or claims. I've seen the areas he has told me where  can install and outdoor antenna and sorry but they don't meet my standards for a home or a neighborhood which I'd like to spend the rest of my life.That's one of the reasons I have talked with my wife, who thankfully is very understanding and we will look for a place to spend our retirement years up here in the north east. I'd still like to see my fellow hams have the chance to use their licenses as THEY see fit. My wire antennas are 60 and 75 foot above ground and really perform well. I now ahve 298 entities confirmed and an 8 band, & 3 mode DXCC, all with 100 watts (and 35 watts digitally). Personally I am not interested nor do I want a swimming pool but that little amenity seems to come with many homes in Florida. I don't want to and wouldn't move into VSK's neighborhood and that is fine with me. I just want to have the choice so that if his neighborhood says no, another neighborhood (with newly built homes) in the same area would say yes. Maybe now that Nelson is out of office we'll have a chance. As an aside it is beyond me how someone could hold a ham license and yet show such disdain for such a crucial element of the hobby. It makes me wonder why he doesn't allow his license to lapse, although  I am certain he'll write about his maritime hame activities. That sounds very selfish to me, I got what I want and everyone else can go to h*ll.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on February 21, 2019, 01:55:41 PM


I don't care what VSK says or claims. I've seen the areas he has told me where  can install and outdoor antenna and sorry but they don't meet my standards for a home or a neighborhood which I'd like to spend the rest of my life.That's one of the reasons I have talked with my wife, who thankfully is very understanding and we will look for a place to spend our retirement years up here in the north east. I'd still like to see my fellow hams have the chance to use their licenses as THEY see fit. My wire antennas are 60 and 75 foot above ground and really perform well. I now ahve 298 entities confirmed and an 8 band, & 3 mode DXCC, all with 100 watts (and 35 watts digitally). Personally I am not interested nor do I want a swimming pool but that little amenity seems to come with many homes in Florida. I don't want to and wouldn't move into VSK's neighborhood and that is fine with me. I just want to have the choice so that if his neighborhood says no, another neighborhood (with newly built homes) in the same area would say yes. Maybe now that Nelson is out of office we'll have a chance. As an aside it is beyond me how someone could hold a ham license and yet show such disdain for such a crucial element of the hobby. It makes me wonder why he doesn't allow his license to lapse, although  I am certain he'll write about his maritime hame activities. That sounds very selfish to me, I got what I want and everyone else can go to h*ll.
For the record, you previously admitted your home search in your preferred area consisted of a total of one day. Subsequently, you provided me with specifics in terms of price, age, number of BRs, BAs, lot size, square footage, etc.. claiming no unencumbered properties exist whereupon I gave you a list of 11 communities comprising  hundreds of home fitting your detailed desires.
Clearly, you don’t care what I have to say or perhaps more correctly, you prefer to displace responsibility on me.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WB2KSP on February 21, 2019, 03:32:28 PM


I don't care what VSK says or claims. I've seen the areas he has told me where  can install and outdoor antenna and sorry but they don't meet my standards for a home or a neighborhood which I'd like to spend the rest of my life.That's one of the reasons I have talked with my wife, who thankfully is very understanding and we will look for a place to spend our retirement years up here in the north east. I'd still like to see my fellow hams have the chance to use their licenses as THEY see fit. My wire antennas are 60 and 75 foot above ground and really perform well. I now ahve 298 entities confirmed and an 8 band, & 3 mode DXCC, all with 100 watts (and 35 watts digitally). Personally I am not interested nor do I want a swimming pool but that little amenity seems to come with many homes in Florida. I don't want to and wouldn't move into VSK's neighborhood and that is fine with me. I just want to have the choice so that if his neighborhood says no, another neighborhood (with newly built homes) in the same area would say yes. Maybe now that Nelson is out of office we'll have a chance. As an aside it is beyond me how someone could hold a ham license and yet show such disdain for such a crucial element of the hobby. It makes me wonder why he doesn't allow his license to lapse, although  I am certain he'll write about his maritime hame activities. That sounds very selfish to me, I got what I want and everyone else can go to h*ll.
For the record, you previously admitted your home search in your preferred area consisted of a total of one day. Subsequently, you provided me with specifics in terms of price, age, number of BRs, BAs, lot size, square footage, etc.. claiming no unencumbered properties exist whereupon I gave you a list of 11 communities comprising  hundreds of home fitting your detailed desires.
Clearly, you don’t care what I have to say or perhaps more correctly, you prefer to displace responsibility on me.

For the record, I told you that the real estate offices I visited told me that none of the newer communities in Sarasota would allow me to install an external antenna. Secondly, I have friends who moved to Florida who are hams and none of them found acceptable homes that allowed an individual to install an outdoor antenna of any consequence. It all doesn't matter because for me as it turns out Florida is not a place I want to spend my retirement years. My parents neighborhood is great but travel 5 miles in any direction and it's swamps and humidity and compared with the NY metro area the supermarkets are limited to say the least (There is nothing like Fareway or Wegmans there not to mention Shop Rite). I live in a suburb of NYC where you can get and do everything. Not everyone likes this part of the country but, I love it and don't want to make the mistake of moving elsewhere. That works for me. Good thing we live in a country which is so varied that a person can make those choices. When I hear about friends moving to HOA neighborhoods in Florida with swimming pools and club houses, I say, suppose it's great for you but, it's not for me.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W8LV on April 08, 2019, 03:36:40 AM
Oh Boy...Here we go again:
"As to your question about my motive, it’s quite simple. People who don’t live in my community should have no influence on my community. We neither want nor need such ‘help’ ( read - interference). If someone chooses to live here, as we now do, don’t expect us to change our community to fit your hobby desires. There are always other venues despite the unsupportable claim to which we are sometimes treated that everyplace “suitable” is an HOA, typically ironically voiced the loudest by those who dislike HOA rules."

K1VSK: That's All Fine And Dandy, but what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?
   
It's unhelpful to tell people to avoid HOAs and the like.

73 DE W8LV BILL


   



Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: ND6M on April 08, 2019, 07:36:57 AM
Oh Boy...Here we go again:... That's All Fine And Dandy, but what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?[/b]
   
 DE W8LV BILL


   


Then I would have made an adult decision concerning which was more important.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on April 08, 2019, 12:27:45 PM
Oh Boy...Here we go again:... That's All Fine And Dandy, but what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?[/b]
   
 DE W8LV BILL


   


Then I would have made an adult decision concerning which was more important.
As would everyone else. It was just another typical troll post.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WA7PRC on April 08, 2019, 04:58:00 PM
Quote
what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?
The important words are "hobby" and "desires"; (there is no REQUIREMENT). The reasonable answer then, is "something else" or "give up". Changing the rules after buying a property affects tens of millions, so a few hams can get what they WANT. Right now, all hams have alternatives to erecting an outdoor antenna.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on April 08, 2019, 05:58:42 PM
Quote
what if YOUR HOA didn't allow you to pursue YOUR Hobby Desires?
The important words are "hobby" and "desires"; (there is no REQUIREMENT). The reasonable answer then, is "something else" or "give up". Changing the rules after buying a property affects tens of millions, so a few hams can get what they WANT. Right now, all hams have alternatives to erecting an outdoor antenna.
Certainly true but that’s irrelevant if the intent is to incessantly criticize and/or complain.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WA7PRC on April 08, 2019, 06:49:35 PM
Certainly true but that’s irrelevant if the intent is to incessantly criticize and/or complain.
When there is much complaining, I'm reminded of these:

"Would you like some cheese with that whine?"
and
"Are you going to come quietly or, do I need to use earplugs?"


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on April 08, 2019, 07:35:17 PM
Certainly true but that’s irrelevant if the intent is to incessantly criticize and/or complain.
When there is much complaining, I'm reminded of these:

"Would you like some cheese with that whine?"
and
"Are you going to come quietly or, do I need to use earplugs?"

Yup! It’s too bad annoying people annoy everyone except themselves.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W8LV on April 10, 2019, 11:22:51 AM
Why... it's Twildildee and Twidledum come replying!

No Brian. You don't decide what is important with my post, or anyone elses post.

Now go sit in the Corner, until I say differently.
I'm busy with Don right now.

Don't Worry: I'll get back to you...

Don, you are expected to stay after school, again.
Like that last time you were schooled.
Your assignment is to do a book report on Madison and the Federalist Papers.
Specifically, on the problem of protecting the Minority from the Majority.
And this IS an assignment:

No playing radio or fooling around with the computer until it's done!



Okay Bryan: You can come out of the Corner now.


So Bryan,  your assignment is  go take your Party Test... Before a New Version gets released
so you won't have to study again. And take Don with you, AFTER he is done with his report.
And No Cheating.     And YOUR additional after school assignment, is to colour a ditto picture of James Madison, Jr., our 4th President. I want you do try and do a really good job staying within the lines this time, instead like last time when you did that lousy Thanksgiving one..... I couldn't tell if the Pligrims were eating a turkey or a dinosaur, the way you coloured that one! Heavy Crayon Marks and you're getting points off.


That you don't understand how a Representative Republic works is just sad.
But for Don, it's outrageous. As is dodging a post by playing the Troll Card.

73 DE W8LV BILL







Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on April 10, 2019, 01:03:18 PM
Sounds like LV’s cheese has slipped off his cracker.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WA7PRC on April 10, 2019, 09:11:59 PM
Why... it's Twildildee and Twidledum come replying!

No Brian. You don't decide what is important with my post, or anyone elses post.

Now go sit in the Corner, until I say differently.
I'm busy with Don right now.

Don't Worry: I'll get back to you...

Don, you are expected to stay after school, again.
Like that last time you were schooled.
Your assignment is to do a book report on Madison and the Federalist Papers.
Specifically, on the problem of protecting the Minority from the Majority.
And this IS an assignment:

No playing radio or fooling around with the computer until it's done!



Okay Bryan: You can come out of the Corner now.


So Bryan,  your assignment is  go take your Party Test... Before a New Version gets released
so you won't have to study again. And take Don with you, AFTER he is done with his report.
And No Cheating.     And YOUR additional after school assignment, is to colour a ditto picture of James Madison, Jr., our 4th President. I want you do try and do a really good job staying within the lines this time, instead like last time when you did that lousy Thanksgiving one..... I couldn't tell if the Pligrims were eating a turkey or a dinosaur, the way you coloured that one! Heavy Crayon Marks and you're getting points off.


That you don't understand how a Representative Republic works is just sad.
But for Don, it's outrageous. As is dodging a post by playing the Troll Card.

73 DE W8LV BILL
Sophomoric personal insult (misspelled), followed by condescending rant, ending in "Best Regards" (AGAIN). :: sheesh ::
You still don't have the authority to assign "tests" to others.
Sounds like LV’s cheese has slipped off his cracker.
Yet AGAIN.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: W8LV on April 11, 2019, 02:29:47 PM
You guys crack me up!  :D

73 DE W8LV Bill




Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: WA7PRC on April 11, 2019, 02:42:08 PM
You guys crack me up!  :D

73 DE W8LV Bill
...said the troll.


Title: RE: Parity has returned, 2019-2020
Post by: K1VSK on April 11, 2019, 03:30:59 PM
You guys crack me up!  :D

73 DE W8LV Bill



That explains this tidbit of nonsense:

“...you need a directional antenna on top of a tower to make and maintain contacts on 20 meters. ”