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 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Parity has returned, 2019-2020  (Read 4714 times)
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2498




Ignore
« Reply #15 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.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
KA4DPO
Member

Posts: 1305




Ignore
« Reply #16 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.
Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2498




Ignore
« Reply #17 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.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
KA4DPO
Member

Posts: 1305




Ignore
« Reply #18 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.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 507




Ignore
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
AB3TQ
Member

Posts: 15




Ignore
« Reply #20 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!
Logged
N5PZJ
Member

Posts: 136




Ignore
« Reply #21 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.   
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 507




Ignore
« Reply #22 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?
Logged
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 72




Ignore
« Reply #23 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.
Logged
WA7PRC
Member

Posts: 2320


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #24 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.
Logged
KF0QS
Member

Posts: 72




Ignore
« Reply #25 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.
Logged
WA7PRC
Member

Posts: 2320


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 507




Ignore
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
KF9BD
Member

Posts: 62




Ignore
« Reply #28 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
Logged
AC2RY
Member

Posts: 729




Ignore
« Reply #29 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.

Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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