Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Parity has returned, 2019-2020  (Read 4866 times)
N5PZJ
Member

Posts: 136




Ignore
« 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.
Logged
W1BR
Member

Posts: 4188




Ignore
« Reply #1 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?
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
NN4RH
Member

Posts: 554




Ignore
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 12:59:49 PM by NN4RH » Logged
NN4RH
Member

Posts: 554




Ignore
« Reply #4 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

Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2019, 03:28:39 PM »

Looks like it's return is just another bad joke regurgitated
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #6 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.
Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2502




Ignore
« Reply #7 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.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
N5PZJ
Member

Posts: 136




Ignore
« Reply #8 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.
Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #10 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.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 07:39:11 AM by WB2KSP » Logged
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #11 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...
Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2502




Ignore
« Reply #12 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?
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
K1VSK
Member

Posts: 529




Ignore
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
WB2KSP
Member

Posts: 786




Ignore
« Reply #14 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?
Logged
Pages: [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!