Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

Could we at least have a bill that is self-consistent then? Can we at least have a bill that makes sure to limit its scope to people that have antenna restrictions? I know that you believe it will be eventually interpreted generally in that direction, but can we at least have that one thing up front? If ARRL wants to "tinker" with this idea for the next decade, fine, but let's start by making sure the scope excludes people and properties that don't need to be "helped." Can we at least do that much?

If we can at least get that much before the bill passes, I'll stay out of its way. The reason is that I have read a lot of PRB-1 case law and I already have a good idea how this is going to go down. And I'm more than happy to let the desperate ARPA supporters try and fail to get accommodation, just like what happened with many PRB-1 supporters. If they only way for them to learn is the hard way, which is to fight in court for years on end against a creative CA who is bent on defeating every antenna they can, then fine. As long as the legislation that started their futile exercise is guaranteed not to touch situations that don't need the extra "help," I'm more than happy for people to feed their attorneys until they learn, as you say, how politics really works.

 

CA's never ever take on exposure at cost to them.

(CA's) being --forced to vet ham antennas-- (that's what the 'additional requirements' in HR555 says) when they normally have nothing to do with them, will bring on huge costs as institutionalized into the application process.

The ham will pay for this. Big, big bucks.

I don't know why some of you think that this means all you have to do is fire up the FT-101 into a waterspout and drop a note to the CA. They won't do this that way. Why?Because the crazy lady 3 doors down will get her lawyer son to sue the CA--and you--for exposure to 'harmful radiation' and blame her pseudo-itis on that bad, bad ham and the CA that gave him permission.

Previously there was no one with deep pockets to 'blame', just the ham. Now there is a CA with collective pockets.

Anticipating such cases, the CA's will formalize the process, require indemnification, and $$$$ the ham.

Expect costs upwards of $20,000 minimum, depending on requirements of escrow deposit. No deposit? Cheap! $5000 to $10,000 perhaps.

Expensive FT-101!

IMO the CAI has been extremely clever and understands that COSTS will keep MOST hams from executing the application process. BUT the ham will have his RIGHT to apply for an 'antenna installation'.

No antenna mind you, but the RIGHT to ask!

 

....hence a taste of the new world where radio amateurs USED to be defined by FCC rules, but will now be essentially controlled by non-profits with private contracts with onerous stipulations and costs.

..and the one that deals with road kill and 3 barbed wire fence posts now, by federal law, is the expert and doorway to amateur radio.

 

No one has ever explained to me how this benefits hams! Bottom line is you still have to get HOA permission and they still get to decide what if any antenna can be used! How is this different? ARRL is just spouting victory because they have a bill introduced????

 

The apparent justification is that it is 'better than nothing'. The only difference is that a CA cannot PREVENT an approved installation of an 'effective antenna'--if you make it through the mega-expensive application approval. There is already a prepared list of 'effective antennas'. One of the most celebrated ones is a waterspout antenna.

Unfortunately, not true (not 'better than nothing'): because the amended language extends the vetting process to ALL CA's--not just the ones that normally consider antenna requirements--the number of CA's involved explodes from many hundreds to upwards of 250,000 plus. Why? Because rural America is dominated by CA's that normally, and used to, only deal with things like roadkill, keeping waterways clear of beaver, and so on.

The way HR555 is written, ALL THESE CA's must now be vetters of ham antenna installations. And oftentimes, there is more than one CA that the rural ham is part of, because their focus is different things. Doesn't matter: HR555 now forces ALL of them to be antenna vetters.

Because the magnitude of these CA numbers will now be very high, and these CA's are not equipped to deal with antennas, they will seek advise from CAI, or other legal counsel, who will 'institutionalize' and formalize the application process, with onerous and expensive application requirements and compliance. ALL costs will be placed on the ham.

With legal costs for both the ham and pass-through of the CA, it is virtually impossible to see a ham approval for less than $5000, IMO, and with indemnification requirements (likely) there could be escrow stipulations of $50,000 or more.

IOW, with HR555, hams will not be STOPPED from installing antennas, but they just won't be able to afford it.

 

Yup. They're already gearing up to make rules and trying to figure out fees in case this dog passes the Senate and President Trump signs it.

 

FYI, it appears that the bill has been referred to and received by the Senate, read, and referred to committee [congress.gov].

 

Now we'll see what Mr. Nelson thinks...

 

I received a response from one of my senators today. I had asked him to oppose the legislation based on its poor wording. Looks like the ARRL press releases made it to his office before my letter.

 

If I send an email I always get a canned response.

I have better luck calling and then I get an Aide and I can bounce some ideas off him or her.

 

And let's not pretend that they aren't preparing other plans, as well. I guarantee you that drafts are already written that will be introduced in court, challenging the FCC's ability to interfere in private contracts. And those arguments won't care that they will also affect OTARD or whatever else. They'll gladly use some 200' tower request to take a new swipe at all antennas, hams and OTARD included. They'll charge into the federal courts, saying, "look, we told you OTARD was a bad policy, and a slippery slope, and look what these FCC folks have dreamed up now!" The "My Docuements" folders of some expensive attorneys are making space for an epic court fight over ARPA, and even more so now that the bill appears likely to survive its trip through Congress this year.

No how matter how much you want a tower in your CC&R yard, chances are that you have neighbors who love their skyline more, and they will dump their checkbooks to fight you. And you are still of an age to be active in radio, but many of them consider themselves "retired" and they have nothing else to do and nothing else to spend money on but the grandkids, and they will appreciate you for making your new tower their pet project. Especially since you got your tower when they couldn't get their railroad steam engine restoration side business in their own yard.

 

I am still relatively new to amateur radio compared to most on here. But certainly not new to the idea of "Freedom" as I used to spend a considerable amount of time listening to shortwave broadcasts during the cold war. I am just left wondering how the amateur community even allowed this to happen in the first place, when amateur radio was certainly more vibrant in the 1980's than it is now.

Mostly these restrictions were put in place at the urging of cable TV interests because back then, satellite TV antennas were larger than the ones in common use now AND CB'ers and Freebanders (unlicensed operators) caused a lot of interference problems in communities so developers were more than happy to include these antennas as well. I live in a city (Houston) with a lot of new housing built since the 1980's. Large swaths of the city with "no outdoor antennas". Consequently, there is a low amount of HF activity for such a large city.

But again I am left wondering why in the first place we ended up with these complete, draconian, Soviet Style antenna restrictions for amateur radio; that has been part of the American landscape for over a 100 years. That home owners in a private residence would have to surrender so many of their property rights to the "collective beautifiers". It totally galls me to even think, that in the "Land of the Free and the Brave", that a duly licensed operator in the amateur service should have to hide their antenna from the "collective". That one cannot even be allowed to erect a Hamstick or wire antenna.

In 1987 had a 140 foot wire antenna for SWL'ing from the 14th floor of a high rise condo down to a fence at the tennis courts. I knew how to get what I want by asking nicely, proposing reasonable solutions and working with others. What about you? Just too bitter and selfish?

Just reading the comments people make about the ARRL. Not it is not perfect but it is the lobby group for our hobby just as the NRA is for gun owners.

And then there is the future. I always ask the "know it all's", "would you be on the air today if you had, when you were younger, the blanket antenna restrictions we have in place today?"

Most of you are the age when you could have done something about it in 1985.

 

parody? why not parity?

 

It was a kinder parody than "party." Or "pity."

 

Well Harry,

In 1985 I was a newly minted Ph.D. in a down economy, heading slowly on the upside--but with jobs almost exclusively oriented to Star Wars--not the movie-- such as at Los Alamos. I was living in a 170 square foot apartment, had sick relatives who needed more than my occasional care, and trying to creatively get myself out of a box I did not build.

Suffice to say, I was not on the air.

No one handed anything to me; I progressed through my own wits.

Eventually I wrote a book, made some dough, pioneered as a 'quant', and went back into academia. I later retired, became a successful inventor and businessman. Ironically , as some would say; I invented the invisibility cloak and deflector shield, both of which, in 1985, would have helped render 'Star Wars' a moot enterprise.

Now the box has become a sky scraper, I was able to guide my son to avoid such boxes: he works at Bain, in your fair city.

Perhaps you are suggesting I should have concentrated on ham radio in 1985, and gone nowhere with my life? But helped stop the PRB-1 mess, and others?

You presume much on circumstances that were not conducive.

I am not to blame, thanks.

73
Chip W1YW