Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

I said "Most of you", not specifically you.

 

Cop out.

Harry, people do what they can, when they can.

Much of this ARPA stuff is motivated by retirees now stuck in boxes, that want to rag chew on 75M nets with the FT-101's, and them not getting good enough signal reports with their hidden antennas. In 7-10 years, most will be unable to do radio. (Point of info---I am 62 and may be in that category). ARPA is very much a reflection of this blip in ham demographics.

They are either too cheap or too old fashioned to go remote.

When in Houston, I operate remote. Using a RADIO with a 2.4 GHz link....

73
Chip W1YW

 

While I found the rest of your post interesting, the quoted bit above really caught my attention. You need to offer those as kits that we can build for ourselves.

 

'Source' patents: 8253639; 9134465.

Interesting and simple demo--

 

I find that an apt comparison. I haven't cared for the compromises NRA has made over the years, either.

It's one thing to work to change public policy for the better. But how can individuals influence policy for the better, when their own advocacy organization is working against their best interests, or offering bills so compromised that the other side of the compromise thinks they have won the public policy lottery? I would suggest that many people are in that boat.

My elected division directors are on my side on recent issues at ARRL. Even so, ARRL is not. So I write my legislators, and I commiserate with my division directors, and then I try to reason here with people who don't get it. At that point, I'm quickly running out of tools to do more.

 

That's very cool. Not quite kit-ready for home use yet, but still very cool.

 

If the new FCC Chariman says the ARPA will “help amateur radio operators” then really now, you APRA haters have lost all credibility.

 

I prefer the term ARPA-fixers. Maybe ARPA-rescuers. ARPA-patchers? Make ARPA Great Again? Okay, that one was a bit over the top. But "haters" is a bit strong. Well, for some of us, anyway.

If others want ARPA-like legislation, I'm not against that, generally. But in its current form, yeah, I'm against it. Buggy legislation has no business in public policy. Imperfect is one thing. Lack of necessary clarity is quite another.

I'm not convinced that the words "help amateur radio operators" is any kind of conclusive position statement. The Chair was complementing Congress for acting on a pile of bills. I would be surprised if he decided to pick some and not others for mention in his remarks. He may turn out to be the spearhead of a new movement to support CC&R preemption at FCC. Time will tell. If FCC's comments to date on CC&R preemption are any measure, they are not going to be a big fan of any form of ARPA.

 

I agree that aesthetics of a subdivision are important and the property values need to be maintained. But blanket prohibitions of ANY outdoor and even attic antennas are downright socialist -- regardless of the reason, whether done for private or public benefit. There are ways to preserve the aesthetics of a subdivision and reasonably accommodate a licensed operator in the amateur service.

Certainly in a free society, no one could argue that someone didn't have the right to stand in the privacy of their back yard and communicate via a handy talkie but even that is forbidden. Regardless of whether it is a result of a private land contact. That is how really wrong this is.

 

Who, exactly, are those "ARPA haters"? Name them please.

 

I don't hate APRA. I don't even know what APRA is.

I do however have some concerns about certain sections in ARPA.

 

These are the same people who didn't like it last year before the ARRL met with the CAI and compromised the language. Hiding behind the sanctity of private land agreements or covenants doesn't make it right.

 

That certainly describes me. I thought it was just unnecessary in its old form. Now it's a actively bad bill.

 

Listen, I think we ought to leave the American Professional Rodeo Association out of this debate. Sure, they've earned their spurs and a right to their own brand, but haven't we beat this horse to death? And why saddle readers with HS that's off topic? I'm sure you could rope anyone into a discussion but let's not clown around. Straight out of the gate I'll say drop it. Just drop the reins and walk away from this one Pardner. O.K. Corral?

http://aprarodeo.com/

 

Who..are...they??