Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

Boy howdee!

 

So did it pass yet?

 

Referred to the Senate; not reported as passed yet.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/555/all-actions?r=62&overview=closed#tabs

 

Is this bill, like the previous, going to undo contracts people have already signed? I've always disagreed with the move as it's unfair to property owners/managers. You said you wouldn't, on paper, now you want to, with .gov's help.

 

I think the most correct way to describe it is that it will potentially modify any existing antenna restrictions, and it will render ineffective any existing antenna bans, that appear in CC&R of whatever flavor. It also potentially modifies any existing antenna approval procedures, or adds antenna approval procedures, depending on the existing CC&R content and wording.

 

OK through the house as expected. Now why, if it is worded the same as before, would Senator Nelson not block it again? We should backup, modify the bill and then proceed. Look at the bill pending in MO. Let's learn from history and not do the same thing again. We will get the same result as before.

 

Good idea. Nelson is the ranking member of the committee to which the bill was just referred. He's already said he has serious concerns about the way it's written and another approach to this issue could gain his full support. Apparently the lobbyists in charge of shepherding the bill haven't read Nelson's commentary. Teeing up for failure's par for the course.


Additional Views of Senator Nelson

"While I appreciate the goals of S. 1685, I write to express my concerns about the approach taken by the legislation. I agree with my colleagues that amateur radio operators provide a key communications service in the nation. In fact, even the National Hurricane Center has acknowledged that amateur radio operators play an important role in collecting and disseminating information in emergency situations. Given this role that they play, I believe it is important for homeowner's and community associations to try to work cooperatively with the amateur radio community to find ways to further the continued availability of these services.

That said, I have serious concerns about S. 1685. It is one thing to try to find a way to balance the interests of homeowner's associations and amateur radio operators. It is another to preempt the ability of those homeowner's associations to enforce privately-negotiated covenants and restrictions that have been entered into freely by the persons who voluntarily chose to live in those communities. In one fell swoop, this bill would effectively repeal parts of millions of private contracts and agreements relied upon by homeowners around the country.

I know that the bill's sponsors believe that their legislation continues to preserve a measure of authority for homeowners' and other community associations to protect their interests. And I respect the fact that this legislation takes a far different and more limited approach compared to the Over-the-Air Reception Device installation rules. But by requiring ``reasonable accommodations'' and the ``minimum practicable restriction,'' this bill would tie homeowner's and community associations' hands and leave them open to potentially endless litigation. And there is a fear that the broadly worded language of the bill - that it applies to ``any private land use restriction'' - could be read to preempt a landlord's ability to place limits on a renter.

It may be that another approach to this issue could gain my full support. But I will look very skeptically on any proposal that would limit the ability of homeowner's and community associations to prohibit the installation of amateur radio equipment in the communities governed by those associations. That includes an approach that would require those associations to allow amateur radio operators to install effective antennas, as some have suggested. What is an effective antenna to one operator is very different to another - and a boundless legal standard like that again threatens these associations with endless litigation."

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/senate-report/400/1

 

Or better yet, for those whose state has a bad CC&R problem, go to your state legislature and solve it in your own state, using language that works best for your state. If you get an ARPA-like bill passed in your state, you can have it as a law rather than a federal regulation, which will allow you to enforce it however you want.

 

Yup. And state laws are MUCH easier to modernize and adapt to changing situations than asking congress, the senate, the president, and the federal courts to agree on the the meanings of "reasonable" and "effective" and similar word salad.

 

That is letting the camel stick his nose under the tent!!! Once you let the States Regulate a Federal Matter, the Locals tend to get their tentacle's into other parts of the Federal Matter. RFI is where most local agencies want to go, The Petit Letter http://www.arrl.org/files/file/petit.pdf explains this very well. Keep federal things federal and state things state! Amendment X US CONSTITUTION.

 

Don't get so excited Martin! That smelly old camel's been trying to get in the tent for years! We're trying to prevent him from bringing his entire bedroom set! Keeping government OUT of private agreements is exactly what lies beneath the FCC's refusal to mandate the preemption of CCR's! You can read the two official objections and contraindications to the bill, if you want to! They're below this line!

Additional Views of Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)


"While I appreciate the goals of S. 1685, I write to express my concerns about the approach taken by the legislation. I agree with my colleagues that amateur radio operators provide a key communications service in the nation. In fact, even the National Hurricane Center has acknowledged that amateur radio operators play an important role in collecting and disseminating information in emergency situations. Given this role that they play, I believe it is important for homeowner's and community associations to try to work cooperatively with the amateur radio community to find ways to further the continued availability of these services.

That said, I have serious concerns about S. 1685. It is one thing to try to find a way to balance the interests of homeowner's associations and amateur radio operators. It is another to preempt the ability of those homeowner's associations to enforce privately-negotiated covenants and restrictions that have been entered into freely by the persons who voluntarily chose to live in those communities. In one fell swoop, this bill would effectively repeal parts of millions of private contracts and agreements relied upon by homeowners around the country.

I know that the bill's sponsors believe that their legislation continues to preserve a measure of authority for homeowners' and other community associations to protect their interests. And I respect the fact that this legislation takes a far different and more limited approach compared to the Over-the-Air Reception Device installation rules. But by requiring ``reasonable accommodations'' and the ``minimum practicable restriction,'' this bill would tie homeowner's and community associations' hands and leave them open to potentially endless litigation. And there is a fear that the broadly worded language of the bill - that it applies to ``any private land use restriction'' - could be read to preempt a landlord's ability to place limits on a renter.

It may be that another approach to this issue could gain my full support. But I will look very skeptically on any proposal that would limit the ability of homeowner's and community associations to prohibit the installation of amateur radio equipment in the communities governed by those associations. That includes an approach that would require those associations to allow amateur radio operators to install effective antennas, as some have suggested. What is an effective antenna to one operator is very different to another - and a boundless legal standard like that again threatens these associations with endless litigation."

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/senate-report/400/1

https://i.imgur.com/oPbgLpO.jpg




FCC REPORT TO CONGRESS - AUGUST, 2012
CONCLUSION: NO LEGISLATION NEEDED
(SEE RELEVANT HIGHLIGHTS BELOW)


Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1342
Before the Federal Communications Commission
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554


Background. In its 1985 PRB-1 decision, the Commission adopted the policy of limited preemption of state and local regulations governing amateur station facilities, including antennas and support structures. The PRB-1 decision decided not to extend this policy to private land use restrictions contained in covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in home ownership deeds and condominium bylaws because “such agreements are voluntarily entered into by the buyer or tenant when the agreement is executed and do not usually concern the Commission.”

Since the PRB-1 decision, petitioners have asked the Commission to expressly extend its preemption policy to CC&Rs. In 2001, the Commission denied an Application for Review, which asked the Commission to expand its preemption policy and preempt CC&Rs that do not provide reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operators.

In doing so, the Commission affirmed that the limited preemption policy of PRB-1 applies only to state and local regulations. The Commission noted that its decision in PRB-1 to exclude CC&Rs from its preemption policy was premised upon the fundamental difference between state and local regulations, with which an amateur operator must comply, and CC&Rs, which are contractual terms to which an amateur operator voluntarily subjects him or herself.

The Commission also concluded that “there ha[d] not been a sufficient showing that CC&Rs prevent amateur radio operators from pursuing the basis and purpose of the amateur service,” and noted that “there are other methods amateur radio operators can use to transmit amateur service communications that do not require an antenna installation at their residence. These methods include, among other things, operation of the station at a location other than their residence, mobile operations, and use of a club station.”

Commenters disagree regarding the extent to which private land use regulations affect the amateur radio community’s ability to provide emergency communications. The ARRL states, “The single most challenging aspect of Amateur Radio emergency communications efforts is the complete preclusion of their [amateur radio operators’] ability to install and maintain at their residences an effective, reliable antenna system for Amateur Radio communications.”

Other commenters argue that such restrictions have little effect on amateur emergency communications because antenna structures in areas affected by severe weather or another disaster are unlikely to survive or will not be usable in the event of an electrical outage because most operators do not own generators to power their stations.

In addition, commenters point out that mobile communications are more useful than home-based stations in times of disaster or emergency because they are available at the site of the public safety operations. Commenters also argue that the effect of private land use regulations can be minimized by well-engineered indoor antenna systems or the use of temporary antenna installations.

One commenter suggests that organizations oriented toward disaster relief be encouraged to sponsor amateur radio clubs that utilize a shared station at a useful location, which can be controlled directly or by remote control.

As noted above, however, other commenters believe that it is not necessary to preempt private land use restrictions in order to promote amateur emergency communications, given the ways that even amateurs subject to CC&Rs can communicate effectively and the nature of amateur emergency communications.

Moreover, while commenters suggest that private land use restrictions have become more common, our review of the record does not indicate that amateur operators are unable to find homes that are not subject to such restrictions. Therefore, at this time, we do not see a compelling reason for the Commission to revisit its previous determinations that preemption should not be expanded to CC&Rs.

Consequently, we do not believe that Congressional action is necessary to address any of these issues.

Pursuant to Section 6414 of the Statute, the Commission submits this report to Congress examining the uses and capabilities of amateur radio service communications in emergencies and disaster relief.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ruth Milkman
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
David S. Turetsky
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau


https://www.fcc.gov/document/report-congress-amateur-radio-emergencies-and-disaster-relief[/s]

 

Well, given that FCC has repeatedly said that CC&Rs related to amateur antennas is not a federal matter, I don't think they will mind. Until ARPA passes, that's the current federal position on ham antennas (that CC&R restrictions of ham antennas are a private matter). Even if ARPA passes, both public (PRB-1) and private (ARPA) restrictions will be considered local matters, because both of these rules contain language that allow for substantial local regulation of amateur antenna structures. So even post-ARPA, ham antennas still aren't like OTARD. And if ARPA does not pass, as far as FCC is concerned, CC&R for ham antennas are none of their business.

 

I should have just waited for @N1FM's reply.... he documented the issues better than I did.

I would add, however, that FCC's insistence on staying out of CC&Rs has spanned several different administrations, congresses, and Commission members, so it's not even close to a partisan issue with them. They made a good case on constitutional grounds (among others), and they are sticking to it.

 

Tom,

You do realize that Sen Thune SD-R did throw S-1685 out on the Floor on Dec 16, 2016 and that S-1685 was NOT AMENDED like HR1301 so "Another Approach" was in the group of Bills he opposed for Rosenworcel. Sorry, but he was CAI's man in the Senate and pushed for CAI Compromise, The D's no longer hold the Majority and even with a "Hold" it could get traded off by the Minority Leadership to get something else passed! It is very early in the legislative season and 18 Months until this Congress goes out! Stay tuned.

The FCC did not want to deal with the DRAMA since OTARD and PRB-1 has called for clarifications from the FCC and the FCC is apparent in their "easy way out approach" to avoid dealing with the imbroglios that arise, the FCC doesn't want to be bothered, why should the FCC ask for more workload on their plate! I saw overwhelming support. Don't fret, the R's are getting business done, its through the House and on to the Senate! Its early and stay tuned!!

73 de Martin N5PZJ

 

The FCC did not want to deal with the DRAMA since OTARD and PRB-1 has called for clarifications from the FCC and the FCC is apparent in their "easy way out approach" to avoid dealing with the imbroglios that arise, the FCC doesn't want to be bothered, (EXAMPLE-Look at enforcement!) why should the FCC ask for more workload on their plate! I saw overwhelming support. Don't fret, the R's are getting business done, its through the House and on to the Senate! Its early and stay tuned!!

73 de Martin N5PZJ