The Amateur Radio Parity Act - Could become reality...

The ARRL doesn't represent a majority of hams and neither does the CAI represent a majority of land owner-users under private contracts. They both may have their own narrowed agenda, and consequently, objectors to their compromise.

But the most unfair comments in these threads are to label Sen. Bill Nelson in a suspicious or negative way or assert he's blocking the bill purely in response to political pressures.

We simply DON'T KNOW WHY Nelson has put it on hold. But I would bet there is some body at the ARRL that knows.

Perhaps Nelson, a wise veteran law maker, just recognizes BADLY COMPROMISED legal language when he see's it, and is doing an honorable thing for ALL by resisting its progress. There are too many poorly written laws on the books already clogging up the courts with frivolous actions.

In "The ARRL Letter" of Dec. 15, 2016, it was stated, "In a final meeting with Nelson’s staff as the 114th Congress neared adjournment, it became clear that no matter what was said or done, the Senator would oppose the bill and refuse to allow it to move forward."

When trying to sway members to support the ARPA, especially the 40K hams in FL that would have the most political leverage on Nelson, the League ought to reveal details of what was presented and discussed in that meeting (and others) with Nelson's staff.

That would go a LOT further then the constant barage of "just trust us" emails requesting support and editorial brush-off rebuttals to reasoned counterpoints from expert ham attorneys.

But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for that to happen especially considering the opaque wall that has been thrown up around the League BOD and ominous organization-wide gag-order below the top executives.

73 de John - WØPV

 

Nelson used an end of session special parliamentary procedure to put a hold on last years bill group (that included the parity act an 5 others) because he did not approve of some of the shenanigans involving the non approval of some FCC appointments. The bill in the Senate has not even passed the Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet
sub committee the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee so it remains to be seen what happens, but his ability to use Senate rules to hold the bill are limited because its a new congressional year.

 

Mr. Nelson issued a public statement on this matter when the League issued its original Parity Act: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/senate-report/400/1 That's an overall congressional report on the bill -- scroll to the end to see his specific statement on the legislation.

I'm not aware that he has issued any public statements modifying his position, or his reasons for opposing the legislation, and most of the reasons he outlined in his statements still exist in the current bill.

 

His stated reasons for holding this bill are clear, however some hams have chosen either to ignore or dismiss them as seen in their comments. If they spent the time arguing here better at trying to counter his position, it would likely be constructive. Rather, they simply say he is using some undefined self-serving reason as though the League isn't doing just that.

Such logic is mystifying.

No doubt some segment of our fellow hobbyists could use some relief although we don't know how many nor do we know what success looks like in terms of a reasonable standard for HOAs.

Absent these minimum information, nothing will change except more useless debate here. And the inevitable condescending insults by the same few characters here.

 

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.

 

What I think is telling is that Sen. Nelson is ignoring the fact that the CAI inserted language into the bill that is supposed to address his concerns. Looking at the lobbying reports filed for 2016 and 2017 by the CAI lobbyists, they have been engaged in discussing the legislation with Senators, and if the bill isn't progressing, it's probably because they're really working against it.

 

Key portion, emphasis added:

Mr. Nelson isn't going to support anything that amateurs would consider a "Parity Act." Not the original one. Not the current one. Nothing that would require the CA to allow an outdoor antenna of any kind. Period. There it is in his own words, crystal clear.

 

Bad bill. Kill, it

 

In statements the Senator has made when opposing previous ARPA-like legislation, he seems opposed in principle to any attempt that would intervene in the CC&Rs imposed by CAs & HOAs. "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."

However, the Senator seems to fail to realize is that federal government already does intervene in private contracts when the public interest is served and two good examples are federal highways and non-radio amateur telecommunications. Moreover, the Senator's objection also fails to realize that many household members affected by his obstructionist approach didn't "freely enter into any private contract", particularly the children of those homeowners that want to participate in amateur radio to learn more about science and technology.

Obstructionism and just saying "No" to all reasonable proposals may be popular with Floridian HOAs but it's not acceptable to the community of federally licensed radio amateurs and it's not acceptable for America's youth whose experience in amateur radio increases their understanding of science & technology and can help improve the country's leadership in critical STEM fields. At this point the most effective way to achieve a useful outcome is to encourage Floridians to remove the Senator from office and introduce a real solution under new leadership.

 

As a Florida ham, living in an HOA, it's more important to me how and what Sen. Nelson does, says and votes on issues FAR more important than ham radio. Saying he should be voted out of office simply because of his position on one rather trivial issue affecting a handful of people is the epitome of a self-serving voter's mentality.

Also, the notion that antenna limitations somehow precludes newcomers into our hobby is nonsense. People who can't overcome challenges such as that are few and far between fortunately. Since moving here 8 years ago, two kids in my neighborhood have obtained their license and are enjoying ham radio just fine without big, obtrusive antennas. The concept of changing laws or rules to make something easier for kids is the antithesis of how children should be nurtured.

 

So either your HOA already permits outside antennas for radio amateurs or the antennas those kids have are clandestine, in which case they could face a federal violation under ARPA. Are you really suggesting the U.S. should encourage policies that make it difficult for youth to participate in science education?

 

It's never good to depend on assumptions. My HOA doesn't permit antennas nor do the kids have antennas installed without permission. I'm stating simply that there are already ways to overcome limitations, obtain waivers and accommodations or use existing approved structures.

 

There are ways to build effective HF antennas that will fit in almost any HOA home, that will give you a competitive signal if constructed and installed properly, and will not violate any prohibition against outdoor HF antennas.

Your assumptions are common within the amateur community, but incorrect.

 

If the kid's antennas are not clandestine, and they received permission or wavier to erect them then the HOA allow antennas. ARPA isn't needed for HOAs that already allow a mechanism for radio amateurs to be accomodated. ARPA is intended for all the other people in CA/HOAs that give radio amateurs no mechanism whatsoever to navigate a suitable solution.

 

More assumptions... none of which are true. And, as has been described elsewhere, most HOA covenants include some mechanism to seek accommodations for a diverse range of things.