ARLB011 Amateur Radio Parity Act Language Inserted in National Defense Authorization Act

I'm not going to waste time here other than thank you for the observation that, after reading your prior comments and then reading you accuse someone else of " not putting forth any logic...", you made me laugh. You are a funny guy. Pot -kettle.

 

ERR, just who is this WE that you refer to?

I know MANY Amateurs that are 100% opposed to this proposal.

 

One shame about this legislative move by the ARRL is that the explicit language was not disclosed by the League nor is it on the House.gov website for the Armed Forces Committee markup listing. I haven't watched the video where the voice vote apparently occurred but it's basically a fugitive move at this point. We'll see what the Senate Armed Forces Committee does in markup.

73s: one to each of you.

 

Here's your "AN effective outdoor antenna". Get used to it.

 

^This.

And also since fixing the flaws wouldn't have endangered its chances of passage, since the whole reason for stuffing it in NDAA is to bypass debate and other potential obstacles from other interests.

 

Especially since the HOAs have a fantastic test case to use for making sure that the antenna pictured is essentially the outcome.

 

Why anyone would live where you are told what you can and cannot do on your own property is beyond me.

 

HR555 and 'Hobby' use of Ham Radio

IF you want to get turned down by your CA, then tell them , after HR555, that you 'want to pursue your ham hobby' by erecting an outdoor antenna.

Part 97 makes absolutely no mention of 'hobby activity' for ham radio, and given that its not EXPLICITLY DETAILED in the mission of Part 97, the CA will not have guidance on such lateral use of Part 97 privileges.

They will just say your petition fails to meet the objectives of Part 97 and is declined.

 

You may be missing a market for fractals, here Chip!

Pete

 

I can't keep up with the extant demands!

Had to hire 2 'Bain'ies full-time to manage the growth;-)

My sympathies lie with Part 97. That's for sure. We need to remind the FCC that 'We Built This City'. And continue to do so.

I am in full support of any ARPA wording that fixes the flaws that now exist in HR555.

 

Yep, it just proves how stupid some of the hams and the ARRL are! Here is a insertion into an act that neither aids nor allows the erection of amateur radio antennas above and beyond what is already allowed, and is effectively a waste of lobbying money, a waste of time, and a waste of words. I continue to be proud that I have never renewed my initial ARRL membership I got the first year I was a ham. It took all of a few days to realize that membership was a total waste of money!

 

I don't understand how passage of the Amateur Radio Parity Act is any different than if it fails. If you still need HOA approval to install an outside antenna then how does passage of this Act help????

 

Don't you already have written guidelines to follow for the installation of outdoor OTARD antennas at HOA's?

I mean, you just can't install antennas in any 'ol place you like all willy nilly at an HOA you know!! It doesn't matter if it's an OTARD antenna, ARPA antenna, Cell Phone towers and in fact every kind of outdoor antenna at an HOA has some kind of installation requirement for that matter.

Not surprising really...

Guess if you don't like any HOA reasonable requirements, you can always keep the antenna hidden inside the attic instead of having one outside like ARPA permits you to do.

 

Well, just because someone can read and write words does not make them literate. This legislation is tripe. Those not familiar with the millions of dollars spent over the last 50 years arguing over a semicolon should go check out case law on the second amendment. The word "efficient" will be worth millions of dollars to a great many people, i.e...lawyers, engineers and those who think they are "antenna engineers".

So Joe wants a new Mosley and Jack wants a new MFJ Cobweb antenna. Both companies now must have the ability to state why their respective antennas are the most "efficient" ones for Joe or Jack. Because now Joe and Jack have to prove that the antenna they want to erect is the "efficient" one for their operation. Now Joe and Jack are going to have to lean on the antenna company to provide them with said expert proof. I guarantee you the HOA will find some expert witness from somewhere that will state that all Joe and Jack really need is a 6" stubby and tuner or a 10' wire in the attic to be "efficient". By the way the antenna companies that stay in business will have to increase prices to cover for the in house experts. You actually think most hams will spend 60,000.00 for approval to put up that 250.00 antenna? I am married to an attorney and the research, and other costs would be very high for the ham wanting to fight an HOA. The wheels of justice run all the way to bankruptcy court. The one who goes broke first is always the loser.

My question is will the league stand ready to assist in these matters? I mean will they provide lawyers, expert witnesses, and financial services to any harmed by this bad legislation? My guess is likely not.

 

But one key difference is that you don't need the HOA's prior approval to install an OTARD antenna. You put it up, and if the HOA says it isn't ok, they have to prove it to make you take it down.

The ARPA requires prior approval before putting the antenna up. Even if the HOA has no objection, if the antenna is erected before you have the letter in hand, that fact alone makes it an illegal antenna.

If the HOA ignores your request for the antenna, you can't put one up. The law doesn't require them to give you an answer within any specific time frame.