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

As has been said many times, it's still a choice to install an outdoor antenna at an HOA. Nothing has been taken away from anyone and no one will be forced to install outdoor antennas if they don't want to.

 

Again, how can an HOA antenna restriction apply to a boat in the middle of an ocean? How many beers have you smoked today?

 

Because obviously some boats have HOA antenna restrictions.

 

Okay then, well, nice chatting with you...

 

Likewise.

If I wanted legislation to abrogate freely-signed contracts, I'd come up with something currently-valid that is sufficient reason. So far, naught. Instead, ARRL is using out of date info that says hams HAVE supplied sufficient public service and HAVE used HR to advance the state of the art. And, there's nothing to indicate more outdoor ham antennas will (or even might) be needed. IMO, it's all about WANT.

 

You didn't take the test yet!

 

Again, you don't have the authority to require anyone here to do anything. And, don't bet the farm on anyone doing anything you want them to.

 

I think the "Should this bill pass" discussion has been done to death, as has the "Should Government interfere in private contracts" one. What seems clear is that, unless someone gets Sen. Nelson of FL. to get it removed, it will pass. Now, and I'm especially curious to hear from the "pro bill" side, how do you think this plays out? I'm only interested in, "RealPolitik", not ideology.

I'm against the Bill, because ambiguity generally serves best, when one is in the position of lesser power. Hams simply don't have the "pull" of the HOA Association. That will likely soon be water under the bridge. What the FCC puts into a directive, or the language of the law itself, can tip the scale to one side or another, but it isn't definitive. What is definitive in the real world is the case law, which..is only really established via lawsuit. What does that mean in this case? Even more than it would have been with a law with better language (for us), it will be important to pick the right cases, the right jurisdictions, and the right lawyers. As stated above (and what indeed would be the case no matter how the law is written), someone(s) are going to have to pony up serious Dollars and Attention to essentially "break" a few HOAs. Again, I'm not debating the morality of this, just reality. I'll also say this ...agree with the outcome or not, I'm a lot more impressed by the legal acumen of K1VR and the other "anti" attorneys, than I have been with ARRL Representation. If we want much positive out of this, we need them.

 

We have heard it before, tell us something new.

 

Likewise. And, make it something currently-valid that justifies abrogating tens of millions of contracts/agreements/promises/whatever.
"We want it" and "we're FEDERALLY licensed" aren't sufficient.

 

I don't agree with your position, but I enjoyed the thoughtful and rational comments for consideration. Well done.

 

It's a concept that's easy to understand. What's hard to understand is your failure (or refusal) to understand

 

Is anybody still reading this thread? It hasn't shown up in the list of News threads for days now. It's like it's "hidden" or something. It seems like the only way people still reply in it is because of alerts from quotes.

Maybe it's on its way to where useless threads go to die?