ARRL Petitions FCC to include Parity Act wording in Part 97

Indeed. What's different this time is the magnitude and who is likely to do so, which includes the creme of the amateur radio service. Whether they do so, well, like I said, we shall watch and see.

None of these folks are anti-ARPA. They just understand that the flawed wording of the petition, and the inaccuracies it conveys, are detrimental to Part 97 amateur radio.

One hopes the need to pull $$$$ will not materialize.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Here's where this came from all of a sudden. Apparently there was a "Special Executive Committee Meeting" on December 12. Here is the relevant excerpt from the minutes:

3. The Committee next discussed the pros and cons of the filing of a Petition for Rule Making to implement administratively the provisions of the Amateur Radio Parity Act, which had been previously discussed with the Board at its July meeting and by the Executive Committee in October. Discussion focused on whether the Petition should be filed at this time, given that Congressional and Administration support has been arranged and is ready to move forward before the end of the year. The alternative is to delay the filing until after the January Board meeting. The General Counsel urged the filing immediately, consistent with representations that had been made to Congressional, FCC and Administration supporters of the planned administrative implementation. To act inconsistently with those prior representations to critical supporters would adversely affect our credibility and jeopardize the advocacy plan that had been irrevocably initiated during this calendar year. Mr. Frenaye moved, seconded by Dr. Boehner, to approve the filing of a petition with the FCC by December 31, 2018 to implement the major goals of the Amateur Radio Parity Act, in accordance with existing ARRL Board policy, after Executive Committee review of the draft Petition, and circulated to the full Board. Mr. Roderick stated that while he supports filing the petition, it was his preference to file after the first of the year. A roll call being requested, the motion passed by a vote of 4 aye and 2 no, with Mr. Frenaye, Dr. Boehner, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Norris voting aye and Mr. Holden and Mr. Roderick voting no.

The Committee requested that information detailing the rationale behind their authorization to file the petition at this time be circulated to the incoming members of the Board as well as to the current Board.

 

I was wondering what this meant. So, going back to the October 20 Executive Committee Meeting minutes, I found this paragraph:

1. The Committee moved to the report of the General Counsel. Mr. Imlay noted that the Parity Act is still active in Congress as part of the House-passed version of the Financial Services and General Government Authorization Act. The Bill is now before a House and Senate Committee of Conference to resolved differences between the respective passed versions of the FSGG. We are also laying the groundwork for pursuing administrative implementation of the provisions of the Bill should that become the best procedural route before the end of this year.

So apparently the ARRL Counsel remains optimistic that ARPA is still going to pass this year, and this FCC Petition was planned to be submitted when ARPA became law.

The fact is that, as with the early Defense bill, ARPA is in the House version of the combined appopriations bill (HR 6147), but was stripped from the Senate version, and is waiting for conference "Resolving Differences" as it's listed in the congress.gov site. However, Congress shows no interest in passing any real appropriations bills at this point. The clock runs out on all existing bills as of January 3, I believe. If they do not pass this bill, ARPA is dead for the 115th Congress; and would have to be reintroduced in a new bill next year.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, if recent history is any indication, if anything at all happens, it will be that they'll pass a Continuing Resolution to kick the can down the road a few months. In that case, ARPA also dies.

Finally, the least likely scenario, is that suddenly all of Congress rushes back to DC before January 3, works furiously to resolve all the remaining Appropriations bills, including HR 6147, by some miracle ARPA makes it through the House-Senate conference, even though the Senate doesn't want it, and gets signed into law.

So basically the ARRL is betting the long-shot, that ARPA will still become law.

The rush is that I suspect that the ARRL Counsel, and his soon-to-be-ex-Director buddy from Hudson Division, realizes that after the new Board members are installed in January, it will be impossible to get a majority vote to submit this petition; and at the same time, by submitting it now, they betting that it also will be impossible for the new Director block to pull together a majority vote to withdraw it.

 

So ... Here's what I think will happen IMO:

99.9999% Likelihood that ARPA will not be passed, either because it gets stripped out in Conference, or that the bill containing it just isn't acted on. In that case the FCC does not have the federal policy directive they've said they need to regulate private land-use contracts, and thus the ARRL petition will be rejected.

Or

Tiny Tiny Tiny possibility that ARPA will pass. In that case the FCC will have to comply with the law, and ARPA will be implemented in some manner. However, there could just as well be competing Petitions for Rulemaking from other sources, for example the Community Association Institute or other groups of amateurs, or even a different version from the ARRL. There's no guarrantee that ARRL's current version would be the final rules.

 

WA7PRC said: "Yep. Hams have no need or requirement to be on the air. In fact, ARRL's "support" says ham radio IS meeting the public need and convenience (with no indication that more is needed)."

No. This is STILL not a Thing, simply because you call it a Thing: Even If you and I agree that we just saw a Pig fly in Cincinnati, that does not mean that Pigs fly in Cincinnati, or anywhere else! And in THIS case? You are the ONLY ONE who repeatedly states, in numerous posts on multiple platforms, that this Particular Pig of your IMAGINATION flys. But it STILL DOESN'T FLY. Nor will it if you pull your usual yuuge snip, and then play the "Help! I'm the Victim of a Troll! Waaa Waaa Card." This pig STILL won't fly!

CFR 97.1 IS a Thing, Bryan, and so be it: You SHALL be Schooled, by me, Again:

§ 97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

And right there you have it! There is no need to establish a need Bryan. It's ALREADY been established by part 97.1. And Emergency communications are ENHANCED with home installations, Bryan. It's OBVIOUS, Bryan: It speaks for itself that it is more advantageous than mobile operation in every way, shape, and form !

NO WHERE in CFR 97.1 do I see "Hams have no need or requirement to be on the air." Or "ARRL's "support" says ham radio IS meeting the public need and convenience (with no indication that more is needed)." Or even the WORD ARRL!
Because that's not where our mandate comes from, Bryan! It doesn't come from the ARRL! It comes from The Government! The SAME Government that mints the pennies, AND has CFR 97.1 on its books, Bryan!


WA7PRC said: "You have no authority to "test" anyone. But, I get that you want to talk down to anyone who is not in lock step with you."

I never said that I had the Authority to test anyone, Bryan. I authored a SELF TEST that points out The Obvious with humour. Nor did I claim to be any "expert". I do hold all of the Amateur and Commercial licenses, and that's just about were my "expertise" ends. But I can READ CFR 97.1, Bryan! As far as talking down to anyone, you've simply insulted my intelligence and others, then turned tail and played "Troll Victim" when your very flawed logic was taken to task, as it is again being taken to task now. Quite to the Contrary, Bryan, it is I who absolutely refuse to cowtow to you as far as any "lockstep". You've messed with the wrong one, Pal. And bitten off far more than you can intellectually chew: It's not MY intellect that's in question here. As a matter of fact, that you entirely missed the point of CFR 97.1 makes me wonder How on Earth did you ever pass FCC Element One in the first place? And well that is just sad. So be it: You ARE going to be taken to the Internet Woodshed EVERY time you try and make this "Thing" a "Thing", which isn't a "Thing." Because it is still not a "Thing."

73 DE W8LV Bill

 

I think that's what is being questioned. It is not "obvious".

Seems like, based on ARRL news stories after various disasters, all EmComm occurs from EOCs, in the field, or Red Cross shelters, etc, not from G5RVs in people's back yards. We are constantly seeing the pictures of the heroic orange-vested ham with the HT, with helicopters and firetrucks in the background. If home operation were that essential to EmComm, why doesn't the ARRL run ads showing heroic orange-vested hams sitting in their arm chairs in the shack, with a bag of chips and a dog on their laps.

So I think it's a fair question whether over-riding HOA antenna restrictions everywhere is in any way going to "enhance" emergency communications.

One could even turn it around, and point out that any ham who is serious about emergency communications, would or should choose to live where antennas are not restricted; or be prepared to operate mobile or portable, whereever the need is.


As I recall, the ARRL a few Congresses back arranged for a Bill mandating the FCC to conduct a "study" to show that HOA antenna restrictions degraded emergency communications. The FCC then conducted that "study" but found no evidence of that, and concluded that there was no reason to preempt HOA restrictions on the basis that it was degrading emergency communications. Just the opposite of what the ARRL wanted to find.


So, it seems to me, that it would be better for the fate of ARPA, if there were data showing that EmComm operation from homes in HOAs was so critical. So are you opposed to collecting such data?

 

Presuming this is true--IMO a fair assumption-- how does that best serve the licensees of Part 97?

Mr. Imlay and others, IMO, have done us all a profound disservice by submitting a petition that must be denied by the FCC, by the absence of Congressional approval. That was clear on the date of submission, and playing a two-week or so Hail Mary for the downside that will result--both for Part 97 credibility and ARRL members wasted precious dollars-- is beyond unacceptable. Again, MO.

As to ARRL members, it amounts to an outrageous waste of money for something with no accountable outcome for the dollars spent.

 

So, IMO, this mess was caused by ONE general counsel and FOUR ARRL directors...

Ask yourself: WHAT WILL THE STATUS OF THESE 5 INDIVIDUALS BE (in the ARRL) in JANUARY 2019??

Ask yourself: WHY DID THESE INDIVIDUALS MOVE AHEAD GIVEN THE OPPOSING negative vote of our ARRL President (and attorney) Rick Roderick?

Note that Mr. Frenaye and Dr. Boehner WERE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE as of January 1, 2019.

That means that this decision was railroaded through AFTER the ARRL MEMBERS had explicitly voted two of these committee members OUT THE DOOR. Those results are on the Zed News page.

THOSE RESULTS WERE PUBLIC --weeks before-- THIS vote.

If you replace Frenaye and Boehner by the two NEW directors, IMO the vote would have been:

2 FOR and 4 AGAINST.

The petition would NOT have been filed in that case.

Unbelievable. What a disaster for the ARRL, Part 97 licensees and our credibility.

Who knows how to navigate out of this mess.....

 

Here's the actual text that ARRL has petitioned be added to Part 97.15:

There are some interesting "tweaks" relative to the language of the ARPA Bill in Congress.


(c) Any private land use restriction, including restrictive covenants and regulations imposed by a community association, that on its face or as applied 57 (1) precludes or fails to permit amateur service communications; (2) fails to permit a licensee to install and maintain an effective outdoor antenna capable of operation on all amateur radio frequency bands, on property under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; or (3) which does not constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the lawful purposes specifically articulated in the declaration of covenants of a community association seeking to enforce such restriction, is prohibited and may not be enforced.

Subject to the foregoing, and with respect to antennas first installed after the effective date hereof, a community association (if so empowered by the declaration of covenants) may (a) require an amateur radio licensee to obtain approval from the association of a proposed antenna before initial installation; (b) prohibit the installation of an antenna or antenna support structure by a licensee on common property not under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; and (c) establish reasonable written rules concerning height, location, size, and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, effective outdoor antennas and support structures for the purpose of conducting communications in the amateur radio service.


If they had stopped after the first paragraph, perhaps most hams could live with that. It could be worked with. It is a somewhat of a rewording of the PRB-1 paragraph, and accomplishes what ARRL initially set out to do in the first version of ARPA four years ago. Although, the phrase "reasonable accommodation" is not there, and instead we have Community Association Institute compromise term "effective outdoor antenna". We'll have to wait for it work its way through the courts before we know what "effective outdoor antenna" means. I doubt if the end result would be the same as "reasonable accommodation".

It is the second paragraph, which was added by the so-called CAI "compromise", where there still may be concerns although the ARRL proposed language attempts to fix some of the complains about ARPA.

The first part of the first sentence "grandfathers" in existing antennas. This is not in ARPA. It was a concern of many in the ARPA language that no distinction was made between existing antennas and new antennas. This attempts to fix that. Although, how will your HOA know that the antenna was pre-existing, unless you tell them you have it, probably in violation of existing HOA rules!

Also, addition of the phrase " ... if so empowered by the declaration of covenants..." suggests an attempt to get around the complaint that ARPA doesn't distinquish between HOAs and other types of Community Associations. Basically, it would limit the application of the rest if the paragraph to CAs that already have some type of antenna restriction authority. Although any CA could still go through the process of adding new antenna restiction authority by amending their CCRs.

Then the rest of the paragraph gives the ARPA set of new rules about antennas in CAs, paraphrased, (1) You need approval from the CA before putting up any antenna, (2) you can only put an antenna up on property under "exclusive control" (if your HOA dictates how to groom your lawn or what color you can paint your house, is that still under your "exclusive control"?), and (3) CAs can regulate everything about antennas and support structures, specifically all the things that make an antenna "effective" - height, size, location, what it looks like - are subject to CA rules.

Well, HOAs already do all that! This puts the weight of federal regulation behind what HOAs already do and want to continue to do. If you violate the letter of your HOA rules, you will also be violating FCC regulations!

So the only thing we "won" in all of this, is "an effective outdoor antenna", which at this point nobody knows what that means, and the HOA gets to design it for you.

 

NN4H said: "So, it seems to me, that it would be better for the fate of ARPA, if there were data showing that EmComm operation from homes in HOAs was so critical. So are you opposed to collecting such data?"

It's not that I'm opposed to collecting such data, and please don't take offence to this: But I think collecting more data is irrelevant.

It's akin to saying to people on the Outer Banks for example: "Well, you shouldn't live in such Weather Prone places in the first place, if you didn't want to become a hurricane victim!" Because these things (and potentially, an act of war or terrorism) can happen anywhere in the country. That's the reality of it, and why we need EMCOMM everywhere. We primarily serve in the communities that we live in.

More people will be immediately at the ready with more efficient antenna systems and power (even backup power) by sheltering in place (since they can simultaneously be victims as well) as a BACKBONE in a crisis by operating from their residences, not from some campground or park, and anybody who says differently is just kidding themselves.

People simply have more resources of all kinds at the ready in their Residences, and not while operating portable, including the home ITSELF and all of its contents. They are also WHERE THE VICTIMS ARE, right their in their own respective community, and the more of these trained people we have, the better it is. After all, we don't know how many of THEM (meaning US) will be too incapacitated to respond. That's just how it is.

Asking for more "studies" is also a Delaying Tactic for the pro HOA interests, much like the Tobacco Industry did with smoking.

But there's no controversy here. Just a self appointed group who is dressed up in clown suits, pretending to be the Government, and to have Governmental Authority and Powers that they smply do not have, and they know it.

What we need instead is Legislative and Administrative Relief and Remedy from the HOA's: It really is irrelevant if the Neighbours suffer from "Gladys Cravitz Syndrome" and simply don't like antennas. It's simply none of their business, as their aesthetic tastes do NOT take priority over the adjacent landowners right to self expression and Free speech, or HIS pursuit of happiness and they need to get over it. When we go back to the CONSTITUTIONAL PLAYBOOK, the HOA's have nothing to stand on here, and they know it! That's why they tried to negotiate with us in the first place. They hoped that we would go away, and they could still pretend to be a Governmental Authority. But they're not, and we're not going away. Instead, we're taking our power back. And as part of that?

There's Going to be Antennas.

73 DE W8LV Bill

 

Yep. Exactly.

If the FCC does not deny the petition for statuatory reasons, expect the CAI to be all over it as 'we didn't agree to this', IMO. And the outrageous language they agreed to IN PART still applies.

Mr. Imlay, IMO, should have directed that sentence to say: 'allocation-specific' or some other term, so that the 6 inch 'effective' stubby does not meet this dumb wording requirement for, say, HF or MF antenna use.

The BOD was well familiar with ALL the issues, but went ahead anyway, through this committee and the GC.

** Even the ARRL President voted against the petition!**

On what basis were the 4 committee members who voted this petition IN (and 2 of them are gone in a week!) BETTER QUALIFIED THAN the ARRL PRESIDENT to make proper judgement on this specific example (petition)?

Now: many people here know that I build small antennas. It is this recent ARPA nonsense (not the desire for an ARPA in general), a stupid chapter in our history, that prevents me from WANTING to get involved in any 'covert' or 'hidden' antenna for hams.

73
Chip W1YW

 

NN4H said: "One could even turn it around, and point out that any ham who is serious about emergency communications, would or should choose to live where antennas are not restricted; or be prepared to operate mobile or portable, whereever the need is."

Yes one could kid themselves in this way. But it negates the reality of a disaster occurring in the immediate vicinity OF the RESIDENCE. And the vast resources found in the residence as opposed to operating portable. So it's just an inverted Straw Man Argument. And we don't have to show our "worthiness" by demonstrating to anyone where we choose to live. Our Property and Constituional Rights exist WHEREVER we choose to live or be at anytime.

There will be Antennas.

SUPPORT THE ARRL.

73 DE W8LV Bill

 

NN4H said: "So the only thing we "won" in all of this, is "an effective outdoor antenna", which at this point nobody knows what that means,...."

Yes, I am sure that you are right. And you can expect some HOA's will allow antennas as some already do, and some will dig their heels in. But they won't be able to flat out deny antennas.

Will there be Test Cases? You bet there Will! It's how our system works!
But the days of Antenna Nazi "No Antennas for you!" are going to be a thing of the past, as will be Gladys Cravitz. ESPECIALLY Gladys Cravitz. The HOA's know this. And soon, GLADYS will know, too. Awww... Poor Baby! And FINALLY: I'll bet that MORE THAN ONE HOA is actually going to take DELIGHT upon replying to the CERTAIN "Gladys Inquiry" that they are going to receive by telling her that she will just have to get over it, as it's part of the Law.

And even MORE YET FINALLY, as these antennas more and more become part of the Gated Landscape, they will be taken for granted, much as streetlights, satellite dishes and (YES!) cell towers are today. And then there won't BE a problem, especially with Gladys Kravitz.

Sadly, for her and others, she will morph into bothering other people with other "issues", but it won't be us!

73 DE W8LV Bill

 

NN4H said: "OTARD was the result of a law that was passed. There is no law behind the ARRL petition. Completely different situation."

No, OTARD is EXACTLY the same: HOA's didn't want Satellite Antennas. But people did. And they got Satellite Antennas. In spite of the HOA.

So now, you and I have the FREEDOM to watch reruns of "Punky Brewster" delivered by way over rated and overpriced direct satellite! And Hey, isn't THAT Wonderful?

73 DE W8LV Bill

 

Some one needs to go take their meds