Sorry, this title is pure click bait, aimed mostly here at QRZ.com. This episode has nothing to do with that wildly popular little game, though wouldn't it be great if there were a ham radio component? This episode is about the amended Amateur Radio Parity Act that was approved by the House Energy & Commerce Committee on July 13, and sent along to the full House. Amended, you ask? Actually, you probably don't ask. It's been hotly debated here on the Zed in multiple threads, and this post and video will probably trigger another 'go-round. But just in case, after I play some video of the E&C committee passing the bill, I'll compare the original and amended versions point by point. AUDIO (right-click to download)
Great job Gary. The line by line comparison and explanation of the before and after bill was very informative and a teachable moment. Let me honest by saying up front that I can understand both sides of the heated discussion about agreeing to CCRs. I'm surprised that QRZ.COM has not hit overload protection in the recent discussion simply about the bill coming up for a vote. It has been a healthy discussion at best and personal attacks at worst. I really believe hams want to be good neighbors and as such we have to be responsible about being just that. I don't think anyone with a tower wants it to come down and do physical harm. But that's what they should think about when putting one up. I don't think anyone wants to cause rf interference. But they need to be ready to minimize that if it occurs, isn't that one of our responsibilities already? And I certainly don't think anyone buys a house ands wants their or their neighbors property value to decrease. While it may lower the property tax if the value drops, it's not the neighborly thing to do. So it's about something we probably all agree to, but hard to define....balance. I believe the bill is a great starting point. If it gets passed and becomes law, then our responsibilities get even greater with the it. Of course there are extremes to this balance and many have been pointed out in the recent HEAVY discussions about it. I read each one and try to understand which direction the ham is coming from. My situation is just one in thousands. Can we really expect the wording to cover every situation for every ham? No. I know this is long, but wanted you to know I appreciate what you do and so do many other hams who read and nod their heads in approval. Take care and 73. Randy KA4AQM
Gary, unless the "amended" removes the entrenched and nothing less than JOKE in this act, the part that states "reasonable accommodation, indeed the act may pass but it's effectiveness will lay somewhere between zero...and zilch. As a once HOA President of 2 communities in some pretty brutal communities in Central Florida I believe I've been the most vocal and quite frankly the most experienced when it comes to this punchline for a bad joke, that comes to hams in the form of this "parity act." I'm not going to rehash all the facts I've stated before, except for one, for I firmly believe my last rant was my most factual and my best. Thanks to those for their constructive comments and I think those of you with nothing more than your own pathetic and entrenched sarcasm pretty much know exactly how far you can stuff it up your collective noses. Nevertheless... LAST TIME...I SWEAR. If whatever is pushing you into one of these HOA Communities is unavoidable and likely coming from the heights of the XYL, your best bet is to get your collective rear ends elected to the board...and educate. And, you'd better have more than your personal whim for approval of your amateur radio antenna as an agenda, swallow the fact that you ain't never gonna see a tower AND MOST OF ALL, remember the developer of these communities HAS TO BE GONE FROM THE PREMISES! (ESPECIALLY if your XYL, or you, decide to reside in a "neighborhood of substance.") Also, spare these HOA's of the ruse of amateurs radio worth in times of emergency. Indeed at one time it did serve it's purpose but, technology, and arrogance, killed "the radio star." As I've not-so affectionately stated in the past, the "radio star" WAS..."THE AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE!" Face it boys and girls! To the masses, we ain't nothing but a bunch of hobbyists and THAT my fellow HOBBYISTS...is the final nail in the our pipe dream of a coffin! Good job Gary & 73!
I believe this is a band aid on the symptopm rather than the problem. Some horror stories I've heard from deed restricted communities: Fined for using your garage as a home office (one of my colleagues). Reasoning? There are larger houses in the same subdivision with more rooms and the developer doesn't want the cheaper homes to be more attractive to buyers. Fined for leaving the garage door open more than a few minutes. Rules say garage doors must be opened only when entering and leaving. Fined for work pickup truck parking in driveway. House was otherwise spotless and yard neatly landscaped. Fined for repainting house the same color as it was originally painted without asking HOA first. Reasoning? The permitted colors changed. Fined for flying the American flag. Because it's too big. THAT SAID - if you want to live in one, by all means, go ahead. Just KNOW what you are getting into! Your closing attorney should be going over any CC&Rs with a fine tooth comb, and letting you know if any potential pitfalls lurk. A lot of municipalities make a HOA a condition for granting approval as well. This needs to stop.
Just curious if you have alternative language you'd like to see? We both know that's not going to happen, but what would you like to have in the rules? I apologize if you've already published that, but I don't have time to do the research.
Hi Gary, I've never seen any resolution to the following questions posed by QRZ members in many of the discussion(s) here on QRZ: 1. The bill is based on a faulty premise: Antennas at residences are simply not necessary for emcomm, are they? 2. Very few hams pass emcomm traffic. If the bill passes, the new antennas will, in all likelihood, not be used for emcomm, will they? 3. Hams will be req'd to reveal their current stealth antennas and then go through an approval process, very possibly ending up with something inferior to what they now enjoy, correct? 4. ARRL is simply foisting a lie on congress (CAI calls it a guise) saying that this bill's necessary for public safety when it's not, is it? 5. Should existing land covenants be legislated out of existence simply so old men can ragchew on 40 meters? 6. New antennas bring a new potential for interference which can be difficult to eradicate, is that fair to residents who purchased with the certainty of no antennas/no interference? 7. Homeowners who bought these properties at a premium will potentially be faced with new eyesores and nuisance interference, is that fair to the majority? 8. Hams are being selfish: they want to abrogate covenants so they can enjoy a hobby, why is this okay? 9. ARRL is only doing this to sell magazines, retain jobs, and sell memberships, and they only represent 20% of hams, correct? 10. Using the 'emcomm excuse' is disingenuous. Don't many hams disagree on principle alone? 11. Weaseling out of covenants is unfair to your neighbors, isn't it? 12. ARRL only represents 20% of the ham population; why do they pretend they represent hams as a whole? 13. Hams who discuss the bill are in disagreement. Is any real consensus possible? 14. The FCC already determined antennas aren't necessary for emcomm. Why is ARRL doing this, if not to keep ARRL afloat, using the emcomm boogeyman? Note: These aren't my questions; these are an assortment of many unanswered questions which were repeated with no substantive answer or rebuttal.
Actually, there have been times playing the predecessor game, Ingress, that I've wished the local teammates were hams, because radio would have been a far better way to coordinate than the smartphone apps we use. The ideal but slightly unrealistic solution for amateurs would be for rules to come out saying that X, Y, and Z must be allowed if the property permits it -- a list of examples of what might be considered reasonable/effective antennas. The guidelines would include some general provisions like how it's reasonable for a ham to have at least one not-necessarily-invisible HF antenna and at least one not-necessarily-invisible VHF/UHF antenna....and that additional antennas that are not readily visible from common/public space are probably not unreasonable. The problem is: amongst ourselves, we probably couldn't agree on what X, Y, and Z are; entities like CAI would push back on X, Y, and Z....and the FCC really doesn't have the resources to get into that level of micromanagement. So, we'll be left with general guidelines, and probably a decent amount of litigation as we adapt. It sucks, but there's probably no way around it. The bigger problem is with the HOA phenomenon. The majority of HOAs aren't that bad, and there are elements of the concept that seem like a potentially good idea....but it's challenging to identify which HOAs are bad (or will become bad after moving in), and it's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid them. Doing something about that is way beyond the scope of amateur radio.
Let's see: 5 of the questions address the EMCOMM question, some like it some don't? 4 of the questions address "Are CCRs Contracts and the WEASEL FACTOR?" 4 of the questions pertain to the ARRL, some like it, some don't, lets bash it some more! 2 of the questions address Interference, heck RFI is the FCC's domain, Tech Pool Question. 1 question about consensus and disagreement, heck two hams can't agree on lunch, radio brands and MFJ and you want Consensus!!!! LOL Circle Questions beat to death, more bytes wasted on opposing this bill and only by to 10 hams, the rest are hoping to see the president sign the stinkin bill right before sitting down to Christmas Dinner discussing with Don or Hilliary where the launch codes are stored!! Sheesh, FACEPALM!!!
And, the followers/supporters of HR1301/S1685 continue to sidestep (and/or make light of) the questions and those who dare to question. Nice.
The questions are just brain-churn. You can never be convinced because you already are convinced. I'll get the same result from a 30 second response as a 30 minute one. To 30 seconds is all you get.
Well, I like talking more than typing, so I will tear them apart in episode 260, coming up in a few days. I don't suppose you guys will be watching.
