ad: UR5CDX-1

Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KK5JY, Jan 17, 2017.

Tags:
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: abrind-2
  1. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    No, but it adds a new duty to many HOA owners that didn't exist before. Your covenant may say that you have a right to an antenna. The bill would still require FCC to require you to "notify and obtain prior approval" for any outdoor antenna you might wish to construct. Preemption is preemption, whether it helps you or not.
     
    AG6QR and KQ6XA like this.
  2. KQ6XA

    KQ6XA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hopefully, this bill will die in this destructive congress.
     
    KU7PDX and K4WDR like this.
  3. W2QL

    W2QL Ham Member QRZ Page

    My guess is that this is incorrect. Your HOA likely already has the power to amend its terms by a vote of the members to prohibit antennas. You should check local law. ARPA merely modifies 47 CFR 97.15, which would be to your benefit were your HOA to decide to restrict antennas.
     
  4. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    While this is probably true in the case that you described, the effect within many HOAs in Oklahoma would be the opposite. They currently don't have the ability to approve or otherwise interfere with the process of constructing anything on private property. So those HOAs are not a problem for us here locally. I spoke to a local ham just this weekend who was describing the antenna that he put on his property, and his HOA had absolutely no say in the process. I know this because I read his covenants carefully, years ago.

    If this bill passes, he will suddenly have a new requirement to request permission from his HOA (see (3)(b)(1) of the text) to add any new antennas to his property, despite the fact that his covenants do not require it, and his HOA does not have contract power to approve such construction. Further, his HOA doesn't even have a board, so he will be required by law to seek permission before installing a new antenna, since there is an HOA that exists for his subdivision. However, since it has no police power, it has no board to which he can make his request, but the FCC will be required by law to require him to do so.
     
  5. W2QL

    W2QL Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm not sure about that. ARPA modifies 47 CFR 97.15 regarding land use restrictions. If there is no restriction, I'm not following why ARPA would apply.

    Maybe someone with experience under PRB-1 or OTARD can explain this.
     
  6. W2QL

    W2QL Ham Member QRZ Page

    With all due respect, I think you are over thinking this. My understanding is HOA powers are authorized by state law. From what you're saying, state law doesn't allow the HOA to impose a restriction. It looks to me like ARPA, which modifies 47 CFR 97.15, applies only if the HOA imposes a restriction. I'm not following why he would have to ask permission to do some the HOA doesn't, and can't under state law, prohibit.

    But I don't know. Maybe a lawyer ham that's dealt with this can help explain this.
     
  7. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    That's actually a good argument for overturning the language of the bill after passage, because the portion of the CFR it seeks to modify might not be able to create additional duty on the license-holder than that his original contract required. If that is the case, it's a really technical point, and the only use for it I can see is to nullify either the law (assuming the bill passes) or the implementing regulation.

    That said, it could be very useful. :)
     
  8. W2QL

    W2QL Ham Member QRZ Page

    I don't know. I'm not following your point.

    The way it reads to me is that -

    If there's no restriction, there's no ARPA issue.

    If there's a restriction, ARPA says the ham can't just go ahead an install an antenna - if the ham wants to claim the benefit of ARPA, the ham has to first notify and get approval from the HOA. I think most states require HOAs to have some sort of dispute resolution procedure?

    But I'm not an expert on this stuff so I could be wrong!
     
  9. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    And to be fair, there are others like @KC8VWM who read through the language and came to the exact same conclusion. I hope the FCC reads through it and comes to the exact same conclusion that you did. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who read it and conclude something very different about the scope of (3)(b)(1). So hoping for the best, but I was also hoping that ARRL would have the good sense to word the bill so as to plan for the worst-case interpretation and get make sure that didn't happen at FCC.
     
  10. KU0O

    KU0O XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Can we wait for the text of the actual bill to be published? It could have changed for all we know.
     
  11. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Waiting...
     
  12. WA7PRC

    WA7PRC Ham Member QRZ Page

    I s'pose it's possible valid reason(s) for it could replace the invalid reasons previously used. However, I'm not betting the farm on that happening.
     
  13. KD7KCP

    KD7KCP Ham Member QRZ Page

    The ARRL, this bill............feckless.
     
    K4WDR likes this.
  14. NA4IT

    NA4IT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Are you saying the ARRL could have "Trumped" something up?
     
  15. K4IIE

    K4IIE Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you're a ham and move into a HOA neighborhood,oh well.Been a ham for 57 years and have never had a problem.I take ham radio seriously.Don't expect the government to solve all my problems.
     
    K4WDR and K4CDN like this.

Share This Page

ad: Alphaant-1