HamRadioNow: NO on HR 4969 (the AR Parity Act), but YES on SDR

HAMRADIONOW.tv

Episode 158: NO on HR 4969 (YES on SDR)
<big><big><small><small><small></small></small></small></big></big>​

Everybody's on board with HR 4969, the Amateur Radio Parity Act recently introduced in Congress, right? I mean, who wouldn't be? At least, what ham wouldn't be? The act would extend PRB-1 type protection of our privilege to erect antennas (PRB-1 applies only to governments) to the private contracts at the base of CC&R's and Homeowner Association rules. That's a good thing, isn't it?

Well, I monologued on that a bit in Episode 157, and yes, I'm on board. I'm generally no fan of Homeowner's Associations and their often petty rules. Without getting too deep into it, I think zoning does about as much as needs to be done in terms of keeping us out of each other's hair.

But that episode brought email from Mike Alexander N8MSA, who does disagree with the proposed law on the principle that it's an unwarranted intrusion by the government on a private contract. So I invited Mike on the show, and we bantered about it for about 40 minutes. If you're looking for cable-tv style rancor, you'll be disappointed (but you'll probably find some in the comments to this post after a few days, especially from hams who didn't watch the show). I'm pretty sure we failed to persuade each other, but maybe we raised some points you'll consider, rather than just signing on without much thought.

Ham's don't live by wonky policy alone (or hardly at all), so once we beat that subject to death, we moved on to Mike's passion in Ham Radio, SDR. Mike writes a blog about it, and has lots of experience with things like the FlexRadio 6700, and the TAPR/HPSDR end of Software Defined Radio. Our conversation about that isn't highly technical (mine rarely are), but we get to things that the sales guys aren't going to put at the top of their feature list (though I will say that Flex's K5JG has been pretty darn cooperative in my interviews).

And one more pitch for HamRadioNow's KICKSTARTER to do video at the ARRL/TAPR DCC in September. We're getting close, and the deadline is July 31.

Here's Episode 158:

[video=youtube;cZQAKtKhL8M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZQAKtKhL8M&list=UUxqXFK9ETC5CWEdDD-_HpqA[/video]​

Watch all the rest of our programs on our web page:
HAMRADIONOW.tv

HamRadioNow is supported by viewer contributions
If you enjoy the programs, visit www.HamRadioNow.tv and "click the pig"



THANK YOU to all our contributors!​

 

The Gov. needs to stay out of the personal contracts. Very few hams (out of thousands and thousands) are affected. The BS propaganda that they are needed in case of an emergency is just that...... BS!
JMO....

 

These aren't legitimate personal contracts between homeowners, entered out of a desire to keep the neighborhood pristine. These are contracts by the builders that make sure their product is consistent throughout the build process, so that no one can improve on their product without permission, forced on the home buyer who can either like it or lump it. It is impossible to find a new home without one of these, at least in these parts, even out in the country. Momentum and small-minded people keep them alive after the builder finishes the neighborhood, and these HOA boards generally are populated by busybodies who know nothing of contract law and Robert's Rules of Order who will reinterpret the rules to fit their own need for petty tyranny. The only reason to oppose this legislation is if the builders have their way and get a definition of "reasonable" into the law (wire antennas are reasonable; verticals are reasonable if they look like flag poles), watering it down for everyone so that municipalities can also use that new standard and then no one will have a tower. Until that happens, I'm for this law. HOA's have way too much power, and are beginning to be curtailed in all kinds of ways, including solar energy etc. Around these parts, I don't know a ham who isn't affected.

 

I think "JMO" means "just my opinion," and that's exactly what it is - an opinion. No substantiation whatsoever, and not worth the bits it took to generate the image on my screen. But it's a free country....

 

To those who say the "government interfering in private contract" stuff:


The only reason the HOA/CCR has any powers at all is due to the GOVERNMENT granting them the ability to have special privileges in regards to the deed/lien system. Without those abilities they would be nearly powerless and could only sue and go to court. Instead, they get extra legal power to enforce their regulations by being granted special ability to put a lien on you property and to foreclose if you do not pay their fines. The only other party that can do that is the government if you don't pay taxes. Again this is not just a private contract at all, it is government collusion and granting special powers that any normal contact party would not have.

So, your entire fallacy of these being only "private contracts" is totally 100% false.


If the HOAs want to use the government deed system for their own purposes, them they will have to play by the governments rules for that system. That has nothing to do with this "it's interfering in a private contract stuff".


Again, the HOAs don't enforce their rules or get their powers via normal tort contract processes, they use the deed system to do it. The agreements don't even get positively approved by all parties, they are just "attached" via magic to the recorded property deed forever no matter if you agree or not which is yet another special privilege granted by the government.


Call us back when HOAs are nothing more than regular contracts, where all parties positively agree and sign on all the conditions, and they have to be enforced via regular tort processes.


Until then any argument that they are just private contracts and the government should not be involved is false and any ham who spouts this argument is spreading disinformation.

/love ya Gary but this guy needs to rethink it through

 

First off, I find it funny that the Amateur Radio operator that wants government to stay out of HOA business doesn't live in an HOA himself. That's fine, that's his choice.

In my situation, I live in a home that is controlled by an HOA. Was it my choice? Yes and no. I moved in with someone who owned a home. Unless we both agreed to sell our property and move to a non-HOA controlled neighborhood, the CCnRs had to be followed.

Do I have an antenna on my property? Yes. Does the HOA know about it? Yes they do. It's a 29' stealth vertical in a fairly small backyard. I could have put the antenna up and hoped that either no one noticed it, or that the HOA would forgive me and let me keep it up. I chose, after doing some research on what other hams had done, to put together a proposal with photographs, drawings, and written explanation as to why it's important for me to install this antenna. The board president gave me the okay to go ahead and put it up. Here's the deal. At any point, they could revoke that permission and therefore force me to remove it. Is that likely? Probably not. But as HOA boards change members, it's possible to get someone who doesn't like amateur radio and that's it.

I support HR 4969. I feel that since the FCC got it's nose involved with HOAs when it came to DBS antennas, I don't think it's out of line to require them to apply the law equally when it comes to other types of antennas. I don't think that it's going to mean that amateurs will be allowed to just go out and erect that 100' tower with multiple beams, but it will force amateurs and HOA boards to sit down and work out a compromise.

Mike
KC0EVP

 

Nice, I'm watching this now. This is something I too have thought about. I've thought the same thing, it is one thing that I'm a Ham and I like antennas and I wouldn't move into an HOA if I didn't have to, if not for my Ham hobby but because I typically have several cars in my back yard as well as my front yard. But, I am a limited government Libertarian, we typically hold someones right to their own property high but also want minimum government intrusion. We respect peoples right to enter into private contract. I respect the right for people to create and choose to move into an HOA. I wouldn't respect the government interfering with that. It wouldn't be right for those people who moved into an HOA for that pretty non antenna look to now have a ham use the government to violate that. . That would be an injustice to him. If you want to put up antennas don't move into an HOA, then maybe there would be less HOA's if people who didn't want an HOA didn't move into an HOA. Let me watch the rest of the vid and see what is said there.

 

I need a little help understanding this. Are you saying that when people entered into contract to obey the HOA rules the means to enforce it did not exist therefore they didn't know what they were doing? They agreed to abide by something but didn't think it could be enforced and now there is a way to enforce it so therefore it is okay to get the government to help them violate their agreement because when they signed it they didn't think it could be enforced? Surely I am missing something, no pun intended.

 

What you're missing is that The Government is involved no matter what. If someone violates a "private contract", the usual recourse involves The Government, in the form of a lawsuit, lien, etc.

 

these no outdoor antenna restrictions don't have anything to do with government interference. the cable industry paid off builders to putt that in the CCR's. we need federal help to correct local wrongs. we are due the same protection as the satellite broadcasters were given. nothing worse than hypocrite conservative.

 

There are times when government intervention is warranted and times when it is not. IMHO, Government and the ARRL should not poke their noses into CC&Rs.

I recently bought a new home in Florida. When we started out, the Real Estate Agent had several wonderful homes to show us in "Gated Communities", or "HOA Communities." I informed her that we would not be interested in any property which required membership of any kind in any Association. Armed with this information, our Agent was still able to find dozens of beautiful homes in pristine neighborhoods without any Association involvement. We found one that we loved, bought it and I’ve got a 160M dipole nestled 65' up in some pine trees....tower and beam to follow.

If you didn’t do your homework in advance, or allowed yourself to be badgered into something with which you were not satisfied then "Shame on you." Many people choose to live in restricted communities. That is their prerogative. It’s not the ARRL or the Government’s place to be dictating policy or conditions upon homeowners after the fact.

The idea that hams need towers, or wires to respond to emergency situations is a sham. We all know who is responsible for the humanitarian efforts in responding to community emergencies. It’s the guys with the 2M handhelds or mobiles operating through amateur supported repeaters who come to the rescue, not the 1.5KW DXer with his 70' tower.

 

I didn't miss that. Just because the government will be used to enforce a contract you agreed to doesn't mean it is right to use the government to use force to change it after that fact.

 

One of the best interviews that I've seen you do yet Gary! I'm really please that you chose to interview the devil (hahaha, just kidding Mike). In all seriousness though, sometimes it's good to hear an opposing view that is well articulated. As we've seen in the hotly debated Petition for Rulemaking RM-11708 (a.k.a. symbol rate vs. bandwidth debate), often the argument devolves into a 1st grade shouting match. While I disagree with Mike, I can appreciate and respect his point of view.

 

Agreed
You sound like a person that takes responsibility for his actions and understands basic liberty and freedom principles. The freedom to choose, that is the power we have.

 

All these HR4969 pro and con arguments are moot. HOAs in the US are represented to government by the Community Associations Institute (CAI). They have LOTS of resources (money) with which to fight HR4969. The ARRL doesn't. The CAI has millions of HOAs and even more millions of residents who like things the way they are. If you count all the hams in the US, the ARRL has less than 750K backers.

Then, there's Congress. If I was in Congress, I'd be more concerned about many millions of voters than no more than 750K of hams. And then, there's Congress' current track record of doing nothing more than in-fighting. I'm not betting the farm on HR4969 going anywhere.