World famous antenna and tower attorney Fred Hopengarten, K1VR, has recently and publicly provided his comments on the Amateur Radio Parity Act, HR 555, now being considered as a bill (under its own bill number)in the US Senate. Mr. Hopengarten gave a compelling rebuttal on the wording of the bill back at the 2017 Dayton Hamvention Forum. The attached link provides Fred's expert opinion on the fatal wording of the bill as presently being considered. Link: https://bit.ly/ParityAct
The August 2017 edition of CQ Magazine also ran its own article on why ARPA is not good for amateur radio in its current form. It's time for Parity Act authors to go back to the drawing board and write a bill that all hams can support.
Here is a link to the CQ "White Paper", http://cqnewsroom.blogspot.com/2017/08/cq-white-paper-pros-and-cons-of-amateur.html It contains embedded links to other material that include the August 2017 article written by Jim K3JT, a former attorney for the FCC, titled Why HR555 is Not (Good) Enough for Hams. Also links to the original bill, the Sept 2017 QST ARRL FAQ, which was apparently a response to the August CQ article, a rebuttal of that ARRL FAQ by K3JT, and also that of K1VR from the OP. 73 de John - WØPV
Wow... crickets. The lack of activity in this thread makes me wish Mr. Hopengarten had written his opinion piece several months ago.
If this thread does become active, out will come all the differences of opinion again. And then this one will get locked down too. Why even discuss it if you are not allowed to have disagreement?
It's not the discussion or difference of opinion that gets threads locked. It's when the discussion derails from the subject into pages of personal ugliness that threads get shut down. As long as people stay on-topic and somewhat civil, the discussion can continue. And it seems to be helping, because people are slowly starting to think about the real CC&R issues that people need solved, and the real issues that are raised by the current bills (e.g., those raised in the document linked by the OP). The "staying civil" part is the main challenge in QRZ forums, but it can be done.
The lack of activity, IMO, is because Fred (QRZed) didn't post it on the main page--and Fred(QRZed) told me to shut up and stop posting with any frequency... It is Fred's(QRZed) website, for sure, but this issue needs to be more generally promulgated, and IMO belongs on the main page so others will see it . We should all be OK that Fred(QRZed) does not support dropping this bill--he is certainly entitled to his opinion. BTW, the ARRL claimed to have sent the K5UR plea to "all its members". Well, I am a LM and I didn't get it. But as N3JT says, read the facts, form your own opinion, and act accordingly. Note N3JT ominously says, vis a vis wording of the bill: " The FCC cannot make the ARPA language in any respect more liberal or permissive". There are NO 'fix it in the mix' moments with the FCC after the bill, as presently worded, is law, if it gets there. End of my comments on this thread.
I guess that when I get a email from the ARRL , I should fact check / look for 2nd opinions ? When they send out letters looking for signers of petitions ? Now if I change my mind after reading the above link , how to take back my signature from the petition ?
There is a post on another message board from a high level ARRL insider, the former Southwestern Division Vice Director Marty N6VI. In it he reveals and details the reasons for his change of mind, from supporting the original Parity Act, to rejecting the modified version that became HR555 in Feb 2016. 73 de John - WØPV Introduction and conclusion excerpts cut & pasted below. Read the details of his entire statement here - http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/sccc/2017-August/009600.html ----------- "Now that I am a former ARRL Vice Director, I am free to speak my mind on this matter. As a long-time proponent of antenna rights, it is with great disappointment that I say I do not favor passage of HR-555. I should add up front, by way of disclaimer, that I am not an attorney. https://www.qrz.com/db/n6vi I was a big supporter of the original Amateur Radio Parity Act - the PRB-1 version. The ability to put up outdoor antennas and the structures necessary to support them on your property is crucial to being an active Ham for many licensees. Since 2010 I have visited the offices of numerous elected officials, sent over a thousand e-mail messages, spent entire convention weekends generating letters from Hams to their elected representatives and spoken at countless club meetings to drum up support for this legislation. It's fair to say that I invested a major chunk of my time in support of the original Parity Act, and I certainly respect ARRL leadership for its persistence in seeking relief for all impacted Amateurs, whether League members or not. However, in February of 2016 the language that mirrored PRB-1 was removed from HR-1301 (now HR-555), and this is a critique of the result, not of the intent or effort. ... Because of the aforementioned shortcomings of HR-555 and the likely adverse consequences of its passage, I cannot support it any longer. There may be a better path than the one the League is now pursuing; I don't know if we can ever get there, but I certainly don't want us to make things worse for a significant number of Amateurs or expose them to being found in violation of Federal law and FCC regulations. Please consider these points when you are asked to write letters of support for HR-555 to your legislators." ... 73, Marty N6VI
That's probably good advice, regardless... it's what @W1YW and others have been doing with ARPA -- they have been getting attorney's opinions to see how the legislation will affect them. They are doing a service to everybody by sharing what they are learning from those attorneys. ARPA is a short bill. Most hams should be able to read it and understand the terms in it. The original ARPA bill was only a sentence or two. The current version is a bit longer, but still not bad. My suggestion would be that everybody read through it a couple of times and think about how it could be used... not just by a ham in an HOA situation, but how could it be used by an HOA or a neighbor in an HOA who doesn't want ham antennas? That applies to HOAs whose CC&R have antenna restrictions and those who don't. If you think through some scenarios, you'll see that the bill has some fairly significant flaws. In that respect, the original bill was better. Not great, but at least better.
