ARLB011 Amateur Radio Parity Act Language Inserted in National Defense Authorization Act

Let’s pass this baby!!!!!

 

97:15 = 6.46666666667
No surprise.

!!! <-- matching exclamation marks added for matching emotional effect.

OK, pass. However, OUR votes don't count.

!!!!! <-- matching exclamation marks added for matching emotional effect.

 

Ham radio is not illegal, so why treat it as such.

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202179

 

^ ^ ^ This is unrelated to what is being pushed in the US, and this thread.

 

No emotion, how sad.

You must be sad, just think, more big guns in the neighborhood.

Read US Code Of Federal Regulations Title 47 Part 97 Section 15. The bill would outlaw all restrictions.

As a Cajun, It is hard to curb my enthusiasm.

 

You don't read very well.

I said the INSTALLATION was illegal.

 

"He who has the gold makes the rules" that is the bottom line to the HOA and their legal representatives. Never mind the contributions by those who have passed us by ... case in point: Read the recent CQ Hall of Fame posting on the QRZ page.

73s to all,

Lanny Davis / K4ULP

 

Section 1083—Amateur Radio Parity
This section would require the Federal Communications Commission to amend section 97.15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, to prohibit the application of any private land use restriction to amateur radio stations in a manner that would preclude communictaions in an amateur radio service

I would invite you to read it again.

It does not outlaw restrictions. It simply says that any restriction that "preclude communications in an amateur radio service" is prohibited. This does not mean that the average ham living in a HOA will be able to put up any antenna they want. This means that as long as they have access to the amateur radio service, in any form, the requirement is met.

Thus, the HOA could say that the ham is restricted to a single 2m vertical antenna not to exceed 6' in height, painted to match the decor of the home, and not visible over the roof line or from the street. The ham has access to an amateur radio service, so the law is fulfilled.

The HOA could say that the ham can put up a 5GHz whip for the amateur band, no matter how ineffective that might be. Guess what, they meet the requirements of the law.

The point is that the law, as written, is not a panacea and the HOAs know this. They know that they can get away with granting the bare minimum access to the amateur radio service, even only on one band and with a largely ineffective antenna and they will be in full compliance with the law. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, the legal precedent is already set for this kind of interpretation.

 

That is the old "reasonable accommodation" language that only applies to state and local government, not to community associations (HOAs, etc)

No. Read the actual text of the bill/amendment, not the abstract in the Committee Report. The bill is VERY different than what is in 97.15.

Try to catch up with the rest of us.

 

I read just fine.

Amateur Radio isn't an illegal activity.

So no need to outlaw antennas and treat it as such.

 

While I am not a fan of the current ARRL ARPA bill language, citing the PRB-1 case of WB6X is problematic to the argument. To me it's an example of making some wrong choices which doomed the cause to failure.

Take a look at the QTH on Google Maps and read the linked court doc carefully.

Its a POSTAGE STAMP sized lot! In a densely packed development. There is a roof tripod that became acceptable to the city, and other antennas still seen in the back yard. But apparently those weren't "reasonable" enough so the Ham just slammed up a crank-up tower / beam too.

However, as read in the court doc, because the yard is so tiny, the tower and beam was in violation of setback codes; it could topple into a neighbors house and the beam antenna overhung outside the code limits (which were reasonable). While not disqualifying, trying the sneak that in without permits OR full cooperation of immediate neighbors is often a disastrous recipe for pissing-off people and drawing negative attention from authorities.

The aesthetic and RFI arguments were just icing on the cake for the complainant. The court nixed the latter as being solely a FCC jurisdiction. Ironically the admittedly somewhat technically ambiguous ordinance language stated implies that the city may even allow up to a 75 ft tall HF monopole (!) But a permit is required, duh.

On the aerial map there can be seen plenty of other surrounding properties of more acreage within walking distance of the tightly spaced QTH 'hood. Those would be far more compatible with a tower installation, but perhaps not have paved streets, municipal utilities, or a gated entrance.

IMO this situation in Palmdale CA is an unfortunate case of a Ham being overly aggressive and trying to squeeze 10 lbs of antenna into a 5 pound lot. And now there is a legal president that could work against future situations, HOA or not.

No matter what ARPA language is made law, if ever, Hams will always have to be "reasonable". Some compromises will often be required. Use of common sense good judgement.

73, John, WØPV

 

Which, in Mr. Zubarau's case, meant "VHF or nothing... take it or leave it..." "Reasonable accommodation" now means that the zoning authority gets to choose which bands they think are "reasonable" for an outdoor antenna.

Indeed. Regardless of the reasons, PRB-1 language has been shown (and court-tested) to be a damp squib. Since it was copied into ARPA, the latter doesn't have the capacity to fare any better. Amazingly enough, the fatal precedent to ARPA precedes its passage.

 

The Zed page photo of the WB6X station, assuming its current, shows a very capable HF shack desk. It is hard to tell from the images on Google Map but the tripod mounted vertical looks like it may be a multiband HF product. There is another vertical antenna in the back corner of the house (former tower location?) and a VHF or 6m Yagi visible from above. All permanently mounted, not just put up / taken down when used. That's a LOT more then many HOA's would allow today.

Again, reading the court docs, he probably could (may have) gotten away originally with a HF beam, perhaps not full sized on 20m, but still with directional gain, on the 40 ft roof top tripod for which he was originally given permission.

But the antenna farm limits were pushed, ignoring easily foreseen consequences, and that resulted in a proverbial shot to the foot.

I disagree - PRB-1 as it was written has been effective. I know many situations that never went to court where city councils, county commissions, and their attorneys, well aware of it now, have made or make ordinance adjustments and code concessions. Even to the point of assisting and co-defending Hams in court that have been sued directly by neighbors - and the Ham / city won!

However, basic building codes must be followed, and common sense neighborhood choice and diplomacy used. And the current ARPA / NDAA, so far, is NOT, as yet, written to perform in any way like PRB-1.

 

He does have an impressive pile 'o radios. Then again, it could all be wired to a pair of STLs in the attic. Personally, I wouldn't mind that, but it's not germane to the discussion.

Excellent. Please provide links, data, legal citations, etc. It would help the discussion immensely.