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

did you really think for one brief moment that the occupants in a hoa compound are going to let you install a antenna, you better get your head out of your butts....ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN we can piss and moan all we want but we are we kidding.......stick a fork in it and declare it dead...that just MHO

 

If you have a community association that deals with roads; plowing; road kill; water rights; fences; etc, and it has a phrase (in the agreement of): "and other matters that may arise", or equivalent, then those CA's will have to determine your approval for any and all distinctly Part 97 antennas .

They may easily say 'no', to anything other than a 6 inch stubby antenna--which, any antenna person, under oath, must confess is an example of an 'effective outdoor antenna'.

Because of this legislation, the 'matter has arisen' and neither you NOR the CA will have any choice in the matter--but to deal with it.

Hey--WHY BELIEVE ME?? I asked 4 telecom lawyers. WHy would I possibly have such contacts? Because I run an antenna company. This is an antenna issue. (But I don't sell ham antennas).

A whole bunch of ham lawyers--additionally and independently-- agree there is a major problem if HR555/NDAA passes.

Come to K3RF's talk at the Dayton Hamvention legal forum. I haven't spoken to Bob about it--at all-- but I can guarantee he will tell you the same things.

Why?

Because any disinterested party with legal smarts can read.

 

All these doomsday prediction scenarios remain to be seen.

 

APRA applies to parts 3a (1) (2) or (3) situation in ALL HOA's or non-HOA's with any such existing private land use restriction, or restrictive covenant. (included are community associations. )

ARPA solely applies, and ONLY applies to any one of these specific distinctions underlined below regardless of the type of community it is... (IE. ALL private land use communities)

(Application = Applies To)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Application of private land use restrictions to amateur stations

(a)
Amendment of FCC rules

Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall amend section 97.15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding a new paragraph that prohibits the application to amateur stations of any private land use restriction, including a restrictive covenant, that—

(1)
on its face or as applied, precludes communications in an amateur radio service;

(2)
fails to permit a licensee in an amateur radio service to install and maintain an effective outdoor antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of the licensee; or

(3)
does not constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the lawful purposes of a community association seeking to enforce such restriction.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore it only applies to any EXISTING HOA restrictions that are already in place. (That is IF they should exist.)

However if no restrictions exist, no where in the language does ARPA make it a mandatory REQUIREMENT for all HOA's or non-HOA's to have antenna restrictions. Nor does it require if no restrictions exist, you still somehow have to get "permission" to install antennas. Regardless what you might believe, that language simply isn't there.

 

And yet, ARRL and its followers have yet to prove there is (or might be) any increased public need for hams to be on the air at home using outdoor antennas. In fact, ALL of their evidence & testimony states only that hams ARE providing public service.

OTOH, the average age of hams is ever increasing. IOW, ARRL continues to lose paying customers (about 20% of all US hams). IMO, it's all about the dwindling money, and ARRL doesn't want to admit that.

 

It is not in any way required to have any particular "valid reason" to install lawful amateur radio antennas in HOA communities.

Does anyone require a "valid reason" to park a car in their driveway? Does anyone require a "valid reason" to install a WiFi router or a TV set in their home?

No of course not and amateur radio is no different. No justification or proof of anything is NOT needed or required.

 

And yet, that's the "reason" ARRL is using.

But then, this isn't about that.

Amateur Radio IS different.

And, if it's not required, ARRL should remove that language from support of the bill. Of course, that's more compelling than "ARRL just wants to attract more income from more paying customers members, and more income from advertising".

 

The "reason" is intended to gain community support in favor of the bill. However, the reason is not required. It is stated anyways because of the following:

A: It promotes the amateur radio service in a positive light. (A desired function of the ARRL is to promote amateur radio.)

B: Because it is actually true that radio amateurs have historically and do on occasion provide emergency communications which is a benefit to the public interest.

So why would you desire the ARRL to remove what are indeed true and factual statements which serve to accurately "describe" the amateur radio service to others in the text of the bill?

 

I believe that to be true... hams ARE providing benefit to the public. OTOH, there's nothing that indicates MORE hams are needed (using only outdoor antennas at home).

In absence of the above, it leads one to ask...
Q: What is the real reason for the bill?
A: IMO, money.

 

Your argument simply doesn't hold water now, much like when you stated it on eham.net many months ago: It's not even a seaworthy argument, lacking any watertight compartments or a compass of logic. It's akin to saying that there are already too many people watching television, so OTARD shouldn't be on the books, either. But it is.

And when this passes? You're going to be having a VERY Wet Afternoon. Perhaps you should stock up on Flexseal. At least then will you be able to operate Maritime Mobile from the pond in front of the Condo. At which time you can Thank us. And the ARRL.

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV BILL

 

More unsupported and unreasoned statement.
Included was personal insult, followed by "73 and All the Best" again.
That (again) pegs my irony meter:


I note that, while @N2EY and @WB2WIK disagree with me, to their credit, they don't toss out personal insults.

 

This is incorrect.

With due respect,

I put greater credence in 9 counsels I have heard from or have publicly stated their opinions.

Nothing personal.

Your comments do point out the need, for example, for the ARRL to seek outside counsel to render opinion. Preferably a retired judge.

In any case, such hubristic views are bound to facilitate the sale of my gear at high prices.


73
Chip W1YW

 

...and undoubtedly will. That's the point: they could have been avoided with a smidgeon of understanding of the words being used in HR555.

 

The fault of the ARRL is NOT an ARPA--an excellent initiative-- but failure to understand the meaning of the poor and fatal wording they agreed to with the CAI.

 

It would be an excellent initiative... if there was any actual increased public NEED. Unfortunately, ARRL and their followers equate past public fulfillment w/ future increased public need.

IMO, ARRL just wants to attract more (and younger) paying customers members, and increase ad revenue to improve their bottom line. And, those hams who chose to buy into a restrictive HOA want government to erase their past decisions.