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

I'm not insulting you in any way whatsoever. It's not you personally, but your argument that simply lacks premises and only has a conclusion, which is, in fact, not a reasonable one. It simply doesn't follow in any sort of progression.

As a matter of fact, I find it rather hard to either agree or disagree with you (other than with your conclusions, which are way, way out there) because I can't follow the flow of what you are saying: One can't apply Systems Theory where there is no system.

It's a silly premise to say that the ARRL needs to show a reason why more hams are needed for emergency operations.

It's a silly premise to say we must operate from the park instead of our home, just because you say it.

It's an ABSURD premise to say that we can't change the current Draconian Arbitrary Rules so that they are reasonable. We don't decide who runs this place... WE run THIS Place, and we're not saying Uncle, Sam.

When you make such premises and attempt to put them in a Conclusive Box that is in no way Logical, no matter how many times you restate them and place them in said box, no matter how many cute little hearts you paint on the box and ribbons that you wrap around it? One finds a Smelly Mess in said box, again, a box already "delivered" months ago on eham.net. The added Fermentation with the passing of time?
Hasn't improved the odour emanating from said box one iota.

I think we are always going to be on opposite sides of this issue: You choose to appease the Draconian HOA's and I choose to demand a seat at the table with them, as an EXPECTATION.

As Always,
73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV Bill

 

Even more unsupported opinion (with verbosity).

 

No. It's fact.

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV Bill

 

I like facts. Good comments.

 

Well you are certainly welcome to provide your facts. So far, I don't seem to find any.

I am looking specifically for language where it's specifically written where any private land use development that does not have any existing antenna restrictions are required to be notified of an antenna installation.

You're turn... ready, set, go..

 

Look harder.

 

That answers my question. Thanks.

 

Always worked for me. Still does.

 

In most everyone's book, referring to someone as another's "lackey" is derogatory.
And often, you make unsupported derogatory statements about those who don't agree with you.

... and then sign "73 and All the Best".
Again, irony overload:

 

It's your unsupported premises and conclusions that I am taking to task.

That you won't Stand Up with us, support the ARRL and expect a place at the table? That just makes me sad.

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV Bill

 

...with no data, testimony, or even logic but, with derision for those who don't share your opinion.

I favor only that which make sense and is supported with currently-valid data/testimony or even logic. This legislation doesn't make sense, and (so far) isn't supported with currently-valid data/testimony or even logic. I don't jump on the bandwagon because others have.

 

But you haven't put forth any logic or data to support your position in any of your numerous posts. There simply isn't any Logic here to support the current status quo.

The change will come.

Support the ARRL.

Support the Amateur Radio Parity Act.

73 and All the Best!
DE W8LV Bill

 

IF this legislation goes through, radio amateurs in the US will be very much surprised to see who controls what antenna you will be allowed to erect under the CA control.

YOU may think that it means that the CA MUST allow you to put up a 20m dipole--because you operate on 20M; or a long 2M Yagi, because you operate the birds; or a 40M NVIS system for a local net. Nope. That's not how it works.

The legislation prescribes --note single AN-- an "effective outdoor antenna". What's that?? That decision will be made by antenna professionals, who are hired by the CA--not you--based on a review of Part 97. Those antenna professionals will be paid to write snazzy 60 page reports as consultants, and or expert witness for documents in court cases.

DO you GET this?? ANTENNA PROFESSIONALS WILL BE DECIDING WHAT ANTENNA YOU CAN PUT UP.

Here's how it plays:

1) What does Part 97 describe as the mission of ham radio in the US;
2) What is the family of antenna solutions that allows the mission of Part 97 licensees to execute said mission-- each antenna solution must allow all facets for execution of said mission (NOTE THAT THIS DEFINES AN 'EFFECTIVE OUTDOOR ANTENNA family);
3) what is the minimum form factor --single--antenna on that list that allows for the (additional)needs of the community encompassed in the CA agreement (FOR EXAMPLE LOW PROFILE/NO PROFILE; SAFETY)

A six inch stubby is THE antenna that meets 2) and 3) and this will be the default 'acceptable' effective outdoor antenna.

If you want to see how this six inch stubby meets the mission of Part 97, well, check my prior posts on Zed on this subject.

Now before you get the pitchforks and storm my gates, remember that many antenna people have come to the same conclusion as me. And those are ham-friendly antenna professionals, who are warning you about the wording of HR555.

You should thank us for alerting you. None of us will assist the CA's BTW. But others will.

And, if you can show we are wrong, you have an obligation to show this--NOW--before the Senate takes the next steps. I, for one, am all ears.

BTW, as previously stated, I will NOT ASSIST in ANY of the 'outside expert' testimony, as above. I won't help bail you out of your court case with your CA when this happens. But I am sure that others may assist (likely unsuccessfully) for, say, $50,000 to $200,000 in fees.

No, I will not assist, because warning and correction on HR555 were not taken seriously.

CU at Hamvention.

73
Chip W1YW

 

BTW,

When these court cases happen, don't be surprised if top ARRL officials are asked to testify. That means you better be sure that these ARRL folks are ACTIVE PART 97 users. K5UR meets that (in spades), while N1BXY does not. But Barry is a great guy who is doing everyone a favor , truly, by serving as interim CEO for the next year or so. I hope we get the next CEO with such experienced qualifications and leadership.

The point is that you better be able to walk the walk in a court case. And undestand the mission of Part 97 intimately.

 

HR555 and EC

This is a tough nut.

If the power goes out,chances are your 'effective outdoor antenna' will be down and out. You may need to put up an EC antenna, that hasn't been approved by the CA.

Note that HR555--makes no provision-- for temporary installation of an outdoor antenna for EC. Yet another fatal flaw in this bad, bad, piece of legislation.