Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

You can say that it's all about drama and low work load, but the Commission put a lot of effort into their documentation of the legal issues, and their reasoning makes a lot of sense.

And don't forget, even ARRL spent many years after PRB-1, pushing the hams in individual states to get their own PRB-1 legislation passed. Many of them, like the one here in our state, was basically, "all county and municipal governments shall follow PRB-1 as amended..." but I suspect ARRL realized that PRB-1 at a federal level was failing (how could they miss it?), and having the individual states put laws on the books gave the hams a foothold in the trouble states so that they could later amend their own legislation to fix state-level issues. Even the empty-shell PRB-1 laws at the state level can easily be extended later to place more limits on zoning restrictions.

And if you read FCC's comments carefully, I think it is clear that they wanted such matters to be resolved locally, rather than federally. That would explain why they don't enforce 97.15 themselves, and why PRB-1 language is so broad that it effectively says only "no antenna bans."

 

And while we're talking about OTARD.... as others have pointed out, the effect of OTARD was to allow the minimum antenna necessary to prevent monopolies, and FCC even says that their preemption is for the smaller antennas that do exactly that. They don't support long-range antennas in OTARD, and it appears that was never the intent. Breaking monopolies has long been a matter assumed by federal authorities -- not exclusively, but they reserve the right to do so federally if warranted, and the case law on that goes back for ages.

Ham antenna bans don't cause monopolies in the content-delivery and internet-delivery markets, so we don't have such justification here.

FCC isn't allergic to drama as you suggest. Just look at the so-called "net neutrality" issue. That's a lightning rod if ever there was one.

 

Read
SOUTHWESTERN BELL WIRELESS v. JOHNSON COUNTY BD.
No. 98-3264.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19991384199F3d1185_11240/SOUTHWESTERN BELL WIRELESS v. JOHNSON COUNTY BD.

Interesting Case, discusses FCC in depth! Yes, THIS IS CASE LAW!!

Delve into the FCC and they do not mind the Corporate Sword fighting but the FCC hates to deal with individual one on one issues! Sorry, its apparent.

 

Okay, let's assume for the sake of discussion that your statement is correct. How is amending 97.15 going to help that? If FCC doesn't enforce PRB-1, how are you going to get any satisfaction if they add more text to it to extend it to CC&R? That will just be more text they don't touch, and the sea of failed PRB-1 cases will become an ocean that includes ARPA cases that are just as easily lost or ignored. People point to PRB-1 and say, "lots of hams have gotten accommodation under PRB-1," but what they don't tell you is that it's a bluff. If the municipality agrees to follow the spirit of the rule, then yes, the ham wins. But PRB-1 doesn't stop determined municipalities, even to this day, and ARPA is going to be more of the same because the language already is more of the same (with some extra offensive bits added in for good measure).

 

PRB-1 is not failed policy, and no, you will not get a 195 FT super tower, but you will be offered "accommodation" in law (Law favors a Compromise). ARPA gives you a "reasonable", just not what you want in monster towers!! The case you cite where the Amateur in question was offered 65 ft is a test in question, you must be allowed something, you may not get the whole thing!

 

Sure Martin, we all know the FCC avoids drama the way the NFL avoids Gatorade.

"To be blunt, the FCC’s enforcement process has gone off the rails. Instead of dispensing justice by applying the law to the facts, the Commission has focused on issuing headline-grabbing fines, regardless of the legality of its actions."

-FCC CHAIRMAN, AJIT PAI

"Instead of applying the law to the facts, the Commission’s enforcement process is focused on issuing headline-grabbing fines regardless of the law. This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of party-line votes on enforcement matters. In fact, there have been significantly more party-line enforcement votes in the past 14 months than in the prior 43 years."

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-336694A1.pdf

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/pai-fcc-enforcement-has-gone-rails/145847

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...-seek-gao-study-fcc-enforcement-bureau/145241

Wheeler played along by helping them hold up a sign that blares "Save the Internet."

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission tried to leave his house in the morning, but his driveway was blocked by a small group of demonstrators who urged him to adopt tighter net neutrality rules.

At first Wheeler tried to play along by helping them hold up a sign that blares "Save the Internet."

"I'm on your side," he argued, saying he also believes in an open internet. But he could hardly get in a word in, as the protestors, affiliated with the group Popular Resistance, chanted and sang songs outside his house.

http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/net-neutrality-protesters-sing-chant-at-fcc-chairman39s-home

Nope, no drama here....

 

I was actually thinking of the lady in 6-land who wanted an HF antenna, and the local authorities said she could have a VHF antenna, because it was smaller, and it "accommodated some aspects of her hobby." If they did that to me, I'd sell all my gear and take up another hobby, because that would be a preclusion for me. Under the letter of the 97.15 rule, it was not.

Accommodation will be found, and antenna bans will largely go away, but the slider labeled "reasonable" covers a lot more range than most people think it does. And when hams run into determined local regulators, whether they be public or private, neither the FCC nor the new administration will swoop in to save them. Their only recourse, as it is today, will be to slog it out for years in court, with judges and juries that don't have a clue how ham radio works.

 

By the way, for those who think ARRL will come to their rescue if they need legal or court help for an antenna restriction, you should read ARRL's official position on that:

http://www.arrl.org/arldac​

Some quotes:

"Funding shall be limited to not more than $10,000 per activity, so as to maximize the number that can be funded with the limited money available."

"For a case involving a particular antenna installation, the case must have substantial merit on the facts, and must present a significant issue of law, or be likely to provide a persuasive example which other courts or administrative boards are likely to follow."

"Activities must present a question or situation which maximizes leverage of ARRL funds. This includes situations which present, or are predicted to present, some or all of the following characteristics:

• activities with a high likelihood of success;
• activities in which a favorable result would have particularly high value to Amateur Radio;
• activities in which an unfavorable result would have particularly severe negative impact upon Amateur Radio."

"Funding shall be limited to activities that will or are predicted to provide precedent or example that will be significantly useful to other Amateurs in the situations described in paragraph (1). In general, preference shall be given, in descending order, as follows:

• a. to appellate level cases of national scope;
• b. to appellate level cases of statewide scope;
• c. to trial level cases;
• d. to initiatives involving laws, bylaws, or regulations, which do or may impact the ability of Amateur Radio operators to deploy effective antennas."

"Administrative and local land use authority activities are not normally eligible for funding unless and until they reach the judicial level, due to the absence of precedent value of such cases. In rare and exceptional circumstances, the Committee will fund such an activity of this sort, upon a clear and convincing showing that the activity addresses a unique issue of law or may have wide ranging impact."​

In other words, ARRL is out to set court precedent, not unlike FCC's "headline-grabbing" activities. The League isn't going to fight your court case for you, and when you look at the pool of money from which they are working, you can understand why. If your local CA decides to be a trend-setter and fight you, the person at the front of that fight is going to be you.

 

Martin, your point's well taken; in the face of federal law, local authorities should try to reasonably accommodate hams, however, this is newer case law; it's precedential; it's also from a Federal appellate court, and; the court found that PRB-1 did not preempt the local zoning board's ability to promulgate rules.

http://tinyurl.com/zrnqk9s

Instead, this case concerns a ham represented by ARRL Volunteer Counsel and it discusses the amateur's apparent rejection of an "accommodative approach." As you can see, the federal appellate court UPHELD the ability of the LOCAL Zoning Board to promulgate reasonable rules about antennas and support structures, despite PRB-1, and despite the help of ARRL Volunteer Counsel.

We all understand that local authorities and CAs need to compromise in the face of rules promulgated by congressional exemptions; we're just not convinced H.R.555 will promulgate the rules hams are looking for. As you say; it's "something" but it will also preempt the private agreements of millions, and codify new rules which will bind hams, making them even more subservient to CAs, under the purview of federal law. And for violation of those new rules, there will be federal monetary forfeiture penalties - something unheard of in antenna cases until H.R.555.



DEPOLO v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF TREDYFFRIN TP.; Civil Action No. 14-6689; Signed May 18, 2015.

We find that the Township's proposed permit for a 65-foot tower sought to reasonably accommodate DePolo and his decision to insist on his way or the highway does not satisfy the FCC's accommodative approach. To find otherwise would encourage disappointed or disaffected applicants to try to end-run established process and sabotage negotiations they deem unfavorable by seeking redress in federal court.

We will not, therefore, declare that PRB-1 preempts Tredyffrin's zoning ordinance or the ZHBA's October 23, 2014 decision. We will grant the defendants' motions and dismiss DePolo's complaint, concluding that he cannot invoke the FCC's limited preemption doctrine when [105 F.Supp.3d 497] he himself obdurately thwarted the very reasonable accommodation that the FCC urges on applicants and municipalities alike. Because we dismiss DePolo's federal claim, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Nonetheless, we again take further guidance from the Eighth Circuit and "exhort the parties to work together to arrive at a satisfactory solution." Pentel, 13 F.3d at 1266.



Sorry, its apparent.

 

Right, the FCC specifically stated that it wanted a directive from the congress. That's all. The FCC will create the final bill once the congress presents its directive. This is something the naysayers fail to comprehend or acknowledge. On another note this is a federal matter not a state matter. Those who argue states rights should refer to that occurrence which took place in the 1800's. Take note of which side in the states rights war won. As to the libertarian philosophy aka I got mine got F yourself. Life doesn't work that way in the United States or any really civilized society.

 

What this will do is give you a bargaining chip before you move into a neighborhood. If the HOA wants to turn down my 4 to 500,000 dollars then I'll just move on to the next community. The law will give me option I don't really have at the moment.

 

LOL! Make sure to post your experiences with that theory back here on the 'Zed. Video of the negotiations will be particularly entertaining. "Let me have my antenna, or I'll go buy a house somewhere else!"

 

I think if the community offered you the right to install a Spiderbeam or some other directional array on your roof (maybe 5 to 10 feet above the roof) and a vertical for the low bands in your back yard, THAT would be a reasonable accommodation. The ham on the other hand can offer to run 100 to 200 watts out and not the 1500 W, he or she can legally run which would lessen the chance for interference, that would be reasonable. That to me would be a fair compromise and one which no reasonable person could quarrel with.

 

The Amazing adventures of Spider Ham!



Spiderbeam, Spiderbeam; Friendly HOA Spiderbeam....

 

"Offered" the "right"...

Fortunately, all RFI cases are completely preempted at the federal level, which means that no court can hear a case related to RFI. If your 1.5-gallon amplifier causes trouble to the neighbor's stereo, they may not like it, but they can't prevail in any legal case against you. They can sue, but it will get tossed if your attorney does his legal research. In theory, they can ask FCC to investigate whether your station is operating properly, but I don't believe FCC does any enforcement anymore for RFI to non-licensed users. They can ask FCC to intervene to fix their RFI, but I can't remember the last time FCC took action against a ham for a properly-operating station causing RFI to neighbors. They might take action if you exceed MPE limits for the frequency you are using, but I haven't heard a case like that against a ham, either. Broadcasters have been fined, but I'm not aware of any hams who have been busted for MPE violations.