Parity Act of 2017 Introduced - HR 555

We both agree, PRB-1 allows you to bite the apple, not get a whole apple, not my way or the highway!

 

That's a fair assessment from the ham's point of view. Given that the current ARPA language contains a "notify and obtain prior approval" duty for the CA ham, I expect that some CAs will still assume that their "veto power" over each antenna gives them the ability to do it their way or the highway. The language won't permit them to ban an antenna, but anything short of a ban could still be considered fair game.

 

... or, one or more viable (and possibly BETTER) alternatives that have been suggested many times in many threads on more than one forum.

 

Bryan,
Let's not beat this horse, you and I agree to disagree.

 

I agree. Whenever you want to stop initiating it is fine with me.

 

Exactly, you do know there are two people mad at the Judge at every lawsuit, The Plaintiff and The Defendant! Law favors a Compromise-TREATISE OF PLAINOL (French Roman Civil Code Scholar and Jurist)

No, I don't see the MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY being viable.

 

And this is really the point of the entire discussion. Until the bill's language is clarified so that we all know what we will be getting, passing it is a coin-toss at best. The fact that so many people can read this in so many wildly different ways means that the needed clarity is just not there. Judges are people, too, and if reasonable people can come to so many different conclusions about what the bill will mean, we can't expect the judges (or the CAs, for that matter) to do any better on a reliable basis.

 

That's the idea, we have nothing now! The one thing to realize, reasonable people experienced in law have a guess where this will go, now did CAI or ARRL give too much? I think both sides will not like the end result. No one is getting a MAD MAX TOWER and the HOA will have to learn how to work on the "Reasonable" without being overbearing.

The sad thing is the CAI might regret giving any concessions to ARRL because when the HOA learns they can NOT run a MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY type campaign either. The definitions of CA is written just tight enough to limit who it applies to and CAI knew the limitations and would increase their business base!

 

...and nothing more has been proven to be NEEDED by the public. Hams aren't required to be on the air but, if a ham in a HOA WANTS to get on the air, it can be done RIGHT NOW by one or more several alternate means (without stepping on any freely-signed contract/agreement/promise/whatever).

 

Speak for yourself. Many of us have fine outdoor antenna farms.

 

Let's not be so selfish, give everyone a bite at the Apple!

 

I'm on board with that... when an actual public need is identified. Otherwise and in the mean-time, there are several alternatives.

 

Same old BS! I got one too!

 

It been identified, towers for all!!! Public need, keeping Amateurs on the Air, making everyone a big gun!

 

Good for you (no bovine excrement).

Nope. My mistake for not (again) stating there's no INCREASED public need.