The Amateur Radio Parity Act - Could become reality...

Do you live in a restricted area? Reading this leads me to believe you do not, but maybe I'm wrong.

What people seem to be missing is that there are many, many, many operators who live in deed-restricted areas and do very well on the HF bands. We've worked with our neighbors and found ways to use antennas that do not take away from the beauty of the neighborhood. The HOA doesn't know my antenna is there because they cannot see it. Heck, my neighbor helped me hang my current antenna, and he's not a ham. He was just interested in what I was doing. Deed-restricted operators are, for the most part, "operating on the downlow". What this bill would do is call attention to something that's not a problem. If the FCC were to adopt a rule that requires every ham in an HOA community to get approval for EXISTING antennas, a lot of our radios will be off the air.

Recent numbers (2016) show that 21.6 percent of the US population lives in HOA communities, and that number grows every year. 2016 numbers also indicate that there are 801,424 licensed amateurs in the US. So this bill would directly impact approximately 208370 operators. Since the ARRL has only 170,000 members world-wide, and many of them are against this bill for a variety of reasons while others are located outside the country, how can the league honestly think they are representing the entire ham radio population with respect to this bill? The tail is wagging the dog. I am an ARRL member, but I am concerned about the impact this bill will have on operators that currently live in HOAs, most of whom I would suspect just want to be left alone. I do believe at this point in time that the league is becoming part of the problem, and not part of a solution.

That's just my opinion. Your results may vary. But I think it is time to turn down the heat, circle up the wagons and start considering unintended consequences before it's too late.

 

I'm still waiting to hear somebody put forward an argument that has a chance for getting this bill past the gentleman from Florida. Until he removes his "hold," or retires, much of this discussion is moot.

 

That is because they have no clue how the Senate works. They think if enough advocate to their own Senator, this can get pushed through past that one objection. Actually that is true, but it would have to be an important enough issue to actually invoke that mechanism. This issue ain't it.

And what about the false statement floating around here that the hold in the last session was only possible because it came up in the closing stage of the legislative session. THAT IS NOT TRUE. He can do it any time and every time until he gets something he wants. And they will not fight him on this little issue.

And then there is the suggestion that Florida hams should directly pressure Senator Nelson. Has anyone taken a look at the number of hams in Florida, and his margin of victory in the last two elections he won? His victory margins have been greater than the number of hams in the COUNTRY.

I hope Fred learned something here, before he posts something so ridiculous again as "this could become reality".

 

I'm curious about the source of these data.
The most vocal and consistent critics here are admitted non-HOA residents. Intuitively, it should be the residents omplaining the most.
If one considers only the absence of complaints here from people who actually live in an HOA, this appears to be a non-problem. Or a the least, greatly exaggerated which prompts me to ask about your data.

 

Thanks for asking:

Number of licensed amateurs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_operator (801,424) ARRL has it a little lower: http://www.arrl.org/fcc-license-counts
Percentage of US population in HOAs: https://www.caionline.org/AboutCommunityAssociations/Pages/StatisticalInformation.aspx
Number of ARRL members: http://www.arrl.org/arrl-fact-sheet

 

It appears you used that data to extrapolate # hams in HOAs based on % population which is fine but it assumes hams generally have no aversion to buying in HOAs, an assumption which some might want to deny.

Regardless, it's difficult to quantify precisely without lots of assumptions and given the silence by all but a very few, it seems most HOA hams are either sanguine about their HOA, have found ways to enjoy the hobby within the constraints they choose, don't care or have alternatives.

Seems ARPA is still a poor solution in search of a small problem.

 

At the very least, for the League to push a bill, it would have to assume that they speak for (or somehow otherwise represent the interests of) the ham population as a whole, which is provably false from the same data you all are discussing.

 

Hence my original point. Why are we opening a Pandora's box if nobody really cares? It will most likely backfire in some way.

 

That lower ARRL number is the more correct figure to use. The 800,000 + number includes Expired but not yet Cancelled licenses (two year grace period). Most of those 50,000 plus expired licenses could be reactivated quickly, but unless they are - those currently are not hams.

The ARPA bill originally claimed it would cover 730,000 hams. As the number of licenses increased that number in the bill was modified to be 740,000 hams. I am sure the ARRL would love to be able to make another bump up to 750,000. At the current level of 744,000 + that won't happen for some time.

With all the antenna doom and gloom stories, and all the test is to hard for zero attention span youth complaints, how do the numbers keep increasing?

 

There are always more older people with lots of money, time, and ways to squeeze more antennas into the attic, yard, or car in the driveway.

 

In my experience, when it's "the county" rather than the municipality, those counties have small populations. I live only 3 miles from an area of L.A. which is overseen by "the county" (it's just north of Chatsworth, and Porter Ranch -- and in L.A. county, but not in L.A. City) and R/E values are much lower (some really great deals on property there!) because they don't have the City benefits. But, population density is also very small compared with the city, just south of there. The city never annexed that region because it was just too sparsely populated and they couldn't provide all the services required when the density is so low.

Downsides include their utilities, which suck compared with the city, and even trash collection. In many cases, even mail delivery!

I like city life, and also liked Ava Gabor back in the day...

 

The numbers keep increasing because the target audience has changed.

It is now almost exclusively public safety and 'preppers,' who are VHF/UHF only, and use of ham radio as a 'plan B' communication option. Ages: 25-30 PLUS lower limit of that demographic.

The data is compelling that the volume of questions on the Tech test is keeping young people out of ham radio. They now are a very small fraction of licensed radio amateurs, and only a few percent of 'new' hams are under 15.

K1BG will be talking at the Boxboro Convention in Sept on these issues.

The irony is that the 'movers and shakers' in the telecom world (one example, of many) have a disproportionate number of hams, or former hams, that started as youths in amateur radio. It defined a path for them.

Now, we make great fusses about the young people in ham radio, to show how 'sensitive' and 'welcoming' we are (and we are old, BTW), at the same time we drive youth away with a Tech test question pool that is many times more voluminous than what these 'movers and shakers' had to experience as an entry barrier to ham radio.

IF you want young people, accept that the system is broken.

 

Okay, I mean no disrespect when I ask this, I'm just curious... are the data supporting either of those assertions available publicly somewhere, like on a website where they can be downloaded? Or are they only available by attending a public presentation?

Again, I'm not disputing your assertions, but I would like to see the supporting data.

 

Again, since you ignore MY responses--its not MY data.

Go to Boxboro.

 

Wow, so much for asking nicely.