Ham radio operators air a grievance: Leave our hobby alone.

[KK4JUG]

I answered that already...socialist control.

I think that says "what," not "why." In any event, it falls under the category of aardvark hooey.

 

[mmckenna]

Nobody has answered why as to the government wanting to eliminate "independent communications centers." I understand that there is a general distrust of government, especially federal government. I also understand that, almost universally, infrastructure is in poor condition. Both of those facts are a given, but why does the government want limit or eliminate civilian communications?

You'd need to tighten up the band on your tin-foil hat a lot more before your brain was starved of enough oxygen to understand it.

 

[KK4JUG]

Okay, now I understand.

 

[GlobalNorth]

Deleted.

 

[GlobalNorth]

This article is a mental mess from someone whose journalistic articles seem to be based on advocacy and mental emoting. Here are just some of the issues from the so called 'journalist' who is unable to discern or unwilling to understand technology.

The issues range from:
Antenna height of amateur radios [as a visual annoyance] and someone's antenna farm,
The validity of amateur radio in the modern era,
The EMCOM issues of the 'emergency vest and light set',
5G technology.

Picking them apart finds that Jonesboro, Maine is a very small town with a total of 583 people, 256 households, and 151 families there, based on the 2010 census. The population density is 15.9 inhabitants per square mile. Having local zoning laws to prevent antennae from falling over onto the property of another is mostly a false pretense for governmental interference at the local level. The population percentage that can see an antenna of the amateur band is hardly worth mentioning in a newspaper article. The antennae of Mr. Petkov are of legal height and while impressive, do not constitute the overwhelming percentage of amateur radio operators in Maine or the US. He obviously is serious about his radio hobby and has the financial resources to get superb equipment. Good for him.

Amateur radio is a hobby that exists in and for itself. It has served the public good and been an annoyance and hinderance to the public when misused. Much like any other activity, it has detractors and advocates. It exists mostly out of sight and out of mind of the average citizen.

Amateur radio is a avocation and hobby, not a profession. By definition, there are few professions - physicians, certified public accountants, attorneys, university professors, etc. Amateur radio is to be enjoyed by the individual licensee's parameters and personal preferences - as long as they meet FCC regulations.

Some amateurs love EMCOM, others find it distracting. Most citizens probably couldn't name an instance in which it made a difference in a recent emergency.

5G is a boon to some and a cancer causing plague to others. It has nothing to do with amateur radio, much like sport aviation has nothing to do with the next generation of stealth bomber or space satellite. Don't like 5G? Go take on AT&T T-Mobile and Verizon.

Joyce Kryszak may be a "veteran journalist", but she is proud of her work on "government, social justice, cultural affairs, and the environment" and it obviously shows. She knows little of science, technology, logic, or classic rhetoric. She is the exemplar of the transplanted New England activist.

 

[iMONITOR]

kind of smells of socialism

We're not supposed to discuss politics on RR. So I'm staying out of them.

 

[mmckenna]

Every socialist country I know of has an amateur radio service. It's just another term that is supposed to scare us. Fortunately, most of us have some level of critical thinking skills and would not fall into the trap.

I have no problems with a ham setting up a contest station or a tower. I do live in an area that is NOT part of an HOA, but I did have to agree to CC&R's before buying the house. There are certain limitations, and I would not want my neighbor putting a tall tower on a small lot.
This guy is in a rural area and has the space. It hasn't made him popular, however. People are allowed to disagree and voice their opinions. Freedoms are a wonderful thing, even if you don't agree with what someone is saying.

 

[pandel]

I'm going to play devil's advocate ...... I just have one question.
Assuming that the tower(s) will land on the owners property if they fell, And again, assuming he is following all FAA guidelines for lighting etc. Where in his deed is there a hight restriction for anything?
If the man is on his own property AND following all associated rules, where is the problem just because someone doesn't like the view?
Did their deed come with an unobstructed view containing no towers?
Just questions.
As McKenna Said...
"This guy is in a rural area and has the space. It hasn't made him popular, however. People are allowed to disagree and voice their opinions. Freedoms are a wonderful thing, even if you don't agree with what someone is saying."
I'm not an attorney and I didn't sleep in a Holliday Inn Express last night, but this sure seems to me like an easy case to defend.

 

[KK4JUG]

I don't think it's a legal problem as much as it is aesthetics.

 

[paulears]

In the UK, we have planning laws. Certain things everyone can do, other things need permission. Before it is granted the public are asked if they have objections or support the application. You can also appeal if rejected. It seems to work pretty well. We used to have wind up towers getting around the law as they were considered temporary. This was spotted and the get around removed. We also have zoning where areas are designated residential, business, or industrial. An industrial estate could pop up a mast on a unit with no need for permission unless it was large enough to need specific permission. Planning would then deal with it quite simply, and looks probably not even an issue. Where I live, there used to be a 150ft mast at the bottom of my garden. A fire Station. It closed and houses were built. No way would I get permission here for even a 60ft mast.Oddly, the Home Owner stuff you suffer in the US we don't have here. The worst would be to just apply for planning permission for a big one, but something modest here - like a vertical would be fine. A beam and rotator on a chimney, not much above the roofline - say a UHF 13 element or VHF 8 element you would probably get away with. A 60ft wind up in the garden with other houses close, no - that would need permission and probably not get it! Loads of antennas poking out the top of trees in a pretty place? Not a chance! The tree huggers would put a stop to that one.

 

[mmckenna]

I'm not an attorney and I didn't sleep in a Holliday Inn Express last night, but this sure seems to me like an easy case to defend.

Sure it would. He's not doing anything illegal, at least as far as we can tell from the news article.

My point, which you clearly understood (thanks), was that even if you follow all the rules, others may still be unhappy.
I can legally do things on my own properly that would absolutely piss off my neighbors. Doesn't mean I should do those things. Part of being a good human is, well, being a good human, and thinking of someone other than yourself.
Doesn't mean Hammy McHam should tear down all his towers, but there is a point where one should take pause and consider how their actions may impact others.

 

[W8HDU]

The why is answered by auctioning of spectrum. If the hams are forced to get rid of spectrum, that can be turned over to be auctioned.

Keep in mind how the F.C.C. and Congress took TV from 2-84, to 2-69, then 2-51, and now 2-36, with 2-6 being mostly unusable due to the artifacts of ATSC1. Taking away 52 to 69 was supposedly due to public service not having enough frequencies to use post 911. But it's interesting how those frequencies were auctioned, and no public service entities now occupy spectrum. Can you say, slight of hand?

 

[WRQI583]

but there is a point where one should take pause and consider how their actions may impact others.

It would be my thinking that if you are going to put up a tower, they should set guidelines where if the tower is placed in a certain spot, if you were to lay that tower down in any direction, no part of it (antennas included) can go across the border of your property and do damage to someone else's property. That, is a legitimate concern anywhere. When many people put up towers, I don't think they take that into consideration, or if they do, they don't care?

 

[mtindor]

It would be my thinking that if you are going to put up a tower, they should set guidelines where if the tower is placed in a certain spot, if you were to lay that tower down in any direction, no part of it (antennas included) can go across the border of your property and do damage to someone else's property. That, is a legitimate concern anywhere. When many people put up towers, I don't think they take that into consideration, or if they do, they don't care?

That's not realistic. That's what insurance is for. In the particular scenario being discussed here, it wouldn't surprise me if that was accounted for. But, in your average city lot, very very often there is no room for the tower to fall over onto _your_ property. Yet oftentimes permits are still issued. People putting up towers have to account for that and have designs in place to make a happening like that a rarity. Of course, if a natural disaster occurs, you can't make any guarantee that any tower, no matter where it is placed or how it is built, will survive.

 

[mmckenna]

It would be my thinking that if you are going to put up a tower, they should set guidelines where if the tower is placed in a certain spot, if you were to lay that tower down in any direction, no part of it (antennas included) can go across the border of your property and do damage to someone else's property. That, is a legitimate concern anywhere. When many people put up towers, I don't think they take that into consideration, or if they do, they don't care?

It often is a requirement, just depends on the local ordinances.

Logic would say "I should make sure that if the tower falls over, it won't land on my neighbors house".
I think most do.
Those that don't, may fall into the categories you suggested:
Didn't think about it.
Don't care about it.

Those will small lots may want to partake in having a nice tower, but not have the space for a tower to land. Local ordinances may or may not address this.

And I grew up across the street from a guy that had a 50 foot tower on the side of his house. Never fell, never had any issues, most neighbors didn't care. It really wasn't that big a deal.

 

[mmckenna]

Yet oftentimes permits are still issued. People putting up towers have to account for that and have designs in place to make a happening like that a rarity.

That's a good point. Usually the building department gets involved and is more concerned about the structural integrity of the tower, the size/design of the base, and how it's anchored into the ground. Usually they will want to see specific engineering drawings and designs that are stamped by an engineer showing approval for the design.
Said hobbyist would be required to put in a foundation that is sized correctly for the heigh of the tower, wind load, local wind speed expectations, ice loading, etc.

Done right, it should not fall over. Insurance would cover the rest.

 

[mtindor]

And I grew up across the street from a guy that had a 50 foot tower on the side of his house. Never fell, never had any issues, most neighbors didn't care. It really wasn't that big a deal.

I live just outside a podunk town/county. Seems like half the population in the town still have 40+ foot towers (often anchored to their two-story houses) from the old days of terrestrial TV. Nice and rusty, almost always leaning at some point along the tower. Pretty sure that if somebody went to put up a new tower, they would have to go through a permitting process and that the town would likely require some engineering data from a reputable company indicating the structural limits of the tower / data abouse the base/rebar / any guy wire necessity. But to be honest, the vast majority of danger comes from the 40+ year old TV towers that nobody needs but nobody will have taken down.

 

[mmckenna]

But to be honest, the vast majority of danger comes from the 40+ year old TV towers that nobody needs but nobody will have taken down.

Yeah, I remember interviewing a guy once that used to work for a local WISP in very rural areas and talked about climbing some of those. He even had photos of the towers he'd climbed.
I think in the end we did not choose him because of that. Anyone that would climb a 40 year old rusty consumer TV antenna tower lag bolted to the soffit of a termite infested home didn't have the sort of brains we were looking for. There's a reason God invented bucket trucks, and no amount of high speed WiFi is worth risking lives.
Guy probably would have got the job if he hadn't shared that. Photos did -NOT- help his case.

 

[mtindor]

Yeah, I remember interviewing a guy once that used to work for a local WISP in very rural areas and talked about climbing some of those. He even had photos of the towers he'd climbed.
I think in the end we did not choose him because of that. Anyone that would climb a 40 year old rust consumer TV antenna tower lag bolted to the soffit of a termite infested home didn't have the sort of brains we were looking for.

LOL. I don't blame you at all.

 

[cg]

The town could deal with it the American way... tax the crap out of it.