Amateur Radio Parity Act (HR 555) is FCC Decision

[needairtime]

Then there's also the troubles that condo and apartment dwellers have dealt with, they have even less space to work with. Plus the issue if you have a condo unit full of hams (say in the unlikely chance that every unit is occupied by a ham)... not everyone can have their own antenna, there's just not enough space, even if they're aesthetically pleasing. In this situation they'd probably have to do timesharing, if they can even get one antenna up because the HOA/overseer says no.

Also the fact that ham radio is preparedness, having a remote control radio like a repeater, while it is still radio, isn't helping personal ability in designing and maintaining HF radio systems. Using a remote antenna/radio wouldn't be much different than basically using Echolink with a cellphone, it's just not the same when one of the two infrastructure goes down.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

If one finds themselves in an HOA community, don't despair immediately. READ THE DOCUMENTS!

1) In some instances the HOA may have dissolved through inattentiveness by the HOA meeting state statutes and the covenants are unenforceable.

2) In other cases the covenants may have a short period of time the HOA must react either to a request or to enforce against an existing violation. If they miss the deadlines, they are legally bound to permit it.

 

[AK9R]

Some CC&Rs actually have antenna language you can work with. Phrases like "antennas are permitted if they are not visible from the neighboring lots, streets, or common areas" or "antennas are permitted if the owner, prior to installation, has received the written consent of the owners of all lots who would have views of the devices from their lots" or "antennas are permitted if prohibition of the installation, use, and maintenance of such device is specifically preempted and superseded by applicable governmental authority".

Bottom line is that you have to read and understand the CC&Rs before you sign them. Demand a copy of the CC&Rs at least a week before closing on a property so that you and your attorney can review them.

 

[KK4JUG]

Well stated but, all other things being equal, the ability or inability to erect an antenna is not likely to be a deal-breaker with most home buyers.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

By Florida law the CC&Rs must be furnished. Problem is the timing. You need to read those before making an offer. Having them at closing is useless. Demand them before tendering any offer. Don't trust assertions by seller or any agent. Demand in writing any response indicating none exist.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Bankers

It has become commonplace in the USA for people to make bad decisions and then ask to be bailed out.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[KK4JUG]

It has become commonplace in the USA for people to make bad decisions and then ask to be bailed out.

It's all part of that sense of entitlement. "I don't want to pay for my mistakes" and "Why should I work when there are programs out there to support me?"

 

[needairtime]

Banks... and Car manufacturers...

Nobody wants to pay for their mistakes including big business, even real estate billionaires that now leads the government declared bankruptcy and expected others to clean up their mess.

and the little guy asks for a little...err... big antenna on their lot...

 

[KE0GXN]

and the little guy asks for a little...err... big antenna on their lot...

Gets told to pound sand, not even a wire in a tree for you. Ford and Wells Fargo on the other hand.....

Moderator Edit: Even though Ford Motor Company was initially in favor of government bailouts for the "Big 3" (Chrysler, Ford, GM) and it's executives testified to that effect in Congressional hearings, Ford did not take any of the eventual bailout money themselves. Ford Credit did receive a $5.9 billion government-backed loan from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help Ford Credit avoid bankruptcy due to its having written too many bad loans and that money was used to retool Ford's manufacturing plants. That said, the subject of government bailouts of large corporations is more of a topic for the Tavern than the Amateur Radio forums.

 

[KE0GXN]

Moderator Edit: Even though Ford Motor Company was initially in favor of government bailouts for the "Big 3" (Chrysler, Ford, GM) and it's executives testified to that effect in Congressional hearings, Ford did not take any of the eventual bailout money themselves. Ford Credit did receive a $5.9 billion government-backed loan from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help Ford Credit avoid bankruptcy due to its having written too many bad loans and that money was used to retool Ford's manufacturing plants. That said, the subject of government bailouts of large corporations is more of a topic for the Tavern than the Amateur Radio forums.

My apologies Robert. Did not mean to turn this into a tavern thread.

 

[JasonTracy]

Having read through this, I'd like to just add that OTARD Rule overrides a private contract (HOA rules) so that people can use services from major media companies. (Big 4 national TV networks, DirecTV, Dish Network)
To be consistent, either amateur radio operators should be able to put up antennas that fit within the same dimensions as the OTARD Rule (just as user needairtime suggested), or we need have the OTARD Rule removed.
Can we agree that it should be one way or another?
Either we override the HOA for small antennas, or we don't.

 

[AK9R]

OTARD was created for the benefit of a large population. Just about every household, at the time OTARD was introduced, was receiving their television content via cable, satellite, or over-the-air. By comparison, one household out of, maybe, one hundred includes an amateur radio operator. Definitely not a large population. My argument being that OTARD benefited a much larger population than a PRB-1-for-CC&Rs would.

I also believe that OTARD was created so that the cable companies wouldn't have the monopoly that they have.

Of course, television content delivery is changing, people are streaming more, cable and satellite providers are scrambling to adapt to the new content delivery methods. Thusly, OTARD is less important now than when it was implemented.

 

[krokus]

Of course, television content delivery is changing, people are streaming more, cable and satellite providers are scrambling to adapt to the new content delivery methods. Thusly, OTARD is less important now than when it was implemented.

Actually, "cutting the cord" is gaining in popularity, I think the external antennas will gain in popularity, too. If so, that will benefit the ham community.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[JasonTracy]

It's been my observation that many cord cutters are putting up OTA antennas. OTARD makes it so that can happen.

Regardless of my own opinion on OTARD, I do not think it matters how popular a service is (amateur vs TV), the point is the right of the government to interfere with the HOA's rules to allow antennas to be deployed.

Any time the government gets involved with something like that, the goal should be that the rule applies equally to all, not just to one industry.
It shouldn't matter if someone needs an antenna for TV, FM/AM radio (which is also NOT covered by OTARD), wireless Internet, or amateur radio.
The rule should be that antennas within a certain size or elevation above the roofline are permitted, or they are not.

 

[krokus]

... I do not think it matters how popular a service is (amateur vs TV), the point is the right of the government to interfere with the HOA's rules to allow antennas to be deployed.

...

The rule should be that antennas within a certain size or elevation above the roofline are permitted, or they are not.

The point is that as more people want to put up antennas, for TV, the second part of the above can be argued. Since most people have no idea of one type of antenna over another, other antennas could be masqueraded as a TV antenna, at the least.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[needairtime]

Allright I've been on the fence on posting this and just had to do it now.

I'm not 100% sure all those "cable cutters" are really cutting cable TV service. Well they are, but they're not replacing with OTARD. Definitely not replacing with satellite TV service.

I think for the most part they are replacing with internet packet service of some sort, specifically for internet streaming! And whether it's cellular or cable or DSL, these are "HOA compliant" so there is nothing that hams can fly under the radar with.

This is still just a guess on my part, but as far as I can tell, it's the most plausible true meaning of "cutting the cable"... While a renaissance to OTA reception would be nice, I can't see it happening with the millennial population and others "requiring" on-demand content, which isn't happening OTA.

If there's some document proving this not to be the case I'd like to know...

 

[AK9R]

This is still just a guess on my part, but as far as I can tell, it's the most plausible true meaning of "cutting the cable".

No, I think you are correct. I don't believe that people watch their local network broadcast TV station for the locally-generated programming, except for the local news, weather, and sports. They watch their local network broadcast TV station for the network programming...which they can now get over the Internet and often without being bound by fixed broadcast schedules.

My impression of the "cord cutters" is that they are cancelling their expensive cable or satellite television packages. They still have to have the Internet, so they still have a "cord". But, they stream what they want to watch when they want to watch it.

In my area, all of the local network broadcast TV stations have pretty extensive web sites where you can get local news, weather, and sports and much of that content is being streamed. Therefore, there's no real need for an outside TV antenna...just use the Internet.

Since these "cord cutters" don't need an outside TV antenna, there's little need for rules or laws protecting them. Thus, I don't think the OTARD argument holds much water when it comes to amateur radio.

 

[JasonTracy]

Thus, I don't think the OTARD argument holds much water when it comes to amateur radio.

If you're saying OTARD should go away, and we should have the new law that allows amateur radio antennas to overrule HOAs, then you're being consistent. I think that may be what you're saying.

However, if you're saying that OTARD should stay, but it shouldn't be applied equally, I'm confused.

I don't understand how a DBS dish with LNB is less of an eyesore than a 1/2 wave 2m antenna on the roof.

How many use each service shouldn't be the deciding factor, the decision should be based on fairness and equality.

If amateur radio operators or FM radio enthusiasts have to decide where to live based off HOA rules, then DBS customers should have to do the same thing.

My impression of the "cord cutters" is that they are cancelling their expensive cable or satellite television packages. They still have to have the Internet, so they still have a "cord". But, they stream what they want to watch when they want to watch it.

When I cut my cord, I needed to use a roof-mount antenna to get Indy (my DMA) stations here in Columbus, IN. Currently, I'm on DirecTV, but with my antenna in the attic pointing to Louisville, and I can get a little under half of the channels if it isn't raining.

 

[AK9R]

At the time OTARD was created, you could reasonably expect that someone wanting to watch television content provided by the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS) would have to do so by watching their local broadcast TV station affiliated with one of those networks. Or, they could subscribe to a direct-broadcast satellite service (DirecTV or Dish) that carried the broadcast networks. Or, they could subscribe to a cable TV service (Brighthouse, Charter, Comcast, etc.) or a traditional telephone provider that also carried television programming (AT&T, Verizon, etc.). OTARD was necessary to protect television viewer access to content if they wanted an outside OTA TV antenna to receive their local broadcast stations or if they wanted a DBS dish.

I'm saying that the population of people who might benefit from OTARD with regard to television reception is much greater than the population of people who would benefit from an OTARD-like rule with regard to amateur radio.

That was then.

Now, you don't need an OTA antenna or a DBS satellite dish for any TV viewing. It's all streamed. Even content carried by the local broadcast stations. All you need is an Internet connection. This somewhat reduces the need for OTARD.

So, based on the limited application of an OTARD-like rule to amateur radio as compared to the much larger application of OTARD to television watchers and the reduced need for OTARD due to changes in television content delivery, I don't think it's a valid argument in support of an amateur radio preemption of CC&Rs. At one time, I did think that the existence of OTARD was justification for an OTARD-like rule that applied to amateur radio. But, I don't think that any more.

What this all comes down to, in my opinion, is land use rights and private contracts. I'm not crazy about the idea of government getting involved in private contracts. Yes, OTARD preempted provisions in those contracts with regard to OTA antennas and DBS dishes. But, OTARD was still an example of government meddling and I don't think the existence of OTARD is a valid argument when it comes to amateur radio.

 

[Lauri-CoyoteFrostbite]

.
I think the regulation that excludes small television dish antennas is just the laws people should be fearful of. In this case, it was written very specifically- To exempt 1 metre or less satellite TV dish's- with no wording to make it flexible or even sunset it after a time. Once you get a federal law, it might as well be written in stone.
.
There have been a lot of comments here on this Parity Bill- but I think the wording is so vague (ie: it stinks) that it couldn't be written into a law the way its presented. If people want a law, it has to be specific.
.
So there's my challenge- anyone want to take a stab at writing their idea of what it should say ? **
.
Its so easy to be critical- yet if there is a true desire for such a law, how should it be worded so it will become a good law ?- for as it is, its current form doesn't stand a chance.
Personally I want no Parity Bill, period- so I can't be criticised for not participating.
.
.
On a lighter note; The discussion of terrestrial television,---- while a step backwards from the richness of satellites- this opens up a whole new can of worms, No?.... The return of the classic outdoor beam antennas ..... ?
So the little government Ku band TV dishes are disappearing, now what ?... to be replaced by big, nasty and illegal TV beams ? Time for a new law ? Where does the craziness stop.
.
.
Personally I cut all the "cords" quite awhile ago. I find everything I want in television for free over the 'Net-- local station feeds, even my staple- Fox News.
.
That's not to say I don't enjoy playing around with real over-the-air TV. At home where I have no prohibitions, I have a 1.5 metre and a 3 metre dish for FTA television (Ku and C Band.) Its my modern day way of SWL'ing.....
I have this affinity for Telenovelas - and my C Band is currently park on Eutelsat 117 West (117°W)......
The Ku is on Galaxy 19; a lot of fun transponders there - many in languages I haven't a clue about- but they and the English language sites are fascinating.
.
.
Lauri

.
_____________________________________________________
.
** I didn't think there'd be any ...........
.