Amateur Radio Parity Act (HR 555) is FCC Decision

[ladn]

...It's Lauri Coyote's simple, guaranteed to pass Congress, Amateur Radio Parity Act (HR 123) :
it is as follows:
.
" If you have a two way hobby radio you are allowed, pursuant to state and local laws, to operate said equipment, barring any applicable restrictions"

Never work. It's in plain English, only one sentence and easy to read.

 

[belvdr]

I built my house in 2003, and became a licensed amateur in 2016.

I’d just like someone to explain why my neighbors have any right to dictate what I do on my property, when it does not impact them. I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that a reasonable amateur radio antenna impacts home values.

A neighborhood with a CCR is usually done so the properties maintain a particular look or feel. I'm not sure there's hard evidence that external antennas affect home values, but I can say I have personally avoided buying a house due to the look of the neighborhood, which included many external TV, and possibly CB, antennas.

The definition of "reasonable" when it comes to an antenna is very subjective. Some may call a G5RV reasonable and others may not.

That said, you bought the house knowing there were CCRs. If you don't like CCRs, don't move into property that has them. Your neighbors have a right to dictate what's on your property because you agreed to the CCR when you bought the place and moved in. You have the same right to dictate what's on their property.

 

[AK9R]

So, isn't that what this bill would do?

Unfortunately, no. The bill, as currently written, would require the amateur radio operator to go to the HOA to ask for permission. The bill, as currently written, requires the HOA to make "reasonable accommodation" without defining what that is.

I have no problem with getting a building permit from the local municipality to put up a tower, if that is required by the municipality's development ordinances. But, I should not have to go to the HOA to ask permission simply to hang a dipole across my backyard which is what the Amateur Radio Parity Act would require.

I posted this link before and I'll post it again: https://www.kkn.net/~n6tv/Just_Say_No_to_S.1534_v4.pdf

The simplest solution is for the FCC to amend PRB-1.

Agreed. And, the FCC has been asked by the amateur radio community to do that in the past. The FCC's response is along the lines of "we won't do that unless Congress tells us to". The first iteration of the Amateur Radio Parity Act basically did just that, but the association of HOAs got involved and their lobbyists convinced some in Congress to vote against it. So, now, we have this watered-down version of the ARPA that still can't get passed in Congress.

 

[Lauri-CoyoteFrostbite]

.
Originally Posted by JasonTracy.
.
"...........I’d just like someone to explain why my neighbors have any right to dictate what I do on my property, when it does not impact them. I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that a reasonable amateur radio antenna impacts home values........."
.
.
You have my sympathy, Jason-
.
Last night on a flight homeward I was seated next to a "K Street" attorney. We briefly touched on covenants (he saw over my shoulder what I was typing-- that "Coyote Bill" (HR123- aka: Lauri's Parity Act, **--- posted somewhere in this collection.)
.
"Are you in Congress?" he joked, opening a conversation.
.
We briefly discuss'd covenants, tho what was said would hardly have settle this issue (no one likes to talk shop when off the clock- me included.)
He did bring up an interesting angle, however- - that these covenants may contravene the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
.
Heavy stuff there, Cowboys......
.
Dropping the topic, I felt sure, for the right $$$ his firm would explore it for any and all interested......
.
.
_____________________________________________________________
.
.
But back to your comment Jason.
You have my sympathy, dear- but what you ask is so subjective how do you implement it ?
Let me go back days ago- when I mention'd an accommodation for hobbyist hog growers. If your neighbor wants to keep a "reasonable' number of pigs on his property, whose to tell him he can't ?... A spidery array of wires and aluminium poles may be beauty in the eyes of a radio ham, but a bane on a community assembled with certain ideas of the esthetic.
.
.
Personally, I love animals- and I own jointly with a neighbor, several very sweet, adorable burros. But do you want me to move in next door to you with them ? Ever hear a "Rocky Mountain Canary" salute the new day, or muck'd out a flowery scent'd paddock ?... you'd be first in line to your HOA.
.
Its been said so often here, and said in so many ways; if you want to change the covenants, do it thru your HOA. If it can't be done, live within them... if that doesn't do it, then find a place that will accommodate your hobby- but leave the Federal Government out of it.
.
.....A First Amendment issue ??!... OMG !............ Give us all some air !
.
.
.
Lauri
.
.
.
** I agree Ladn, it would never pass- its far too simple, and mine doesn't say or do a thing... the best type of federal law
.

 

[JasonTracy]

.
....but what you ask is so subjective how do you implement it ?
.

The mock law I wrote earlier, which to W9BU's point, would be much more black and white than what this current HR 555 proposes.

I think we could drill down the specifics a bit more:

A homeowner or renter may not be prevented by any local government or HOA from constructing the following for personal use:
-A single tower no greater than 10 feet above the roofline of the highest point under the person's exclusive control
-Total tower plus antenna length is less than distance to the property line from the location of the tower
-Tower, including any supporting structures, is less than 3 feet wide
-Antennas do not exceed 6 feet in any dimension. If multiple antennas, they must be contained within a 6' by 6' by 6' area.

That gives one tower and however many antennas you can put in that 6' cube. It is absolutely a compromise, and it doesn't cover all types of antennas, but gives more than exists today. It also doesn't add restrictions that don't already exist.

I'm open to debating the specifics, but I agree with W9BU that the current wording is faulty.

 

[krokus]

Unfortunately, no. The bill, as currently written, would require the amateur radio operator to go to the HOA to ask for permission. The bill, as currently written, requires the HOA to make "reasonable accommodation" without defining what that is.

When PRB-1 was implemented, the FCC stated the ambiguity was intentional, as what was reasonable in one setting is not necessarily reasonable in another setting. They did not want to get into setting definitions, and figured settling debates on what is reasonable would be more productive.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[KK4JUG]

I built my house in 2003, and became a licensed amateur in 2016.

I’d just like someone to explain why my neighbors have any right to dictate what I do on my property, when it does not impact them. I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that a reasonable amateur radio antenna impacts home values.

If you're in an HOA, they have the right because you signed a contract giving them the right.

Playing devil's advocate, have you ever seen a study or survey that made a determination one way or another?

Somehow I can envision one of your neighbors, upon learning you're a ham, saying, "Oh, that's nice."

But when he's walking away, he's thinking, "Bless his heart. I hope he doesn't put up one of those damned antennas, though."

That said, I'm a ham and I hope you get your antenna.

 

[JasonTracy]

That said, I'm a ham and I hope you get your antenna.

Right now, it's all academic. I'm still saving for a proper base radio and antenna.

That said, when the time comes, I'll plead for an exception or for an update the restrictions.

If I'm rejected, I'll inform them that following OTARD, I'm going to remove the Channel Master CM-4228HD from my attic and place it on my roof so that I can get full access to the Indy DMA channels, rather than settle for the smattering of Louisville stations I get now. It will be at least 6 feet off the roofline to make it over my neighbor's house to the north and over the trees.

Since some of them are VHF, I may also need to setup a VHF Yagi to reach those.

I think they would prefer the simple 2m/70cm base antenna I'd like to install just above the roof instead of those huge TV antennas, but we'll see.

If you're in an HOA, they have the right because you signed a contract giving them the right.

I'm glad so many people have been able to find homes that their spouse agrees with, or is unmarried. For me, I didn't want to be in a HOA, but my bride, while not wanting an HOA either, wanted to be near town and we wanted to build more than that.

There was no option in our town to build without being in a HOA. You either build out in the sticks, which my bride did her whole life and hated, or you build in a HOA.

Unlike the anarchist friend I met in this thread, I believe that contracts should have limits on how much of our rights we can sign away.
I don't think it should be legal to sign a contract for $5,000 that makes me a slave, to take an extreme example.
I think most people would also agree that we should have limits on contracts. Most of us, excluding the anarchists (and various others, such as extreme Libertarians*), are simply debating how far that limit should go.

*No offense meant to the Libertarians. They're the only political party I was every a card-holding member of.

 

[alcahuete]

Unlike the anarchist friend I met in this thread, I believe that contracts should have limits on how much of our rights we can sign away.
I don't think it should be legal to sign a contract for $5,000 that makes me a slave, to take an extreme example.

Well and as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what a bill like this does. It almost makes ham radio a legally protected activity, and makes a contract that limits/prohibits such activity an illegal contract.

 

[mmckenna]

There was no option in our town to build without being in a HOA. You either build out in the sticks, which my bride did her whole life and hated, or you build in a HOA.

So, you had a choice, build in the sticks and have all the antennas you want, or keep your wife happy?

I'll say you made the right choice.

But it's still a choice. No one forced you to buy into an HOA controlled area, other than your partner. Sounds like maybe this is an issue you should have taken up with your wife a while ago.

And, I think that any laws or recommendations made need to be careful about singling out a specific hobby as being "special". There are certainly radio astronomy hobbyists that would love to have a nice big dish in their yard. And then there's Lauri's pig farming hobbyists. And what about the guy that really likes Harley's? You know, the "loud pipes saves lives" guys?
Personally I really like camping, and my wife really wants me to buy a trailer rather than using a tent. I think I should be allowed to park my 40 foot fifth wheel trailer on my front lawn so I don't have to pay storage somewhere else. After all, why do my neighbors get to decide what I do, it's not their lawn.

Hyperbole, yes.

And I hate the "slipper slope" term, so I won't use that, but I will say that amateur radio/ARRL/whoever, playing the "public safety" card and claiming that amateur radio operators need special treatment starts to get a little slick around the edges, and I do seem to feel the floor tilting a bit.

After all, being able to call 911 from a cell phone is considered "public safety", and I've got a 60x100 lot, I should be able to lease some space out to AT&T to put up a cell site on it. It's my house, and all those agreements I signed when I bought my house should be null and void because technology changed and I really want to do this

There goes the hyperbole express again, right on time.

 

[Hans13]

If I'm rejected, I'll inform them that following OTARD, I'm going to remove the Channel Master CM-4228HD from my attic and place it on my roof so that I can get full access to the Indy DMA channels, rather than settle for the smattering of Louisville stations I get now. It will be at least 6 feet off the roofline to make it over my neighbor's house to the north and over the trees.

Since some of them are VHF, I may also need to setup a VHF Yagi to reach those.

I think they would prefer the simple 2m/70cm base antenna I'd like to install just above the roof instead of those huge TV antennas, but we'll see.

That's how I always handled government and quasi-governmental type groups; utilize as many of the most unpalatable (to them and possibly even you) options, even unrelated options, allowable. If one does their level best attempt, what one wants will be far more agreeable than what one is doing or openly planning on doing. When I was much younger, I gave grumpy bosses peptic ulcers and sleepless nights this way.

I would start by looking at the process available to me; change the rules if possible. If not (and what I want is important enough to me), then I would season their willingness to compromise through the above tactic or the implied threat of the above tactic.

 

[Hans13]

I don't think it should be legal to sign a contract for $5,000 that makes me a slave, to take an extreme example.

Well, in this situation, you aren't exactly a slave. That's a bit of a stretch.

 

[JasonTracy]

Well, in this situation, you aren't exactly a slave. That's a bit of a stretch.

No, I completely agree. I'm simply using an extreme example to point out that most of us have limits on what rights we should be able to sign away.

The debate is simply about where the line is drawn, not if there is a line to draw.

As for the other comments related to amateur radio, I'm trying hard not to make the case for amateur radio.

I think a replacement for HR 555 shouldn't focus on any one group. If FM radio listeners need a reasonable antenna, then I think they should be able to have one. Same for someone that wants to put up a radio astronomy dish that is basically the same size as a dish used by DirecTV.

The service being used shouldn't matter.

If we agree that OTA antennas and DBS dishes should be permitted, then we *should* be able to agree that any other antenna that is the same size as these should also be permitted.

 

[Hans13]

The debate is simply about where the line is drawn, not if there is a line to draw.

That is not the only place to draw the line. That line allows only for external influence and completely discounts internal influence. To throw up one's hands and exclaim that external parties are the only way to influence or limit a contract is to give up self-determination and control. The slave comparison is one of dire circumstance, calling ultimately for violence; internally and externally. What we are discussing here calls for: trying to change the rules from within, visible protests, making one a pain in the behind within the extremes of the rules, possible "unwinnable" legal filings to make it too expensive for the HOA, moving, etc.

Even the Supreme Court recognizes that "only belligerents have rights." Assertion of one's rights and one's will begins with the person being oppressed. To look to external force immediately assigns the person to status of dependent.

 

[Lauri-CoyoteFrostbite]

.
.
.
I'm quoting.......
.
"A homeowner or renter may not be prevented by any local government or HOA from constructing the following for personal use:
"-A single tower no greater than 10 feet above the roofline of the highest point under the person's exclusive control
"-Total tower plus antenna length is less than distance to the property line from the location of the tower
"-Tower, including any supporting structures, is less than 3 feet wide
"-Antennas do not exceed 6 feet in any dimension. If multiple antennas, they must be contained within a 6' by 6' by 6' area."
.
.
_____________________________________
.

Jason, I really have to admire your dogged commitment to this cause- but I can, for better or worse, shred it in minutes. This is not to say you haven't good ideas, but they are now TOO specific.
.
For instance, "-A single tower no greater than 10 feet above the roof line .......
.
Is this a single story home or a multi-storied building?...is the tower mounted on the structure ie: the roof, or is it free standing somewhere on the property? It also does nothing to address what kind of antenna is mounted on that tower (and I have seen some really hideously grotesque beams mounted on tripods barely feet above a roof line.) And the guy lines? what about their foot print, or are only free standing towers allow'd?
.
"-Total tower plus antenna length is less than distance to the property line from the location of the tower.................
.
This may violate any number of local building codes. If I recall correctly of those I have seen, there are formulae for height v.s distance to the property line for residential v.s commercial properties. Want the Feds to re-write local building codes ??
.
"-Tower, including any supporting structures, is less than 3 feet wide
..... and
"-Antennas do not exceed 6 feet in any dimension. If multiple antennas, they must be contained within a 6' by 6' by 6' area."
.
I'll combine the last two-
.
An antenna with a three foot wide base (9 square feet) is elephantine !! ... especially if it only is allowed to exceed the roof line by ten feet. If you put a six foot square'd antenna on top of that?... It will be too worthlessly small for any band below 6 metre's....(tho a real dandy platform for my 6 foot open array C -Band radar.... )
.
_____________________________________________
.
Jason, sweetie, I am not picking on you-- your heart is in the right place. But did you ever read Don Quixote, ..... his jousting with windmills ?
There's not a lot of difference here.
.
I'd put my energy into creatively working in or around your covenants... not taking on this gargantuan federal government windmill.
.
.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." ---------- Thomas Jefferson
.
.
Lauri
.

 

[JasonTracy]

.
I'd put my energy into creatively working in or around your covenants... not taking on this gargantuan federal government windmill.
.

Don’t worry, this doesn’t take much of my energy. Discuss this on a forum is just good sport.
You certainly won’t see me marching on Washington for this!

I do plan on working around / through my HOA when the time comes.

For now, what about just modifying OTARD so it is uniform? Instead of just OTA TV and DBS, why not anything else that fits into the same or smaller envelope?

 

[k9wkj]

just to toss some muck in the pot and stir it around
the first subsection of CFR part 97

§97.1 Basis and purpose.
The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles:

(a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.

(b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art.

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.

(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

(e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.


i cant see any where in that the word "hobby"
but i do see the word "service" several times

so comparing hams to FM radio listeners or TV watchers isnt the same sort of fruits

back to the topic
take OTARD and scratch out the word "televison" and sub the words "amateur radio service"
chew on that for a bit

but really, having to ask permission to put up a invisible wire lest one become a federal law violator, isn't what we want or need
pushing legislation just to be able to say "look we did something" is wrong

 

[JasonTracy]

but really having to ask permission to put up a invisible wire lest one become a federal law violator, isn't what we want or need

pushing legislation just to be able to say "look we did something" is wrong

You know, others here have been saying the same in various ways, but the way you describe it here connects with me.

Consider me converted *against* HR 555.

 

[k9wkj]

makes me wonder if the "look we did something" legislation isnt being driven by the leagues recent revelation that they have been having membership troubles
is this a membership drive?

 

[krokus]

... being able to call 911 from a cell phone is considered "public safety", and I've got a 60x100 lot, I should be able to lease some space out to AT&T to put up a cell site on it. It's my house, and all those agreements I signed when I bought my house should be null and void because technology changed and I really want to do this

Bringing a commercial entity into the discussion changes the basis, and a business interest is still subject to zoning restrictions.

Sent using Tapatalk