Rick,
I'll call you on this one.
IZO
From: Rick Hiller -- W5RH <[email protected]>
To: Paul Easter <[email protected]>; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB
<[email protected]>
Cc: John Chauvin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE
SAME as last year's version
Not quite sure why you think that we have a time limit but the HOA does not.
Yes, I read what it says, but I also read what they are required to do. In
either of the requirments list, I do not see the words "immediately" or 'in 10
days" or "by the next full moon", etc.
Also, again, not kidding this time..... "installation", as used in paragraph
Sec 3 b 1, is a verb not a noun. To me, looks like grandfathering is
applicable.
Rick Hiller The Radio Hotel -- W5RH
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Paul Easter via BVARC <[email protected]> wrote:
Especially with this new chairman, we have an opportunity to tweak this when it
hits the FCC.
I agree, the way it is written, it could cause trouble with some HOAs.
Hopefully, people have better things to do than roam around looking for stealth
antennas.
If they come into my back yard there will be hell to pay.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM, John Chauvin via BVARC <[email protected]>
wrote:
Re Question 1 re HOA also must do something, yes it is true. HOWEVER (as Pete
cites clearly in his October 2016 article), the HOAs have no time limit so they
can drag it on forever, probably beyond some of our lifetimes. Who is going to
sue them one at a time to act promptly? HOWEVER, those hams with existing
non-approved antennas will be in IMMEDIATE violation of the federal laws.
Re Question 2, therein lies the great paradox. This has been publically
commented on by a knowledgeable attorney and he is not the one that created
this legislation. We can all read. If you haven't already read Sec. 3, b (1)
of the bill, here is what it says:". . . require any licensee in an amateur
radio service to notify and obtain prior approval from a community association
concerning installation of an outdoor antenna;"That doesn't need a Doctorate of
Law or a PhD in English to understand what it says.
Re JP's comments about FCC comment period, such is generally true. Since this
would be mandated by federal action however, they have to follow the letter of
congress's mandate so though the effectiveness of such comments might influence
some grammatically or similar wording, the FCC has no choice but to do what
Congress says, not what we want nor even what the FCC wants. The FCC might
even not have to have such a comment period as it is mandated by congress and
it would not be a regulation that the FCC will have initiated. Remember, the
House bill cites that within 120 days the FCC must change Part 97 so any and
all of this comment period, etc., will be completed and it will be law (Part 97
revisions finalized) within 120 days of it being signed by Trump.
Re Tom's, K5RC, comments, I love it.
IZO
From: Rick Hiller -- W5RH <[email protected]>
To: John Chauvin <[email protected]>; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB
<[email protected]>
Cc: TDXS List <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: [BVARC] Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's
version
>From W5RH
Question(s) 1 ......Would not this same law make it a federal offense if the
HOA does NOT provide "resonable written rules" or does not "constitute
(establish) the minimum practicible restrition". Wouldn't they be in violation
of federal law if they continue to "preclude amateur radio on its face or as
applied" ? (See constitutional law definition.) Would they not be in
violation if they fail to permit licensee to "install and maintain an effective
outdoor antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of the
licensee"?
There are statutes in this law that require the HOA to do certain things under
the law. If they don't do these things, would this not make them in vilolation
of federal law?
Question 2.......why have we not heard from the legal minds within BVARC or
TDXS or even ARRL? I know we have lawyers within each of the clubs. ARRL has
a lawyer who stated that it is a good law and would be willing to have a phone
conversation with ITT (I think). Did this ever happen? BVARC members have
voiced opposition (me too) to the ARRL BOD members, etc. and have yet to
receive any kind of response in return. These BOD folks are hams just like us,
they belong to the same organization and they are volunteers, yes, but their
division constituants deserve at least some type of "thanks for your comment"
response. Even better would be a knowledgeable reply to our concerns. Has
anyone received such?
I have read Pete's expose and do not disagree, but then I read thru HR 555 and,
using the Google'd laymen's terminology translations for the legal verbiage,
tried to apply some untainted logic. See Question(s) 1 above.
Yes, I agree that existing (and future) antennas would be in violation of this
law if not approved by the HOA authority, but I also see that the HOA is under
certain requirements of this law to provide their constituant/member/the Ham
certain specific allowances.
73...Rick
Rick Hiller The Radio Hotel -- W5RH
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 6:30 PM, John Chauvin via BVARC <[email protected]> wrote:
There is some discussion that the current Amateur Radio Parity Act is not the
same absurd legislation as the one that missed passage by 1 senate vote last
year. THAT IS NOT SO. IT IS THE SAME LEGISLATION! It is indeed the REVISED
version from May 2016; The original, which wasn't as absurd, was dated March 4,
2015. To see this for yourself, go to the Congress website at:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 115th-congress/house-bill/555/ text?r=44 The
ARRL website also cites that it is the same that almost passed last year.
It keeps the infamous requirement cited in Sec. 3, b (1) that immediately makes
it a federal crime for anyone that has a stealth, visible or any, antenna
already erected (or erects such antenna) that hasn't been approved by the HOA.
Count the people in TDXS and BVARC that you know that have this. This includes
J-Poles, 10M wire dipoles or any other such minuscule antennas whether or not
visible from the street.
I won't even begin to touch on the other 11 points that Pete cited in his
October 2016 BVARC Newsletter article, Page 3 available for viewing on
BVARC.org That too speaks for itself.
BVARC and TDXS should form Antenna tear-down parties once the law passes and
Part 97 is changed.
John, K5IZO
______________________________ _________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
______________________________ _________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
--
Paul Easter
Technical Director SBE CPBE WW5PA
Houston Christian Broadcasters/KHCB networks2424 South Blvd.
Houston, TX 77098
(713) 520-5200
______________________________ _________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/ listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
_______________________________________________
BVARC mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.bvarc.org/mailman/listinfo/bvarc_bvarc.org
