Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[John Chauvin via BVARC]

Rick,
I'll call you on this one. 
IZO

  From: Rick Hiller -- W5RH 
 To: Paul Easter ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB 
 
Cc: John Chauvin 
 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  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  
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 
 To: John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB 
 
Cc: TDXS List 
 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, 

Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC]

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 
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 
> 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 
>> *To:* John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <
>> bvarc@bvarc.org>
>> *Cc:* TDXS List 
>> *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 

Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[Paul Easter via BVARC]

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 
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 
> *To:* John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <
> bvarc@bvarc.org>
> *Cc:* TDXS List 
> *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 
> 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, 

Re: [BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[Rick Hiller -- W5RH via BVARC]

John,

My antenna is already "installed", so why would I have to contact the HOA
concerning the "installation" of an outside antenna?  Said half in jest.

Can you reference me to Tom Tamorinas K5RC commentsI have not read them.

Thanks!  Rick

Rick Hiller
*The Radio Hotel*  -- W5RH



On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM, John Chauvin via BVARC 
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 
> *To:* John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB <
> bvarc@bvarc.org>
> *Cc:* TDXS List 
> *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 
> 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 

[BVARC] Correct - BUT . . . Re: Amateur Radio Parity Act IS THE SAME as last year's version

[John Chauvin via BVARC]

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 
 To: John Chauvin ; BRAZOS VALLEY AMATEUR RADIO CLUB 
 
Cc: TDXS List 
 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  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