In article , says...
For starters, most hams that put up towers with elaborate antenna systems
would take them down when they moved (unless they became a silent key),
because these things are not petty investments, they cost a lot of money.
Some installations cost more than a new mid-sized car.

True. I've seen some pretty elaborate antenna farms, even here in
suburban Orange County, CA -- some even in my neighborhood. (Only part
of our neighborhood is condos, the rest being single-family residences
(houses), and the latter have some pretty nice antenna installations.)

The installation of
the tower itself is held to much higher standard by law than the house
itself is.

Sad but true.

And again, unlike someone who puts up an old car on blocks, or paints their
home in rainbow glow paint, hams perform a public service. There currently
exists a rule within the FCC that disallows municipalities preventing
amateur operators from erecting antennas, and a similar rule for CC&R's is
in the works.

At least, we hope it's still "in the works." How long has that been
rattling around the halls of Congress now, two years? Any bets on which
comes on the scene first in the US: a code-free amateur radio service,
or a PRB-1 bill to cover CC&Rs?

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:

wrote:

"God Bless America" for the freedoms we still have.

I don't know whether I'll take your way or the spanish way. Spanish
federal antenna laws have gone a long way for the last 15 years.

Allow me to outline the basic principles:

1. Acess to all information services is free. A community, landlord, HOA
or other entity may not oppose to the installation of technical
infrastucture in the "part of the building for exclusive use of the
interested party" or on the "common surfaces of the building shared by
all the users of the property" required to access a particular
information service. The interested party shall cover the costs of
installation and of restoring the common areas to their initial
condition upon termination of usage of the system.

2. If more than one party is interested in the use of a particular
service, they must used shared portions of the same infrastructure and
share the cost. i.e. 5 tenants want Satellite service "A", so they have
to use the same dish. I want to get only FTA channels, with a rotator,
so I get to put up my own dish, using the other tenant's pole and tubes
for the installation, and I heve to reimburse them proportionally for that.

3. SWL and Scanning ist, strangely enough, seen as "access to pubically
available information services". When I put up my first discone on the
roof, the chairman of the owner's board came out, wanting to tell me
"You can't, it's gonna cause TVI". I told him that it was only for
receiving. He asked "What sort of stuff" - I answer "Radio stations fotm
around the world". "Well", he says "I'll need to look if thats allowed"
- "You needn't" I say "I already informed myself" and hand him a
printout of the legal text.

4. Hams are different, but also enjoy more privileges. A ham only gets
the letters for the STATION in Spain, not for the license. So he must
apply for them providing a file with all the elements of his station,
including the radiating ones. Antennas must include calculations about
wind and snow load, guying, etc. Once the application is made, the
spokesman of the homeowners association gets a letter from the telecomm
authority, and has 15 days to oppose. "We don't wand that kind of stuff"
or "All he other tenants have oppsed" are not valid reasons.

Oh, and BTW, CBers must also be individually registered with the provice
telecomm authority, and get a callsign ECB(Province
number)(Three-letter-suffix) and provide initial proof that they
acquired their equipment legally and *with* valid and current type
approval. They also heve to emit their callsign "when beginning and
before endig communication" and "at 5 minutes interval in longer
communications". We have amzingly little complaints about RFI and
similar issues here...

Yes, it's bureaucratic, but what the hell....

Volker Kerkhoff wrote:
1. Acess to all information services is free.

Does God provide it as a miracle? That's the only
way it could be free. I'm willing to bet taxpayers
pay for it and all other "free" governmental services.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Volker Kerkhoff wrote:

1. Acess to all information services is free.


Does God provide it as a miracle? That's the only
way it could be free. I'm willing to bet taxpayers
pay for it and all other "free" governmental services.

Should have specified... Free (as in free speech, not as in free lunch)
not necessarily means free of charge or other contractual terms, but
"must be acessible to anyone wanting to access it and pay the associated
charges and obey the contractual terms that go with it. Alas, I still
can't subscribe to a digital Satellite Pay-TV package sold and marketed
to germany in Spain, because the service provider does not hold a
license for selling in Spain, but I can access the 70-something
Free-to-air Sat cgannels in german, and put up a dish for it, and nobody
can legelly prevent me from doing so.

73,

Volker

Cecil wrote,

Volker Kerkhoff wrote:
1. Acess to all information services is free.

Does God provide it as a miracle? That's the only
way it could be free. I'm willing to bet taxpayers
pay for it and all other "free" governmental services.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


Yes, like fire and police "protection." I got chewed out
by a Foster City, Ca. motorcycle officer yesterday for
slowing down as I passed a grade school when the
school wasn't in session. That chewing out was free
in the sense I didn't have to pay for it at the time and
was theoretically available to everyone, but the cop's
salary is paid by Foster City taxpayers.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:56:45 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

On 18 Jan 2004 18:59:54 GMT, (Tdonaly) wrote:

Yes, like fire and police "protection." I got chewed out
by a Foster City, Ca. motorcycle officer yesterday for
slowing down as I passed a grade school when the
school wasn't in session.

_________________________________________________ ________

I'd write a letter to the Chief. Cops have better things to do than
that.


Waste of time -- the last thing the chief will admit to
publicly is that one of "our own" was wrong. We have plenty of bozos
like this out here.

On or about Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:00:43 +0100, Volker Kerkhoff
wrote about the following in article
:


Should have specified... Free (as in free speech, not as in free lunch)
not necessarily means free of charge or other contractual terms, but "must

With a statement like that, I knew that you were a Linux user even before
looking at the message headers...


--
Alex / AB2RC
Yaesu Ft100 software for Linux http://www.qsl.net/kc2ivl
Why do they call Radio "Wireless", between my shack and antennas
I must have over 1500 feet of wire!

Interesting discussion. As a the former treasurer of a large
complex(250 units), I was the chair of the roofing committee. The
roofs were all failing on 30 buildings and an inspector was hired to
review them. The junk that was attached to the roofs was one of the
major problems. Cables penetrating the surface etc.
In one case, a TV antenna was screwed right into the roof. When it
comes to common property like that, the association cannot allow
individuals to attach their own private stuff wherever they want.
So, homeowners can put up a TV antenna, but the association has to
protect the roofs, at a minimum, from damage.
I don't know how you can accomplish both.
Pat W

Establish a procedure by which a professional installer places all
antennas on the roof. Failure to use the approved installer can result
in the homeowner paying for replacement of everything.

Dave N

PatW wrote:
Interesting discussion. As a the former treasurer of a large
complex(250 units), I was the chair of the roofing committee. The
roofs were all failing on 30 buildings and an inspector was hired to
review them. The junk that was attached to the roofs was one of the
major problems. Cables penetrating the surface etc.
In one case, a TV antenna was screwed right into the roof. When it
comes to common property like that, the association cannot allow
individuals to attach their own private stuff wherever they want.
So, homeowners can put up a TV antenna, but the association has to
protect the roofs, at a minimum, from damage.
I don't know how you can accomplish both.
Pat W

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:21:37 GMT, Alex V Flinsch
wrote:

On or about Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:00:43 +0100, Volker Kerkhoff
wrote about the following in article
:


Should have specified... Free (as in free speech, not as in free lunch)
not necessarily means free of charge or other contractual terms, but "must

With a statement like that, I knew that you were a Linux user even before
looking at the message headers...

Well, no I am a user of whatever operating system my customer expects
me to, as long as I have the skills for it. This may involve Linux,
Solaris, various flavours of Windows, QNX, OpenVMS, Tru64, HP/UX. At
home, btw I use a linux box for a Firewall and Mail / News Gateway to
my DSL, and another one as a "playground" and File Server. In my radio
/ SWL corner I have a Windows-based PC since most of the software,
starting with ILGDB and ending with Digital Modes is simply not
available for Linux. I choose whatever tool does the job, and this may
involve all of the above.

Ah, yes, and although I have a goatee (which I keep short and well
trimmed) I feature a clean, short haircut, unlike some other gentlemen
in Linux advocacy.

Anyways, could this "free" be so misunderstood? When I hear the USA
being referred to as "The Land of the Free" I don't immediately think
"Cool, gotta go there for my next holidays, must be cheap", even
though I am not a native english speaker.