Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:38:34 CST, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote:

I think homeowners are justified in seeking relief from _government_
regulation of antennas, since such rules are not the sort of thing local
governments do well. Deed restrictions, however, are something I think
the government should stay out of unless there's a _very_ compelling
public interest.

But there is a compelling public interest, Bill, there certainly is.
--


Phil,

Not being a lawyer, I won't attempt to argue the law with you ;-).

I think that "public interest" is, by its nature, subject to debate.
It's also something that is debated only when the "public" doesn't know
what's good for it: after all, if everybody agreed that there should be
hams and that they should have antennas, there would be no problem. That
means that decisions about public interest _always_ involve political
risk, and politicians are the most risk-averse group on the planet.

I have said before, and will repeat he there used to be a de facto
agreement between hams and the military. We were a trained pool of
operators who could be drafted and placed in service quickly during
wars: that's why the NTS is a mirror of the military network model.
Since the military wanted hams to be (pardon the pun) up to speed, it
defended our frequency assignments in an era when there was fierce
competition for HF from short-wave broadcasting, point-to-point
services, and even other government agencies.

Times have changed: military electronics are too complicated and secret
for civilian training to be meaningful, and code is passé, so hams
aren't high on the pentagon's list-of-friends right now. Ergo, no free
ride at the allocation conferences or inter-agency sessions, and no
"public interest" in keeping hams on the air.

In addition to the military connection, we were also the beneficiary of
the government's push to increase science education in the wake of the
Sputnik panic and ensuing Apollo programs during the cold war. Movies
and periodicals showed hams as young wizards, with attendant benefits:
our neighbors, by and large, admired us and looked the other way when we
wanted a beam.

However, that is also in the past. International phone calls are now
routine, cell phones have removed any sense of wonder from mobile radio,
the Internet has given curious children access to different points of
view and cultures from all over the world. Small wonder, then, that
aging baby-boomers, eager for their own quarter-acre of paradise, have
endorsed deed restrictions and other ways to prevent their neighbors
from darkening their view of the skyline.

So, we come to the question of what the public "needs". We hams are no
longer valuable just for our everyday skills, such as Morse, and we're
not nearly good enough at providing other public services that might
justify overriding local ordinances. Unless Uncle Sam can be convinced
that Amateur Radio is once again relevant and worth keeping, I don't see
the government stepping in where contracts are involved: there's too
much political risk and no pressing need for intervention.

YMMV.

Bill

--
73,

Bill W1AC

(Remove "73" and change top level domain for direct replies)