|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
In the gospel of Luke Chapter 14, verses 28-30, he admonishes us: "For which of
you, intending to build a tower, sits not down first and counts the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish." -- 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Jul 11, 8:45 pm, "KØHB" wrote:
In the gospel of Luke Chapter 14, verses 28-30, he admonishes us: "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sits not down first and counts the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he has laid th e foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to moc k him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish." LOL I wish He had gone on and extended the PRB-1 ruling to include the pesky CC&R's that will forever keep me from building a tower without having to move first. I'm sure the creator of the universe has the proper authority, even if the FCC doesn't think it does. I so wish that the FCC could be persuaded to reconsider us hams in their limited preemption of CC&R's and give us the same standing as TV antennas and satellite dishes. All I want is reasonable accommodation here. As it stands I’m left to what ever I can cram into the attic and nothing higher than the top of the roof on my single story ranch. If I could only put up a few supports and a 35’ vertical, what a difference it would make. -= KC4UAI =- |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:18:13 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:
I so wish that the FCC could be persuaded to reconsider us hams in their limited preemption of CC&R's and give us the same standing as TV antennas and satellite dishes. They can be persuaded the same way that the OTARD (TV antenna and satellite dishes) got covered -- the big money went to The Congress and "persuaded" them to pass a law directing the FCC to exercise preemptive jurisdiction. At the last go-around visiting the issue, the FCC said in several words that until such "direction" comes about with the ham community, they will do nothing. Every time that such a bill is introduced into The Congress, it goes nowhere. Lest I be called an apologist, during my years on the FCC staff I ticked off my non-ham boss when I stood up for the ham community's needs every time. In retirement I "earn my keep" as an ARRL Volunteer Counsel by assisting amateur licensees in "bringing the light" to those municipalities over which the FCC's PRB-1 can exercise preemptive jurisdiction. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
(insert standard "I Am Not A Lawyer" disclaimer HERE)
On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, KC4UAI wrote: On Jul 11, 8:45 pm, "KØHB" wrote: I so wish that the FCC could be persuaded to reconsider us hams in their limited preemption of CC&R's and give us the same standing as TV antennas and satellite dishes. As K2ASP says, that action has to come from Congress. IMHO, part of the problem is that CC&Rs are a different thing than zoning ordinances and other govt. regs. Most anti-antenna rules are essentially private contracts that you, the buyer, agreed to when you bought the place. Asking for preemption means you want out of that part of the deal. That's a tough sell! It is my understanding that what drove the OTARD process for satellite TV was that the satellite TV companies pushed the case, and invested the sizable $$$ resources necessary to win. IIRC, their argument was essentially that the no-TV-antennas CC&Rs effectively created a cable-TV monopoly by making it impossible for some people to choose satellite TV, since the dish has to have a clear view of the sky where the satellite is. Regular broadcast TV was added to the mix a bit later, basically on the same argument. There was big money at stake because the satellite TV folks saw a huge part of the TV market being off-limits to them because of no-satellite-dish CC&Rs. All I want is reasonable accommodation here. The problem is, who determines what's reasonable? In some places a clothesline in the back yard is considered an eyesore! As it stands I’m left to what ever I can cram into the attic and nothing higher than the top of the roof on my single story ranch. Well, it's a buyer's market now.... --- Besides pushing Congress, one of the things I think we hams could do to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or even worse, "just a hobby". While most hams do radio simply as an avocation, IMHO the word "hobby" carries with it a sort of meaning that it's not a serious thing worthy of protection. You'll never hear folks who do sports or art nonprofessionally refer to those activities as "just a hobby". Nor will the term be used by volunteers who donate their time and efforts to a variety of causes. IOW, "hobbies" don't get the kind of respect we want amateur radio to have. If we hams describe amateur radio as "just a hobby", the folks who want to restrict us may think "well, if they say it's just a hobby, what's the problem with a few restrictions?" and "there are all sorts of hobbies that these homes don't accomodate, like raising horses, target shooting, or pleasure boating with a boat that won't fit in the garage. What's different about your radio hobby?" You can be sure the satellite TV people pushing for the OTARD ruling never, ever referred to watching TV as "a hobby", even though their viewers don't get paid to watch TV. 73 de Jim, N2EY If I could only put up a few supports and a 35’ vertical, what a difference it would make. |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
Phil Kane wrote:
Lest I be called an apologist, during my years on the FCC staff I ticked off my non-ham boss when I stood up for the ham community's needs every time. In retirement I "earn my keep" as an ARRL Volunteer Counsel by assisting amateur licensees in "bringing the light" to those municipalities over which the FCC's PRB-1 can exercise preemptive jurisdiction. Your efforts, and those of your peers, are much appreciated. 73, Steve KB9X |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 -0400, N2EY wrote:
IMHO, part of the problem is that CC&Rs are a different thing than zoning ordinances and other govt. regs. Most anti-antenna rules are essentially private contracts that you, the buyer, agreed to when you bought the place. Asking for preemption means you want out of that part of the deal. That's a tough sell! Morally, I would suggest that when a given CC&R restriction is universal - when *every* acceptable property in an area carries identical anti-antenna restrictions - then that contract provision was NOT agreed to. It was *forced* on a buyer who does not have the option of buying a property 5x the size (and 5x the price) of anything else in the neighborhood/living on a street with four crack houses/living 50 miles from work/etc.. In a moral world, the amateur should be able to invalidate anti-antenna restrictions by showing that no comparable property was available that lacked those restrictions. Of course, in the real legal and political world, no such right exists or is likely to come into being... It is my understanding that what drove the OTARD process for satellite TV was that the satellite TV companies pushed the case, and invested th e sizable $$$ resources necessary to win. IIRC, their argument was essentially that the no-TV-antennas CC&Rs effectively created a cable-T V monopoly by making it impossible for some people to choose satellite TV , since the dish has to have a clear view of the sky where the satellite is. Regular broadcast TV was added to the mix a bit later, basically on the same argument. And, I would suggest, supported by a cable TV industry that wanted to be deregulated, something that wasn't going to happen if a large fraction of their customers had no alternative. |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:29:11 EDT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote: Morally, I would suggest that when a given CC&R restriction is universal - when *every* acceptable property in an area carries identical anti-antenna restrictions - then that contract provision was NOT agreed to. It was *forced* on a buyer .... [snipped] In a moral world, the amateur should be able to invalidate anti-antenna restrictions by showing that no comparable property was available that lacked those restrictions. Both of those points were made in the League's last assault on the problem and those arguments fell on deaf ears. That's when the Commission made it clear that they will move if and only if The Congress orders it to. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
wrote in message ... Besides pushing Congress, one of the things I think we hams could do to help the process is to never refer to amateur radio as "a hobby" or even worse, "just a hobby". But ham radio's dirty little secret is that we have let it become "just a hobby". With the exception of 2M most of our VHF/UHF spectrum is shared with "real" users like DoD who tolerate our presence and because they are NTIA (not FCC) controlled are (at least for now) immune to auctions. Our HF spectrum isn't particularly attractive for commercial applications. Were it not for those fortunate circumstances, our allocations would have been auctioned long ago. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Jesus knew about ham radio guys!
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com