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

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 =-

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

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

(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.

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.

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

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 EDT, wrote:

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?"

Then what do we call it? Avocation? Pasttime? no, none of these terms seem
appropriate, either.

I know! It's emergency preparation and training. Now that's sounds
impressive..
73 de Dick, AC7EL

On Jul 15, 8:16 pm, Dick Grady AC7EL wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 EDT, wrote:
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?"

Then what do we call it? Avocation? Pasttime? no, none of these ter
ms seem
appropriate, either.

We don't need to call it anything other than "Amateur Radio". The
person who
gardens/landscapes doesn't use the word "hobby", s/he says "I'm a
gardener"
and that's it.

The amateur artist who paints, sculpts, does pottery, photography,
woodwork or any
of a range of other activities does not use the word "hobby" either.

I know! It's emergency preparation and training. Now that's sounds
impressive..

We don't need to sound impressive. All we need to do is not sound
apologetic.
"Just a hobby" sounds self-denigrating to me.

Part 97 does not use the word "hobby". Neither should we.

Consider the following conversations:

Conversation 1

"What's that wire up there?"

"It's my ham radio antenna"

"What's ham radio?"

"It's just a hobby where I talk to other ham radio operators."

"Why would you want to do that? Don't you have a telephone and
the internet?"

Conversation 2

"What's that wire up there?"

"It's the antenna for my Amateur Radio station"

"What's Amateur Radio?"

"It's a form of noncommercial radio by which licensed
radio operators all over the world communicate with each other
using a wide variety of methods and technologies."

Which do you think sounds better to a non-ham?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dick Grady AC7EL wrote in
:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:32:00 EDT, wrote:

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.


Then what do we call it? Avocation? Pasttime? no, none of these
terms seem appropriate, either.

I know! It's emergency preparation and training. Now that's sounds
impressive..
73 de Dick, AC7EL

How about "service". The Amateur Radio Service!

73 de KC1IH