USA HR-4969
 

Sorry if this has bee discussed before, but I just found out about this.

I live in a community that has CC&R's (deed restrictions) that prevent
me from putting up any externally visible antennas. I'm not complaining,
well not too much, I knew about the restrictions before I purchased the
house, so what complaint could I have? So far I've managed by putting
up quick wire antennas at night, or hiding them in trees or the eves of
my house. But it is *really* hard to put up any kind of efficient
antenna for working HF on the longer bands.

HR-4969 is apparently a bill in congress which would extend the
"reasonable accommodation" standard which now applies to Federal,
State and local government regulations so that it covers private
land contracts as well. Way back in the 70's, the FCC declined to
preempt such private land contracts (deed restrictions) for Ham radio,
even though it felt it necessary to do the very same thing for
over the air TV and Digital internet and phone services.

I know that this kind of bill has been introduced before in previous
sessions of congress only to die in committee. Could this time be
different? You never really know. Perhaps this time it will work?
But it will ONLY work if we can get enough support generated for it by contacting our representatives in support of it. Time is short, so
please try!

http://www.arrl.org/hr-4969


KC4UIA - aka Bob.

USA HR-4969
 

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 22:13:40 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:

Way back in the 70's, the FCC declined to
preempt such private land contracts (deed restrictions) for Ham radio,
even though it felt it necessary to do the very same thing for
over the air TV and Digital internet and phone services.

The FCC issued the (in)famous PRB-1 ruling in 1985, not the 1970s. As
far as pre-emption of regulations banning TV/satellite dish antennas,
known as OTARD, this was ordered by The Congress in 1996 - the FCC
didn't have a choice. There was big money fighting against it but the
broadcasters had even bigger money.

The FCC has continuously refused to exercise pre-emption of private
land use contract restrictions absent a directive from The Congress,
just like the OTARD had to be done. That's what this bill is all
about. There is big money fighting against it as well.

As far as regulating interstate and foreign phone service -- this goes
back to 1934! As far as regulating internet service - the FCC does
not regulate it at all. That's what all this brouhaha about "net
neutrality" is all about and it's being fought by big money interests.

I know that this kind of bill has been introduced before in previous
sessions of congress only to die in committee. Could this time be
different? You never really know. Perhaps this time it will work?

It's being referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rep
Greg Walden, W7EQI (R-OR), chairs that panel's Communications and
Technology Subcommittee. He had introduced similar bills in prior
sessions of The Congress. It should come out of committee but whether
it dies on the floor is another matter. We probably will have to
start all over again with the next session of The Congress. The
sooner the better.

"Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never, never" - Winston
Churchill

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/9/14, 6:54 AM, Phil Kane wrote:

There was big money fighting against it but the
broadcasters had even bigger money.

There is big money fighting against it as well.

and it's being fought by big money interests.

I am so glad I live in a democracy.

73, Steve KB9X

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/8/2014 10:13 PM, KC4UAI wrote:
Sorry if this has bee discussed before, but I just found out about this.

I live in a community that has CC&R's (deed restrictions) that prevent
me from putting up any externally visible antennas. I'm not complaining,
well not too much, I knew about the restrictions before I purchased the
house, so what complaint could I have? ...

HR-4969 is apparently a bill in congress which would extend the
"reasonable accommodation" standard which now applies to Federal,
State and local government regulations so that it covers private
land contracts as well. Way back in the 70's, the FCC declined to
preempt such private land contracts (deed restrictions) for Ham radio,
even though it felt it necessary to do the very same thing for
over the air TV and Digital internet and phone services.

I think I'm like most Americans: reluctant to ask the government to
interfere in a private contract. I used to think that, so long as the
CC&R provisions were known in advance and did not discriminate on the
basis of race, religion, etc., that they were something the government
should not tamper with.

Unfortunately, it appears that some local governments, being unable to
impose "zoning" rules that keep out oddballs such as we, have turned to
their friends in the building trade to accomplish privately what they
could not do with zoning law. In other words, some "CC&R" codicils are
written with the goal of obtaining political ends by private means, and
I applaud the congress for taking notice.

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

I welcome debate on the agendas, both known and hidden, which have led
to the use of CC&R restrictions as a substitute for public debate and
public policy.

73,

Bill, W1AC


--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

Put yourself in the shoes of an average person. You know nothing more
about ham radio than that it's a hobby that some people enjoy, like
collecting stamps. You may know something about its reputation for
providing communication in times of emergency.

But as this average person, you've seen huge unsightly ham antenna
farms. Yes, I used the word "unsightly". To the average person, the
things that are a delight to the eye of a ham are ugly.

And ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime.
It is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

73, Steve KB9X

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/10/2014 9:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

As I said previously. People move into areas protected by HOAs
and CC&Rs because they don't want to live next to the "wrong"
kind of people. Unfortunately, Amateur radio operators are also
the "wrong" kind of people that the others in the neighborhoods
are trying to avoid.

--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/10/2014 10:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

.... ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

I'm not asking why average citizens would want to have CC&R's that
forbid skyhooks: each to his own, etc.

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

73,

Bill W1AC


--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/10/2014 2:10 PM, Bill Horne wrote:
On 8/10/2014 10:40 AM, Steve Bonine wrote:
On 8/10/14, 12:08 AM, Bill Horne wrote:

I am, however, puzzled at *why* local governments would follow this
path. The reasons for exceptions that allow satellite dishes or other TV
antennas are obvious, and necessary - but I think the reasons that Ham
radio antennas are being forbidden are not so clear.

Really?

... ugly things degrade property values. In the eyes of this average
person, having a ham next door with a tri-bander on a 50' tower is
approximately equivalent to someone starting a junk yard next door.

Yes, I know that this example is the 1%. But it doesn't matter how
common or uncommon the actually-unsightly antenna farm is; if our
average citizen has seen just one, that has set the definition in their
mind of "ham radio antennas".

So of course the home owners are going to be eager to protect the value
of the largest investment that they'll likely make in their lifetime. It
is, after all, no skin off their elbow to prohibit these eyesores;
they're not affected other than in a good way.

Now I'm not saying that I endorse this discrimination against a
minority, but I'm not in the least puzzled at why "radio antennas are
being forbidden."

I'm not asking why average citizens would want to have CC&R's that
forbid skyhooks: each to his own, etc.

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

73,

Bill W1AC



Politicians are people and homeowners, also. And they listen to their
voters (at least the smart ones do). When a few NIMBY's raise a big cry
about something, politicians listen.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

USA HR-4969
 

In article ,
Foxs Mercantile wrote:

As I said previously. People move into areas protected by HOAs
and CC&Rs because they don't want to live next to the "wrong"
kind of people.

I expect it's more often the case that people move into such areas
because the find a house/condo they like at a price they can afford
in an area that's close to where they work or where there are good
schools. Appearance rules must surely be of much lesser consideration
to most people.


Patty

USA HR-4969
 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:10:32 EDT, Bill Horne
wrote:

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

CC&R's originated because municipalities attached conditions to
building permits issued to developers. The developers were expected
to pass on these requirements to the home buyers in the form of a
contract. In effect, they are a private contract to enforce some
zoning restrictions. Later, the various home owners associations
added additional restrictions that would only work in a contract.
http://realestate.findlaw.com/owning-a-home/cc-r-basics.html
Here's a typical CC&R history of one development:
http://www.sanantoniohills.com/sah_history.htm

The benefits to the developers is that CC&R's generally produce higher
property values and gets the planning department off their backs. The
benefit to the city or county is that they don't have to pay anything
to enforce many of their zoning rules. The benefit to the bank and
mortgage holders is that properties with CC&R's tend to have higher
property values. The benefits to the buyer is that CC&R's generally
insure that the neighborhood won't turn into a slum overnight and will
probably increase in property value when it comes time to sell. The
benefits to the politicians are increased contributions from
developers, higher property tax revenues due to somewhat higher
appraised values, and well controlled demographics useful for
campaigning and re-election.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

USA HR-4969
 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 14:10:32 EDT, Bill Horne
wrote:

I just don't understand what benefit *politicians* think they get by
making (wink,nudge) deals with builders to *add* CC&R's that forbid
ham antennas. After all, it's no skin of /their/ nose, either.

Bill, they don't have to "add" anti-antenna CC&Rs. They have been in
there for 50 years from the days when the cable companies paid the
developers put them in to stop private TV antennas -- and new
developments take the "cookie cutter" approach and just copy the
existing ones. The average home buyer doesn't take the time to read
those parts of the purchase contract anyhow -- anything past the price
and interest and "points" is gobbledygook except to the lawyers. Heck,
the "CC&Rs" for my (now former) condo apartment in California even had
references to filing and recording in the wrong county!

My only gripe about the proposed HR-4969 is that it covers CC&Rs and
similar private land use restrictions but does not explicitly cover
rental properties' "landlord's rules" (like the one where I live
now). Anyone for a lawsuit? g

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

USA HR-4969
 

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:52:00 PM UTC-5, Phil Kane wrote
they don't have to "add" anti-antenna CC&Rs.
They have been in there for 50 years

You got that right. My house is just about 15 years old yet
the CC&R's still contain boilerplate language that is obviously
preempted by the FCC's rules. Not only that, my home was built
by a very large national builder and they apparently use the
exact same language in all their subdivisions here in Texas.
In a quick search of the land records for my county I found
5 other subdivisions that had only the legal description of the
land changed when they filed the CC&R's. They do cookie cutter
houses and have paperwork to match.

I was wondering though. Given the section on antennas in my
CC&R's is largely illegal now that they where preempted
by the FCC, could one argue that because the section is
illegal, it cannot be enforced?

-= Bob =-

USA HR-4969
 

In article ,
KC4UAI wrote:

I was wondering though. Given the section on antennas in my
CC&R's is largely illegal now that they where preempted
by the FCC, could one argue that because the section is
illegal, it cannot be enforced?

Thought 1 - check for a "severability" clause.

Thought 2 - the fact that parts of the section have been preempted,
doesn't mean that they're "illegal" - simply that those specific
sections cannot be enforced. There's no illegality (crime) in those
sections being present in your CC&Rs, but they've been de-fanged.

If your HOA were to try to enforce the preempted sections, and
persisted in doing so even after being formally advised that these
sections have been preempted, you might be in a position to
counter-sue the HOA (for your costs, at least), and perhaps get a
court order enjoining them from further attempts to enforce.

I really doubt that any of this would help you, in dealing with the
application of these rules to antennas which don't qualify for the
OTARD preemption (e.g. ham antennas).

USA HR-4969
 

On Thursday, August 14, 2014 5:23:44 PM UTC-5, David Platt wrote:


I really doubt that any of this would help you, in dealing with the

application of these rules to antennas which don't qualify for the

OTARD preemption (e.g. ham antennas).

I figured that this would only let me put up a TV antenna. But I also
know that to the untrained eye, a TV antenna and a VHF/UHF beam might
look pretty similar. But I was also hoping to get the HOA used to
thinking that the antenna restrictions where unenforceable. Then put
up a vertical with a TV antenna on top for loading.

Of course, if we could get congress to exempt ham radio from CC&Rs,
that would be a good thing I think.

For now, I'm going to have to dream about being active on HF with a
reasonable antenna and make do with what I can hide in the attic and
in the ever taller trees in the yard. Someday, maybe, I can move
and do a real antenna farm, but then it will be the wife I have to
contend with and I dare say she's tougher than the HOA.

-= KC4UAI =-

USA HR-4969
 

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 18:08:49 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:

I figured that this would only let me put up a TV antenna. But I also
know that to the untrained eye, a TV antenna and a VHF/UHF beam might
look pretty similar. But I was also hoping to get the HOA used to
thinking that the antenna restrictions where unenforceable. Then put
up a vertical with a TV antenna on top for loading.

In FCC Docket 96-83, the proceeding that established the FCC's OTARD
rules (Section 1.4000) as directed by Section 207 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, there was specific wording that the
"preemption" applied to antennas used exclusively for TV/video
reception or for transmission incidental to operation of such systems
(subscriber feedback, download ordering, etc.) A "TV antenna" or
look-alike used for ham radio is specifically not preempted nor is
there any intent to preempt ham radio antennas even if used for TV
reception.

Good try but no cigar!

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

USA HR-4969
 

On Friday, August 15, 2014 11:38:58 PM UTC-5, Phil Kane wrote:
In FCC Docket 96-83, the proceeding that established the FCC's OTARD
rules (Section 1.4000) as directed by Section 207 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, there was specific wording that the
"preemption" applied to antennas used exclusively for TV/video
reception or for transmission incidental to operation of such systems
(subscriber feedback, download ordering, etc.) A "TV antenna" or
look-alike used for ham radio is specifically not preempted nor is
there any intent to preempt ham radio antennas even if used for TV
reception.

I didn't figure it was "legal", only that it was unlikely for
the HOA to know the difference between me using an old TV antenna
to top load a small tower and actually using it for TV reception.
If it looks like something that the FCC preempted, maybe they
wouldn't say anything, or if I actually used it for TV reception
at first and drew the objection, rightfully claimed the
preemption, they'd unlikely try again and I'd be able to modify
things for Ham use without too much worry.

Old TV antennas still work on the new TV spectrum and seem like they
would be worth at least some amount of top loading if shorted to the
support structure. Arranging a shunt feed on the mast for a few
bands shouldn't be too hard.

The other option I've considered is to just go ask if I can put up a
ground mounted vertical in the back yard, with the understanding that
only about 20' of antenna might be visible from the road and I would
take it down before I sold the house.

Then there is the third approach, what I'm doing now. I just put up
stuff that I don't think anybody would see and I that I don't mind
taking down (i.e. they are cheap wire affairs). So far, that's worked
as long as I didn't go too gaudy. The coax trap inverted V dipole
with the 20' painter's pole center support was a bit much for them,
but I did share a backyard fence with the board president so I didn't
expect that to fly. When you get a warning letter, they
give you 30 days to comply, then it takes 60 more days to actually get
a fine, at least here in Texas. 90 days is plenty of time to cut down
some wire if they got insistent about it.

-= Kc4uai =-

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/17/2014 9:43 PM, Bill Horne W1AC wrote:
For the low bands, a flagpole is always a good choice, although
adequate grounding radials can get expensive, but they, and a shunt
feed, are easy to pass off as "Lightning protection" required by your
insurance carrier.

But please don't.

And

It does seem, IMHO, to be unwise to set yourself up to create enemies
when you don't have to.

Which is WHY I have consistently taken issue with the almost monthly
articles in QST about how to violate the contract you signed when you
moved into your house.

The FCC Grant to use spectrum is just that. A grant to use a wide
variety of spectrum. It doesn't carry with it all the other things
that some people think it does. Like the right to violate a written
contract, or negate planning and inspection on towers etc.



--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

USA HR-4969
 

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 20:20:52 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:

I didn't figure it was "legal", only that it was unlikely for
the HOA to know the difference between me using an old TV antenna
to top load a small tower and actually using it for TV reception.

I would never advise a client to knowingly violate a law or breach a
contract obligation on the basis "they'll never know the difference".
That's not how I personally practice law. Whether such law or
provision is "reasonable" or not is a different matter.

One thing to consider about whether "they" will catch you or not - it
depends on how much money the HOA wants to invest up front (they can
recover the costs of enforcement after litigation) and the companion
reason - depends on how bad they want to get you. Firms like ours and
our competitors are in the business of determining whether antennas
are active and on what frequencies. With modern technology there is
little need for the extended "stakeouts" of yore.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

USA HR-4969
 

On Monday, August 18, 2014 2:45:35 PM UTC-5, Phil Kane wrote:

I would never advise a client to knowingly violate a law or breach a
contract obligation on the basis "they'll never know the difference".

No smart lawyer would tell his client that it was OK to proceed to
violate the terms of a contract. If I was advising somebody, I would
say the same as you and add that they might want to get legal advice
from an attorney before doing anything rash.


Whether such law or
provision is "reasonable" or not is a different matter.


In this case, I don't think my "it's unreasonable" claim
would carry much weight. If we got to the imposition of a fine
stage for this, I'd be unlikely to prevail in court. I know that.


One thing to consider about whether "they" will catch you or not - it
depends on how much money the HOA wants to invest up front (they can
recover the costs of enforcement after litigation) and the companion
reason - depends on how bad they want to get you.

The process the HOA usually goes though is to 1. send a warning letter
giving me 30 days to "fix" any problems. 2. Sending the "official"
notice that they intend to fine me, setting the "final" deadline.
3. Then, they can start assessment of fines and/or fix the problem
themselves at my expense. All this costs them $$ up front as the
management company bills them at each stage.

My general plan is to comply with all warnings I receive within the
specified time. To this end, my current plan is to put up antennas I
don't mind taking down and doing my best to not draw too much
attention to what I'm doing. This means using "natural" supports
(trees, house, fences etc) to hold up some cheap wire and trying to
keep things out of sight as much as I can.

Where I am knowingly violating the terms of the CC&R's (BTW something
that is open to some debate as the Antenna policy is not in the
deed restrictions directly, but in a separate Architectural document
which has not actually been attached to my deed) I am not taking much
of a risk, unless they decide to abandon their standard process for me
and go straight to imposing fines without first requesting that I
comply.

Firms like ours and
our competitors are in the business of determining whether antennas
are active and on what frequencies. With modern technology there is
little need for the extended "stakeouts" of yore.


I'd like to hear about the equipment used for what used to take a
physical presence to figure out.

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/19/2014 6:28 AM, KC4UAI wrote:
Where I am knowingly violating the terms of the CC&R's

Ok, I'm a little unclear on the concept here.
What is your basis for knowing violating the terms on a
contract you signed?



--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

USA HR-4969
 

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 07:28:35 EDT, KC4UAI wrote:

The process the HOA usually goes though is to 1. send a warning letter
giving me 30 days to "fix" any problems. 2. Sending the "official"
notice that they intend to fine me, setting the "final" deadline.
3. Then, they can start assessment of fines and/or fix the problem
themselves at my expense. All this costs them $$ up front as the
management company bills them at each stage.

I am very familiar with this process because, inter alia, my
sister-in-law's "s.o." is an attorney that represents HOAs in
collecting those fines. :) We have had interesting discussions.

In California at one time, the burden was on the HOA to show that the
restriction was reasonable. While we were in the process of taking a
significant CC&R case to retrial (Hotz v Rich, San Mateo Country, CA
1993) the California Supreme Court shifted the burden to the
respondent (in this case, Jimmy Rich, the ham operator) to show that
the restriction was "unreasonable". We tried very hard to do that
because the restriction was totally unreasonable but the judge was
unimpressed, and Jimmy had to take his 75 foot crank-up tower down.
This in spite of the (pro bono) work of four attorneys, a professor of
electromagnetic at a major university, and several neighbors and
dignitaries testifying to the need for such an antenna height.

When one starts with court trials, it's a crapshoot.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

USA HR-4969
 

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:28:56 EDT, Foxs Mercantile
wrote:

Ok, I'm a little unclear on the concept here.
What is your basis for knowing violating the terms on a
contract you signed?

For a contract term to be valid and enforceable, it must, among other
things, be clear, be reasonable, not contrary to public policy, and
the contract cannot be a "contract of adhesion" where the affected
party has no other choice but to accept the terms rather than
negotiate them.

Does that sound familiar? :)

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/20/2014 7:22 AM, Phil Kane wrote:
the California Supreme Court shifted the burden to the
respondent (in this case, Jimmy Rich, the ham operator) to show that
the restriction was "unreasonable". We tried very hard to do that
because the restriction was totally unreasonable but the judge was
unimpressed, and Jimmy had to take his 75 foot crank-up tower down.

and previously in response to me:

For a contract term to be valid and enforceable, it must, among other
things, be clear, be reasonable, not contrary to public policy, and
the contract cannot be a "contract of adhesion" where the affected
party has no other choice but to accept the terms rather than
negotiate them.

So apparently, that one with the 75 tower was enforceable.

This leads back to my original question then, what part of having a
FCC grant of license gives amateurs the right to violate the terms
of a contract they signed?





--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

USA HR-4969
 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:29:43 EDT, Foxs Mercantile
wrote:

So apparently, that one with the 75 tower was enforceable.

The restriction said that no antenna may exceed the height of the
one-story building that it is associated with or attached to. That in
itself is unreasonable, and we had technical testimony to back it up.
Dear Mrs. Hotz had none to refute that. The judge was dumb and blind,
but that's another story.

This leads back to my original question then, what part of having a
FCC grant of license gives amateurs the right to violate the terms
of a contract they signed?

A contract of adhesion has a high barrier for enforcement to take
place.

Note that the justification for PRB-1 and the impending extension to
private contracts is the exercise of Federal interest in amateur
radio, hence limited pre-emption. We tried to get this under
_Shelley_ where the SCOTUS ruled that contract terms that were against
public policy were unenforceable no matter if the affected party
signed it but the California Court of Appeal sent it back to the
Superior Court for trial. That's when the burden shifted. The
neighbors couldn't win at the city level, so they had to resort to the
CC&Rs of a development that was co-terminus with the city and whose
officers were the city council members. They actually passed the hat
for this lawsuit after we won at the city level. This nonsense will
disappear when the bill becomes law.

"Reasonable accommodation" is not total pre-emption. Nothing is
stopping any ham from not claiming the benefit of the limited (PRB-1
style) pre-emption.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

USA HR-4969
 

On 8/20/2014 3:33 PM, Phil Kane wrote:
A contract of adhesion has a high barrier for enforcement to
take place.

Whether it's enforceable or not isn't the question Phil.

The question is what part of an FCC license gives you the right
to knowingly violate a contract you signed.





--
Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi
http://www.foxsmercantile.com

USA HR-4969
 

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:01:19 PM UTC-5, Foxs Mercantile wrote:

Whether it's enforceable or not isn't the question Phil.



The question is what part of an FCC license gives you the right

to knowingly violate a contract you signed.


Which is, in fact, the very logic the FCC used to justify not
preempting CC&R's for hams. There isn't any part of your
license grant that makes me entitled to break a private contract.
It does entitle you to reasonable antennas, which may violate
local and state laws, they just said no to the private contracts,
at least for Hams. Of course, you can violate that private
contract and put up a TV antenna, no license required, and that's
by FCC rule.

HOWEVER, that's what it is now. If HR 4969 becomes law, then
getting an FCC license WILL make parts of some private contracts
illegal to enforce, just like the FCC already did for TV reception
antennas...

-= Bob =-