The Ham Radio Parity Act Unanimously Passed By US House (arrl.org) 195
This week the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed "The Ham Radio Parity Act" -- a huge victory for grass-roots advocates of amateur radio.
Slashdot reader bobbied reports: This will allow for the reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas in many places where they are currently prohibited by homeowner associations or private land use restrictions... If this bill passes the Senate, we will be one step closer to allowing amateur radio operators, who provide emergency communications services, the right to erect reasonable antenna structures in places where they cannot do so now.
The national ham radio association is now urging supporters to contact their Senators through a special web page. "This is not just a feel-good bill," said representative Joe Courtney, remembering how Hurricane Sandy brought down the power grid, and "we saw all the advanced communications we take for granted...completely fall by the wayside."
The national ham radio association is now urging supporters to contact their Senators through a special web page. "This is not just a feel-good bill," said representative Joe Courtney, remembering how Hurricane Sandy brought down the power grid, and "we saw all the advanced communications we take for granted...completely fall by the wayside."
The real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that deed restricted properties are even allowed under law.
Only complete idiots thinks it's a good idea to hand over the deed right to you property to an association that can foreclose on you because you let your grass grow to 3" instead of the maximum allowed 2.5".
These types of places were tolerable only until they started taking over ALL available property within the best school districts, good locations in cities, and other important qualities of a property. Generally based on municipalities who want to collect taxes but not be held accountable for maintaining common spaces (parks, pools, sidewalks, etc.) and thus _require_ all new development to be done under a deed restricted plan. It's a "lovely" work around to that whole pesky property rights issue that governments face due to federal, state and local constitutions, laws, etc.
Re:The real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue is that some people want to live in a place where their neighbors can't leave trash out or have cars on their lawn (and to have enforcement that has teeth, unlike some municipalities). Some people want to raise roosters, other people think that owning a rooster violates your neighbors' right to quiet enjoyment of their homes. People that want those restrictions, and are in turn willing to accept the reciprocal restrictions on themselves, can voluntarily and knowingly live in a place where everyone agrees on that basic deal.
Now, that sort of thing isn't for me (and I bought a house in a nice district with functioning public parks and whatnot with no HOA) but it is extremely illiberal to deny a group of people the right to voluntarily associate in a manner than they all find beneficial. And since we are on the topic of choice, I see you are somehow suggesting that the non-HOA living arrangement is somehow in danger, which is patently ridiculous since 20% of existing homes and 40% of new homes don't have one [zillow.com].
TLDR: Freedom includes the right to create your own arrangements. Some of them might seem silly to us, in which case we should just not partake instead of being righteous about it.
Re:The real issue (Score:4, Interesting)
but it is extremely illiberal to deny a group of people the right to voluntarily associate in a manner than they all find beneficial.
As a "deregulation libertarian" (for lack of a better term), I really despise this all-too-common perversion of the word "liberalism", whereby one is deemed illiberal if one don't agree with the unlimited privatization of the law and freedom of association is conflated with an unlimited "freedom" for deep-pocketed corporate entities (not actual, singular human beings) to unilaterally foist contracts of adhesion on individuals.
The perverted (but commonly accepted) libertarian or classical liberal argument is that every contractual restriction that the courts deem invalid is a gross example of big government trampling on individual freedom. I tend to believe exactly the opposite: that every enforcible contract provision, beyond the minimum necessary for societies and essential institutions to function, represents an enlargement of government and should be considered by default undesirable unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary. This is particularly evident in any situation where contracts are neither simple (like the sale of goods) nor negotiable. It also should be particularly evident when one person is signing a multi-page contract with a fictitious legal "person" who has access to a half dozen layers.
At the end of each one of these "voluntary association" contracts, the vast majority of which are non-negotiable, there are the police with guns drawn to enforce the terms. You can call that many things, but it is not small government, and it is not the pinnacle of freedom.
Corporations forcing consumers to use shitty, pro-corporate watered down versions of the court system with zero right of appeal (due to binding arbitration clauses) is not liberal. And as the grandparent said: allowing HOAs to snap up all the good land (a limited resource that government traditionally aims to ensure equitable access to) and then set up their own capricious set of permissible usage rules that are ultimately enforced by public police paid for with my tax dollars is not a particularly liberal state of affairs.
If you still disagree, then I have a simple question for you: do you think people should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery? If not, where do you think the line should be drawn regarding the rights people are allowed to "voluntarily" sign away? It is just on this side of slavery, or are there perhaps other areas that the government shouldn't be sticking their noses into, regardless of what any piece of paper says?
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of each one of these "voluntary association" contracts, the vast majority of which are non-negotiable
Yes they are, you had the option to NOT buy the property...
do you think people should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery?
Yes, they should... Why not? Do you not own your life and yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
you had the option to NOT buy the property
Of course you did: you had every right to move to another country. In today's new-house market, that pretty well sums up your options.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, nonsense!
My parents wanted a new house. They looked around for some land out in the country but near to town (and hospitals, they're not getting younger), bought nine acres, built a house to suit them.
Far as I know, the only requirement that the land purchase had was that they couldn't subdivide the lot. Not even sure that that was there, but I think I remember hearing mom say that back when they bought the place.
Yes, you're not g
Re: (Score:2)
In today's new-house market, that pretty well sums up your options.
The facts do not support your statement...
Less than 50% of new homes built today are in a HOA...
Re: (Score:2)
Land isn't fungible; therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the government to not permit (or more accurately, to not send out its police officers to enforce) contractual provisions that undercut basic property rights.
What exactly are "basic property rights"?
Go back a few hundred years and many Native Americans didn't think people could even own land, it belonged to everyone.
You're inserting your personal viewpoint and opinion and assuming it is fact. Something to consider anyway...
If you disagree, so be it. But you are advocating for a larger and more intrusive government, whether you admit it or not.
Not as much as you think... I think people have the right to enter into contracts as they see fit, you think government should step in and protect people from themselves.
Which one of us is REALLY for "larger government" again?
Re: (Score:2)
HOAs are interesting.
on the one hand its a form of self-government or organization to have a say and protect each other from each other.
which is fine when everyone joined originally.
but when someone sells and leaves, the case of the person moving into the area and being forced to join with no option is interesting as a debate topic. the original owner joined willingly when the HOA was setup. But the new owner is joined because the membership is now tied to the property.
--
as for slavery, no they shouldn't, b
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of each one of these "voluntary association" contracts, the vast majority of which are non-negotiable
Yes they are, you had the option to NOT buy the property...
Actually, the argument I've heard goes this way. There are not really any houses available which are of similar age, cost and location that don't have CC&R's. I know in my area, nearly ALL the builders have boiler plate CC&R's that prohibit ALL antennas, and good luck finding a new house that doesn't. So in a way, hams don't really have a choice. Sure, they can incur a longer commute, spend more, or buy an older home that's not subject to CC&R's, but in many cases economics and location pret
Re: (Score:2)
They're not entirely contracts of adhesion in the way you seem to mean. While entry to the association is non-negotiable; accept the contract or don't live here, the members of the association have the ability to change the rules of their association whenever they collectively wish to do so.
Your example of a non-negotiable contract of adhesion seems to imply that the HOA is one side of a contractual relationship with which one can never negotiate. The reality is that it is an organization to which property
Re: (Score:2)
> I would say that the addition of democratic-like elements aren't enough to justify suspension of basic property rights
I would add that rights are those things that cannot be taken away by a simple majority vote. If it can be taken away, it wasn't a right in the first place. Either that, or it's an abuse of power of the kind you find in fascist societies.
--
BMO
Rights (Score:3)
Unfortunately, that is a wholly optional construct, valid only in the context where those who hold power agree it is true.
Rights are things that are enforced by those with the power to enforce them. The instant that the power to enforce them is lacking or withheld, they are not rights - they are extra-societal acts, quite often crimes. You can elect to t
Re: (Score:2)
I can only agree with your post.
This makes me despondent.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
HOAs are like many things a blessing and curse.
The idea of protecting property values from outside influences outside the scope of zoning law is a good one. there is a benefit to preventing a neighbor from turning his home into a sewage treatment plant (or dog poo manufacturing facility, with 6 dogs in a 4k sq ft lot), and thus negatively impacting the value of everyone around him's most valuable investment.
but there are also the HOAs that go too far: the anal rules about, grass, color, what can and cant be
Re:The real issue (Score:4, Insightful)
... so 80% of existing homes ARE subject to an HOA?
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are somehow suggesting that the non-HOA living arrangement is somehow in danger, which is patently ridiculous since 20% of existing homes and 40% of new homes don't have one.
What is ridiculous is your lack of facility with the written English language. I'd be quite upset if 80% of existing homes were under the thrall of an HOA.
TLDR: Freedom includes the right to create your own arrangements. Some of them might seem silly to us, in which case we should just not partake instead of being righteous about it.
Communism is your neighbor forcing you to fork over fees, and then ordering you as to what you can or cannot do on your property or they'll seize it. It sounds like you're the one being sensitive about criticism for your fascist/pinko lifestyle choices.
Re:The real issue (Score:4, Interesting)
That's called zoning and code enforcement. You don't need an HOA for any of that at all. Just move into an area zoned residential and you'll have no roosters. If codes aren't being enforced, you let your city representatives know it's important to you, and your family and friends will vote them out next election if they don't make it a priority.
HOAs are just a bunch of busy-bodies deciding what color you can paint your bike shed, and taking your money so they can play like they're doing something important. Governments keep having to preempt HOA restrictions, no requirements for green grass during a drought, no restrictions on antennas, etc. And it will keep going until HOAs are powerless, as it should, because they're fundamentally detrimental to everyone and everything.
There are big geographic areas in which you simply cannot buy a home without an HOA restriction. If you want to live there, you're screwed. In other areas, you can't find an HOA no matter how hard you try. It's not a nice even mix where you can pick and choose whether you'd like an HOA area, or not.
HOAs are like an addiction... Whatever the reason you were convinced to start, you can't ever make it stop. At least personal service contracts are limited to 7 years by law. Your property is stuck with that horrible HOA on it for centuries, and owner after owner. A contract you can't ever get out of is borderline slavery.
Who's a good tyrant? You are! Yes you are! (Score:2)
Only works if your family and friends constitute a majority. And since that is almost never the case, what you're saying here is basically nonsensical.
"Governm
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. That would mean the candidate(s) is/are otherwise getting 100% of the vote. How often does that happen?
Except for just a few historic districts, the government practically never sets restrictions on what color you can paint your property, while it's very common with HOAs. Governments just set laws you can follow, while HOAs lord
Re: (Score:2)
What? How do you figure? A majority is anything over 50%. Including 51%. If you don't have a majority (which is not a requirement for 100%) with you, you can't set the path of a new ordinance by voting; and you generally can't set it at all by trying to reason with the town/city/whatever council, unless you create a petition with a signi
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to know much of anything about civics, so I'll take one quick attempt at explaining...
If a politician won his last election with an 80% majority, then you only need to control 30.1% of those who voted for him to cause him to lose next time. Your 30.1% plus the presumed exis
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue is that some people want to live in a place where their neighbors can't leave trash out or have cars on their lawn (and to have enforcement that has teeth, unlike some municipalities).
The real issue is that people want to point fingers instead of lending a helping hand. Well, fuck them right up their arrogant assholes, and fuck their HOAs too.
Deed restrictions genuinely are shit. They should not exist, period, the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that deed restricted properties are even allowed under law.
I almost agree with you. Think about the long term affects of CC&R's and I shudder to think what's going to happen in 40 or 60 years. It's going to be a mess to clean up all this legally when we want to redevelop the all these lots with the ramshackle old shacks which need to be leveled.
Personally, I believe that CC&R's should have a sunset provision, where the HOA and the CC&R's should be required to demonstrate that the majority of lot owners still want the covenants every decade or so, or
Re:The real issue (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, restrictive covenants were originally invented to keep blacks and Jews out.
Re: (Score:2)
totally random, but for some reason this popped in my head, a small comedy bit from the Rat Pack.
Q (to Sammy Davis Jr.): Oh you golf? What's your handicap?
A: I'm a one-eyed black Jew.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Fortunately, in my Aurora neighborhood we don't give two fucks about our HOA, we ignore its rules, and it hasn't sent out a dues bill for ten or fifteen years for lack of anybody to man it...it's essentially dead. If anybody creates a legitimate public nuisance, a complaint to Code Enforcement is enough to deal with it.
Will be a huge victory for hams if signed into law (Score:5, Informative)
The HOAs have been vociferously opposed to this act as an infringement of civil liberties and have written both to the FCC and to congress opposing this. Yet there are already FCC-mandated requirements for such things as satellite antennas on HOA-governed properties that supersede any restrictions that may be contained in HOA contracts on spectrum which is technically regulated by the FCC. The intent is not to replicated a nearly 200' tall antenna tower with stacked Yagis [qrz.com], but to provide reasonable accommodation. A 1/4 wavelength vertical wire antenna barely visible to the eye can literally communicate with the entire world, yet somehow the HOA board fanatics claim that even these should be restricted. Even one of the trapped multiband vertical antennas in a back yard can make a big difference in getting out and participating in radio, but they again want no part of it.
There is bias against what we don't know or don't want to know. Heck, people think that there is an environmental impact to these antennas [napavalleyregister.com]. I'm hopeful this will get passed and withstand scrutiny in the inevitable court battle that will ensue over it. But in a country turning its back on science for sports, maybe even the discussion with the non-ham folks might actually activate a few brain cells.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, HOAs can still enact reasonable restrictions on satellite and TV antennas.
Only the rules that do not impair installation, maintenance, use, or reception of a high-quality signal are allowed.
Around here, mounting the antenna so close to the ground for Satellite, over the air TV reception, or Fixed wireless reception for internet (Which the rule also applies to), would prevent getting a quality signal.
Re: (Score:2)
There are already rules requiring "reasonable accommodation" for ham radio operators. This bill does absolutely nothing to expand them or to provide enforcement. This bill in fact strengthens the HOA's ability to restrict ham radio antennas based on aesthetic standards.
This is yet another bill that does the exact opposite of the title. You've been trolled by Congress once again. You have lost. Have a nice day.
Those reasonable accommodations are under PRB-1 which does not extend to those properties under and
Re: (Score:3)
A trucker with a CB can send critical information 40 or 50 miles on the 11m band on a good day. Legally they are limited to 5w output. Even with a yagi, this is going to be tough.
HAMs (Skilled QRPers) on the other hand regularly communicate to other continents with 5w of power. Your typical 100-150W HF rig is going to be able to communicate anywhere in the world--or worst case, anywhere in the continental US. Some HAMs are also trained in emergency communications and/or formal traffic handling (to verif
It's too easy to be a NIMBY (Score:5, Insightful)
This legislation is a needed benefit for the ham community, but the NIMBY problem is far bigger than this. I have seen cases where a small group of Concerned Citizens (aka tinfoil yammerheads) can prevent needed cell towers from being installed in their town because 'radiation'.
What I would like to see is legislation that would strip NIMBYs of court access to prevent the construction of any public infrastructure project that conforms to published specifications for safety, appearance, and environmental impact for the project type, as adjudicated by the relevant regulatory agency. To obstruct a project, an opponent would be burdened with proving that the project did not conform to its type specification.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a ham radio buddy who used the same strategy. Whenever he moved to a new town, he would set up his big antenna first and left the rest of his rig crated. He would wait about six weeks for all the neighbors to complain about impotence and dead pets. Then he would invite everyone over and show them the setup. Never a peep after that.
Re: (Score:2)
Take for example one "RF Crusader". This woman films videos of her driving around in her car with some sort of detector constantly going off....talking about the doom and gloom. She stops on corners, points at things she things are towers...then rants at how "everyone at this intersection is getting cancer
Re: (Score:2)
"Lady wound up in a psych ward."
In too many cases, she winds up in a legislature, or Congress, instead. It's why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
how very libertarian of you to demand peoples' access to the courts be stripped.
Re: (Score:2)
how very libertarian of you to demand peoples' access to the courts be stripped.
If you're going to have any adjudicating body at all, we should have the right to demand that it observe scientific facts when it renders judgements.
Or we could do it the strict Randian way: protesters would take up arms against construction crews, who would then get to shoot back.
Pre ASCII (Score:2)
What about the 10th Amendment (Score:2)
Much as I hate such limits on use of private property ("painting permit" anyone?), is not such Federal overwrite of local laws and rules against the spirit and even the letter of the 10th Amendment [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An FCC regulation is even worse (weaker) than an actual Congress-passed and President-signed law...
But, yes, I'm aware of the federal laws on the matter — my point was, such laws (and "regulations") need to be Amendments to be able to trump local laws, should they not be?
Excellent news... (Score:2)
I sent my reps the email.
I am glad that it may have helped.
(Amature Radio Service Operator).
As a former Lothians RAYNET member (Score:2)
73's
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cell phone base stations go dead after a few hours of power loss.
Re:Cell Phone (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw some Democrats supporting this bill. Therefore, as a Republican, I'm going to have to oppose this bill on principle.
No, I'm kidding, of course. I'm not a ham radio operator myself, but it seems like this is some common-sense legislation. Homeowner's associations can be remarkably priggish at times. I think some people just enjoy lording nitpicky rules over others, and that's the only mechanism they have, other than making family members miserable.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, people would like to be able to own homes in areas unblighted by rooftop antenna towers.
Chimneys, satellite TV or ISP dishes, HDTV antennas, wind vanes, flag poles, roof-mounted security lights, rain gutter systems, skylights, solar panels.
You forgot these things we should also get rid of, just to be fair.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But not the lawn jockeys. I love the lawn jockeys and garden gnomes. They can stay. ]
I especially hate the roof-mounted security lights. I lived in a neighborhood with zero crime. I mean, the place was stupidly safe, because a Chicago alderman and the chancellor of the University of Illi
Re: (Score:2)
I would never suggest you invest in a $200 tax stamp and a box of .22 primer-only ammo.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's some inspiration for you: http://27bslash6.com/halogen.h... [27bslash6.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise, maybe he just wants the light to be able to walk out in the driveway at night and have a light come on so he doesn't trip over the bicycle that his kid just left laying in the driveway.
Then the motion sensor should trip in his driveway, and not in the adjacent alley, which he does not own. At best, he's an incompetent asshole; incompetent because he can't aim a motion sensor and an asshole because of his impact on others, about which he surely does not give a shit.
I'd go over there with a can of fake snow and spray it on his floods.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not paying attention. There hasn't been a crime in that neighborhood since the Roaring '20s. There are more police than squirrels in that neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more police than squirrels in that neighborhood.
That's just nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, people would like to be able to own homes in areas unblighted by rooftop antenna towers.
You must have missed the early satellite TV/Internet day where some neighbor had a satellite dish that took up most of the backyard.
Re: (Score:2)
It's your neighbor's property; they should be able to erect a 30ft statue of Buddha if they want to.
If your 30-foot statue of Buddha overshadows my backyard victory garden, it wouldn't take much to convince a court that you're interfering with the enjoyment of my backyard. That was a common complaint about satellite dishes back then.
We (used to) have many rights in the USA, but the right not to be offended isn't one of them.
You must not be from California. My roommates and I rented a duplex apartment with a front yard. One day a little old lady told us that the dead petunias in our front yard caused the value of her house down the street to drop by $25K. I asked her if she was selling her house.
Re: (Score:3)
Come on guy, the American way to solve that problem is to ask the woman for $10,000, get some Mexican to water your petunias for $500. She sells the house, gets out of your hair and everybody wins.
That's what Trump would do.
Re: Cell Phone (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How does that effect you?
Most directly - what your neighbor does to their property influences the value of yours.
That certainly doesn't excuse how far some HOA's go, but do not pretend that what happens on your property does not affect others.
Re:Cell Phone (Score:4, Insightful)
This thinking really bothers me, and while I know the principle you cite is generally true, I can't help but think that by far, I'd prefer to live next to a slob than someone who's going to tell me what I can and can't do on my own property. I can't speak for anyone else on this, but I, for one, would abandon any bargain on the sale of a house, upon being told that there's an HOA involved. That is a total deal breaker. If I'm going to buy a house, I'm buying a place to live. If it's an investment that I want, I'll try venture capital, trade goods or the stock market. Or comic books, as I'm already doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
A "reasonable" HOA can help protect your investment, I guess, by preventing other people from massively changing the character of the area.
There really are some nasty extreme things a neighbor could do which would make things less appealing for you, and make your property hard to sell if they wanted to.
The covenants were willing agreed when they bought in though. So no, they can't put in that 200 foot tower, rent out their front yard to 5 families as a trailer park, never cut their grass, leave a bun
Re: (Score:2)
Most directly - what your neighbor does to their property influences the value of yours.
That's true, but your neighbor doesn't have any right to have the value of their property improved by what you do to your property, unless they are agreeing to share the sales proceeds with you, when they sell their property, that is.....
Re:Cell Phone (Score:5, Insightful)
"Or, people would like to be able to own homes in areas unblighted by rooftop antenna towers."
Or on the third hand, they might want to move into a neighborhood and then inveigh against existing ham antennas. This happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, people would like to be able to own homes in areas unblighted by rooftop antenna towers.
Do you seriously think this will lead to your neighbors putting up something like this [astrosurf.com] rather than this? [photobucket.com]
What about a modest radio antenna makes it a "blight" in your neighborhood? Besides which, as soon as there's some sort of disaster or emergency, your neighbor in that "blighted" house is going to become your new best buddy. That's the entire point of this: having some ham operators in your area is a good thing for safety reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
because Hams make a sport out of creating links where "mere mortals" would curl up in a screaming ball.
with a good rig and even half decent materials you could get a relay setup to reach a couple hundred miles station to station (assumes presence of a suitable hill to put your relay).
All Else Failing the ARC has the local Hams "stand down" when they get there ( those Hams that are not staff of ARC)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the rule of an HOA matters more than emergency communications?
HOA lobby won this one. (Score:2)
Don't worry, it's a shit bill, stuffed to the gills with weasel words. The HOA can still just say "no", and your only option at that point is to spread your wallet wide open for a lawyer. And you still could end up with "no."
Totally shit bill. Watered down and mutated into a pro-HOA exercise in sycophancy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this whole bill thing confuses me. Perhaps I shifted here from another multiverse, but from where I came from, any licensed amateur radio operator can put whatever antenna on their property, and when the HOA or town attorney brought you to local court, you flash your amateur license, cite CFR 47 part 97 and The Telecommunications act of 1996, point out that your federally licensed antenna has jurisdiction over the local courts. And then the local court bends over, because they will always lose in fede
FCC (Score:2)
I was under the impression that those covenants were unenforceable, as the FCC has direct jurisdiction over all consumer communications equipment and ordinances.
In other words, if the FCC says you can't restrict the placement of antennas, then nobody can place additional regulations on antennas - HOA or not. This was brought up with DirectTV style satellite dishes, and the FCC stomped all over HOAs, and even apartment buildings, attempting to regulate them.
Re: (Score:2)
This was my understanding as well. It was at one time and may still be included in ham radio license exams.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC was able to prohibit municipalities from banning antennas, but failed with HOAs because property covenants are contractual matters.
Sign or don't buy (Score:2)
Exactly right. HOA's can impose all kinds of restrictions on what you do with your own property.
From my POV, the chain of logic that says "we can prevent you from buying if you don't sign our agreement" is invalid on first principles.
And I would not sign anything of the sort. But I have the ability to choose where I live. Not everyone does (jobs, family, illness, infirmity); and that makes this a problem. So a bill like this (not this version of the bill, certainly, because it is toothless) is needed to pus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that those covenants were unenforceable, as the FCC has direct jurisdiction
Unfortunately, that applies only to Satellite dishes and over-the-air TV reception antennas, not Amateur radio.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that those covenants were unenforceable, as the FCC has direct jurisdiction over all consumer communications equipment and ordinances.
The FCC has only pre-empted antenna structures for Over the Air TV and Data services OTARD for private land use contracts (CC&Rs) (i.e. HOAs) since 1970 or so. They have specifically and steadfastly refused to pre-empt CC&Rs for Hams. However, the FCC HAS pre-empted local zoning rules and laws for hams as well as OTARD antennas.
So city council cannot keep you from building that antenna, but the HOA can, and many do (including mine which I know from personal experience.)
Re:Lobbyists must be stopped (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't understand. Hams do this for enjoyment. If these restrictions ruin enjoyment, then they won't do ham radio at all. So, when the community does need emergency communications, there will be no one with a radio that is able to help. People aren't going to become hams just to spend money to be of help in an emergency, they spend the money to have an enjoyable hobby that has as a byproduct the ability to help the community when emergency communications is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
What's "normal" in an emergency?
Also, no.
Re:really? (Score:5, Informative)
The ham service is already regulated in the way I describe, in this case by the FCC and in conformance to international treaties. What you describe would be strictly illegal under the existing rules.
It's you NIMBYs who see the world as an unending series of Pandora's boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think you could defend against hostile disruption by banning transmitting towers you can see from a block away? If a terrorist wanted to shut down your cell reception, you would never see it coming.
Re: (Score:3)
An inexpensive transmitter can blockout a 10 mile radius.
These frequencies being used by cell phones have ultra-short wavelength, close
to the microwave ranges, and the HOAs would never notice such a small antenna which doesn't need to be more than a few feet off the ground to effectively jam cell phones for many miles.
On the other hand, if someone's dumb enough to put an intentional jammer of any kind on a tower, they would easily be tracked down, and they would then lose the tower, their operator l
Re: (Score:2)
This opens up pandoras box
Then the world must have ended by now given we've had hams for the best part of since the technology was first created.
Jamming is already illegal under federal laws.... (Score:2)
and the biggest "attack vector" against cell phones would be the "stingray" being deployed by your local police department.
But sure, we have to crack down on ham radio so you can feel safe. Because somebody who wants to secretly jam communications is going to put up a big, obvious antenna installation in order to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to know Morse code anymore in the US to get any Ham license. So if that's all that was holding you back, then it shouldn't be a barrier anymore, because hardly anyone uses CW for purposes other than repeater identification.
On a good day we could shoot skip as far as some HAM operators, but didn't have as many rules. 10-7.
CB Operators have many more stringent restrictions than Ham operators do; It's not that they have fewer rules, but enforcement is a problem.... since there's no indi
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody really knows the origin, but the consensus seems to be that it's a contraction of "amateur". Hams do not ordinarily write it in all caps.
Re: (Score:2)
The word 'Ham' is known to come from a slang term used in the early days of radio and telegraphy.
See: http://www.arrl.org/ham-radio-... [arrl.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You're a silent key (SK, aka dead person)? Radio from the grave? Did they bury you with your rig?
And how do you get on the Internet?
SK is a CW prosign... (Score:2)
Although it would generally be overscored when written, and sent as one long character (...-.-) Use as a reference to a deceased operator is secondary.
Per Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosigns_for_Morse_code [wikipedia.org]
The end of contact turn-over prosign is usually sent in lieu of the prosign K or the prosign at the very end of the last transmission from the transmitting station, to indicate the termination or end of a particular contact (conversation) between two stations, thus turning the communications channel over to other users. The prosign may be interpreted in English as, this station will be "silencing key". Often when terminating a contact with the prosign, a transmitting station may continue listening on the communications channel for calls from other stations.
Re: (Score:2)
What a waist of a high school education.
Re:Good lord, this is still a thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pot-bellied retirees reliving their childhood pretending to matter in the modern world...
Ham radio spans the globe, not just the US.
And when the shit seriously hits the fan, the grid goes down in some 3rd-world country, it's the ham radio guys that move the news in and out. They can even tcp over it.
When the Zombie Apocalypse comes - in whatever form it may be - it'll be *our* hams moving info.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe monopole would be a more accurate metaphor.
Re:The Amended Bill is Worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Meaningless fodder bill in an election year.
Not at all.
This is so much better than where things stand now. For example, I have a friend who put up a wire antenna in his back yard in an HOA and was forced to take it down even though you could not even see it without trespassing on his property. How is a wire that no one can see without trespassing affecting anyone's home value? But, as things are, it can be banned. Banning a wire that no one can see certainly would not "constitute the minimum practicable restriction on such communications to accomplish the lawful purposes of a community association seeking to enforce such restriction."
Will everything immediately go smoothly and every ham operator get exactly what they want? No, of course not. Will people end up going to court to sort this out? I'm sure that will happen. But over time, an understanding of what all of this means will arise just like it has for satellite dishes and over the air antennas.
This bill certainly isn't perfect. But, it is infinitely better than where things stand right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question:
How did the HOA know about the antenna (in order to force it being taken down) if no one could see it?
Re: (Score:2)
How did the HOA know about the antenna (in order to force it being taken down) if no one could see it?
Good question. HOAs are unfortunately too often enablers for busybodies. My friend has a real jerk of a neighbor who has entirely too much time on his hands and goes around looking for HOA rule violations basically as a hobby. And frankly, I'm not sure how the neighbor saw the antenna. Because it really was not visible unless you were in my friend's back yard. But nobody asks about that. They just point to the rules and say take it down.
In this case, it is a real shame. My friend is a Morse code b
States can regulate radio transmitters... (Score:2)
when they invent a way to make radio waves stop at state borders. Until then, federal (and international) regulations are the only ones that make sense.
Likely to be fundamental overload, actually.... (Score:2)
For better or worse, most ham operators these days use commercially made equipment, which is tested for spectral purity, so any significant output on broadcast or cellular bands is highly unlikely.
What often causes amateur band RFI/TVI nowadays is lack of filtering/shielding in cheap consumer electronics, to allow them to reject signals outside of their operating bands. Such "frills" are among the first design features eliminated in order to lower the selling price at WalMart.
If the ham operator is putting
THAT would be a case for notifying the FCC... (Score:2)
Playing music over the CB bands is a clear violation of the applicable rules, and voices coming through your toaster is a pretty clear indication that the CB is putting out considerably more than the allowable RF power level. of 4 watts AM or 12 watts for SSB.
Congress at work for you and yours (Score:2)
Congress often votes in a bi-partisan and broadly supportive manner when the actual effect of a bill is zero. That's the case here. The watered-down version of the bill they passed changes nothing significant to the HOAs, and offers nothing significant to those in the amateur radio service. HOAs can still arbitrarily say no, and when they do, you can get a lawyer, take them to court, and they can still say no, leaving you poorer and still without the antenna system you wanted. Hence... the "support."