Amidst all the furor over the FCC's RF safety rules, the FCC
acted on another docket that also was mandated with a 180-day
deadline under the new Telecommunications Act: the
preemption of local zoning restrictions AND DEED RESTRICTIONS
that impair the ability to receive over-the-air television
and MMDS signals.
I'm almost afraid to mentions this here, lest I somehow
start another flame war, but I see a little hope in this
for amateurs.
The new preemption came in Docket 96-83; the full text
of the Report and Order is on the FCC Web page as FCC
96-328. I downloaded it a couple of days ago; I think
it's in the Cable Services Bureau section.
The new preemption is very broad, as mandated by Congress.
The purpose is to put competing video delivery systems on
a "level playing field" with cable. As I read them, the new
rules say there is a right to put up an antenna on a mast
up to 12 feet above the roof if you own the property. It
does not apply to renters whose landlords object. Nor does
it apply to common areas in condo complexes, although the
FCC is conducting a further inquiry into those issues.
According the the new rules, you do not need a building
permit for an antenna that does not exceed the 12-foot
limit. (Higher antennas may require a local permit).
Nor can a homeowner's association prevent the erection of
such antennas, deed restrictions notwithstanding.
However (and this may be a big however), local governments
and homeowners' associations may enforce restrictions based
on safeption. There are a few other potential loop-
holes for local authorities as well.
NOTE: This applies only to receiving antennas, not transmit-
ting antennas. But at the risk of getting flamed, I'm going
to continue. If you're reading this Reflector, I know what
you're thinking: you can put up a TV antenna (or something
that looks like one) and then use it to work DX on two meters
(or even 20 meters).
I'm not going to say anything that even sounds like legal
advice, but I have a hunch that a ham who is discreet,
nice to his/her neighbors and careful to run low enough power
to avoid all r.f.i. problems could probably get away with
transmitting now and then on a TV antenna that has been
legalized by these new FCC rules. Inasmuch as PRB-1
already requires cities to allow some transmitting antennas,
this new preemption could perhaps be most useful to hams who
live in deed restricted areas.
At the same time, I should point out that this rule was so
vehemently opposed by cities and homeowners' associations that
the FCC will probably be reluctant to preempt any other local
government or homeowners' association antenna restrictions for
a long time. The FCC would never have gone ahead with this one
in the face of all the opposition if it hadn't been mandated
by Congress. There was actually a *demonstration* by local
officials who conducted a protest march at the FCC headquar-
ters!
-Wayne Overbeck, N6NB
woverbeck@fullerton.edu
|