[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: HL: Question for the group

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: HL: Question for the group
From: (Stu Greene)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 13:03:51 -0700
>To: Multiple recipients of list ham-law <>
>Reply-To: "The Ham Law Mailing List" <>
>From: Jim  W9WU <>
To: <>
>Date:  Fri, 3 Apr 1998 14:14:30 EST
>Subject:  Re: HL:  Question for the group
>X-Mailer:  AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 168
>In a message dated 4/3/98 11:30:22 AM Central Standard Time,
> writes:
>>      What is going to be the status when a city, county, 
>>  homeowners assn, etc etc etc has a limitation on antenna
>>  height that makes it impossible for a station to be in
>>  compliance with the new emmission rules because of the 
>>  tower limitations?   Is this not a form of local regulations
>>  prohibiting federally licensed use of the radio?
>>      I did the program again for emmissions and with an 
>>  antenna at less than 35 feet, you start to have potential 
>>  problems right away..
>Bryan:  This is a difficult question, only because it's a nasty issue to
>in a public
>hearing with all the neighbors there.  Unlike the cellular guys who have a
>preemption from any consideration of RF emissions by a local zoning authority
>in the law, we're not so lucky.  I like to use ol Part 15, usually reading
>from various FCC interference publications that suggest raising/reorienting
>the antenna, and pointing out that putting the ham antenna up, up and away
>from portable phones, baby monitors, etc. will resolve the problem that Part
>15 requires those nasty home devices not to cause interference, and to accept
>any interference they receive. I have a graphic handout from a registered
>professional engineer that demonstrates that higher is better when it
comes to
>interference with home stuff.  So far it's worked, but I'm waiting for the
>first 'engineer' type neighbor to raise the question of health effects.  
>If you're coming to Dayton, join us in Room 3 on Sunday at 11:15 am for
>Amateur Radio and the Law: Getting It Up and Keeping It Up.  
>73, Jim W9WU   ARRL VC, Illinois  
>The Ham-Law Mailing List. This list is for discussion and does not 
>purport to give legal advice. 
>Subscribe and unsubscribe:
>Use "(un)subscribe ham-law" on a new line in the text.

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [TowerTalk] Re: HL: Question for the group, Stu Greene <=