AD5VJ Bob wrote:
> I made the first post (I think)
>
> I was wanting to make sure (since it seemed news at least to me) that it was
> real and that everyone was aware of it.
>
>
Actually I think the city's approach represents one of the greatest
threats faced by amateur radio. Most of the public, including those in
all levels of government are of the mind set that with cell phones the
emergency services aspect of amateur radio is just overblown until they
actually see an emergency where the power is out and/or there is so much
traffic they can't use their cell phones. Only then does it become
evident, at least for those who can add 2 and 2, that the Amateur Radio
Service, really is a service.
Until then those at the city level (and sometimes state) know with
certainty they can regulate any thing that goes on within or even above
their borders regardless of who tells them they can't. Many are quite
willing to push it through expensive court procedures as they figure the
average citizen doesn't have the will or resources to pursue it to the
point where the city will be forced to comply.
One redeeming feature in this case is them trying to preempt, or rather
usurp the FCC's jealously guarded territory. I think that will get the
FCC's attention more than any one of us could normally manage.
Now it the ham could just get compensation for time, stress, and money
spent from both the city and those who complained. <:-))
73
Roger (K8RI)
> I figured knowing Hams the way I do, they would not let it go until they
> found out the true facts and got to the bottom of it. My
> time is very limited due to work hours so I handed it over to the list for
> investigation.
>
> I am glad we did, and even happier that everyone is aware of it so they can
> see the process if it happens in their own area(s). I am
> praying we win.
>
> Bob AD5VJ
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Aycock
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 4:00 PM
>> To: jim Jarvis; towertalk@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Palmdale CA: The rest of the story
>>
>>
>> Jim-
>> Don't apologize- the first stuff to hit the list was fluff,
>> and misled me, too. It was like a lot of 'crying wolf'
>> stories I have seen. My initial reaction was the same as yours.
>> I am glad that the real story includes some real experts.
>> Bill-W4BSG
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@optonline.net>
>> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 3:05 PM
>> Subject: [TowerTalk] Palmdale CA: The rest of the story
>>
>>
>>
>>> And now, for the rest of the story...
>>>
>>> OK, I was cranky about the repeated posts concerning the you-tube
>>> video and
>>> the Palmdale CA antenna ordinance. I advocated serious
>>> professional work, rather
>>> than you-tube fluff. It's what I (we?) didn't know that was more
>>> important.
>>>
>>> In this week's ARRL Letter, not to be repeated here, you'll find
>>> the rest of the Palmdale
>>> story. It details what I consider to be a serious, and ongoing
>>> effort by the applicant/plaintiff,
>>> and the league at divisional and national levels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|