Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Is\s+the\s+FCC\s+sharp\?\s+Is\s+ARRL\s+counsel\s+swift\?\s*$/: 55 ]

Total 55 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: w8ik@subich.com (Joe Subich, K4IK)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 00:31:15 -0500
Of course, one could argue that amateur radio towers is a first amendment and separation of powers issue. The federal government has authorized us to operate an amateur radio station and no other go
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00010.html (9,918 bytes)

2. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: W4EF@dellroy.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 21:33:15 -0800
Hi Stu, I don't have much experience with this, but I wonder if any buyers have had success negotiating specific exemptions (antenna, or otherwise) to CC&Rs prior to closing on a property? Seems to m
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00011.html (12,580 bytes)

3. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: wa2moe@firstinter.net (Stu Greene)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:37:09 -0700
I don't know but I'm sure others will want to comment 73 and Happy New Year AN Wireless Self Supporting Towers are now available! Windloading tables, foundation diagrams and charts, along with full d
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00012.html (9,924 bytes)

4. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: kc5ajx@hotmail.com (Rick Bullon)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:28:05 +0000
Bravo Stu this is what I have been trying to get across but everyone keeps lumping CC&R's and city anti-antenna ordinances in to the same group. They are not the same with CC&R's you agree to the re
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00013.html (9,329 bytes)

5. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: ka5nez@clarc.org (KA5NEZ)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:51:55 -0600
Fellow Reflectees: I sure am simpathetic to the CC&R issue. It is ironic that property covered my CC&R's has a premium price on property with limited autonomy. I do not and will never own a piece of
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00014.html (10,319 bytes)

6. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: kilo.mike@gte.net (Kris Mraz)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 06:16:16 +0000
Rick, et al, One thing you're forgetting, Rick, is the potential NEW hams who already have a house. If they discover ham radio and they're already living in a restricted neighborhood I doubt they wil
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00015.html (12,207 bytes)

7. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: kc5ajx@hotmail.com (Rick Bullon)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 07:05:45 +0000
To: <towertalk@contesting.com> Hello Kris I agree not all hams can put up a tower and a HF beam, but there are alternatives. If there are tall trees in the back yard then stealth wire antennas can b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00016.html (12,400 bytes)

8. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: tbeltran@earthlink.net (Thomas Beltran)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 23:41:57 -0800
I don't see the First Amendment issue - a religion? right of association? possibly speech, but that is a stretch. If anything, it is a preemption issue. States (and political subdivisions of states
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00017.html (17,711 bytes)

9. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 05:47:03 -0500
Stu, Congress was willing to direct the FCC to pre-empt all forms of local prohibition against satellite TV antennas, including CC&Rs. FCC wrote regs doing just that and then enforced them in some pr
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00019.html (11,114 bytes)

10. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: steven.gehring@verizon.net (Steve Gehring)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 04:35:24 -0800
All, After eight years of wonderful life in Alaska and Wisconsin, I've been drawn to the Seattle area to further my telecommunications career. My family and I are presently renting a house our first
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00020.html (26,976 bytes)

11. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: wa2moe@firstinter.net (Stu Greene)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 09:20:30 -0700
Pete -- because satellite television is a business and employs people who pay taxes as do their employers. That's clout Weigh ham clout against the clout of property associations, and I think we lose
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00026.html (11,520 bytes)

12. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 11:57:09 -0500
Stu replied: And I respond: Oh, OK -- I thought you said earlier that the FCC should just take a general stand against interfering in property rights. I agree that we need to apply some serious muscl
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00027.html (11,835 bytes)

13. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: k6sdw@hotmail.com (Eddy Avila)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 17:23:09 +0000
Guys, fascinating thread about CC&R's but where the hell were you legal pundits back in 1982 when I was being bullied about by the Lake of the Pines CC&R Design Committee (near Sacramento, CA) over o
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00029.html (11,864 bytes)

14. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: rmoodyg@concentric.net (Richard M. Gillingham)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 12:49:33 -0500
Getting a little far afield, but re the airplane thing, the crybabies usually win, and the airports have to use noise abatement procedures and/or 'quiet hours'. 73. Gil W4PJI This list is sponsored b
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00031.html (11,370 bytes)

15. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: w4zw@home.com (W4ZW)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:55:50 -0500
Yes, you can win the CCR battle if you do it while the developer is in control and as a condition of buying the property. This is a response I posted a couple of years ago here about this same subjec
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00038.html (12,525 bytes)

16. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: jonvwill@iastate.edu (Jonathan Williams)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 15:21:57 -0600
I'm not a lawyer, either, but I do know that, unfortunately, the Fifth Amendment is a restriction on government action, not private (e.g. contracts such as CC&R's). That's not to say that the basic p
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00048.html (11,932 bytes)

17. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: steven.gehring@verizon.net (Steve Gehring)
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:37:31 -0800
Jon, I'm in total agreement with you. I made similar comments to my ARRL division director, Greg Milnes, and also in an TT post earlier today. Let's see what the League and other prominent HR organiz
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00051.html (13,413 bytes)

18. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: w8ik@subich.com (Joe Subich, K4IK)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:56:03 -0500
Not necessarily so. I know of several people who had absolutely no idea the property they were purchasing had CC&Rs until they were presented the documentation at closing. In most cases, the CC&Rs a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00062.html (9,728 bytes)

19. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: n3rr@erols.com (Bill Hider (N3RR))
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 22:34:09 -0500
Anyone buying a house needs to include as riders (addenda) on the purchase contract that allow them time to research (or to have researched on their behalf) to determine if the property is subject to
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00063.html (11,463 bytes)

20. [TowerTalk] Is the FCC sharp? Is ARRL counsel swift? (score: 1)
Author: nielsen@oz.net (Bob Nielsen)
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 19:42:26 -0800
The only reason the FCC granted preemption for satellite dishes (plus MDS and "ordinary" TV antennas) is that Congress explicitly directed them to do so. Their reluctance to extend this to amateur an
/archives//html/Towertalk/2002-01/msg00064.html (10,928 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu