Thanks Gordon,
I forgot to mention that on the first ordinance rewrite, I was the only
one with input from the ham community and that one input resulted in ham
towers being completely unregulated at the township level.
73, Roger (K8RI)
On 12/6/2017 Wednesday 6:05 AM, w2ttt wrote:
Roger,
Thanks and your eloquent comments further the cause for positive and
polite engagement.
My town put in an Amateur Radio exemption requiring only a building
permit for towers up to 35 ft without a variance back in 1997. Houses
are typically 30-33 ft. here, but they are reasonable when it comes to
antennas and masts.
The really humorous part of the ordinance has a $200 permit fee for
each of a maximum of two satellite dishes. So for $400 you can have
two dishes. While this permit fee was targeted for large C-band
dishes, the text makes no distinction between dish sizes and permit
fees. The good news is that the town does not enforce the fee for
Ka/Ku band dishes, but the text is ambiguous.
All of this came about at a time when when my wife and i were up to
our ears raising three, now young men. Theyand we were involved in
school, Church, Scouts, sports, emergency response as we were guiding
them through that process. Today they are all fine adults, who are
Eagle Scouts and licensed Amateur Radio operators. Each is involved
in different lines of work, but are productive and fine people.
During those years we didn't track the ordinances because we were busy
doing our primary job - being parents.
The point of all these changes was to prohibit the deployment of cell
sites and towers not on municipal property because the town entered
into an arrangement for a free tower for the municipal government and
wanted to retain income rights for cell towers. The odd thing is that
it does not limit the Wi-Fi access point deployment by the cable
company. With small cells emerging in LTE, and with the emergence of
millimeter wave 5G, the ordinance is just outdated.
We will help the town revise these points in the ordinance in the New
Year.
73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab S2, an AT&T 4G LTE tablet
-------- Original message --------
From: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>
Date: 12/6/17 02:42 (GMT-05:00)
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological
Advisory Council Recommendations
Well said Gordon.
I Too am a life member of the ARRL who have done a great deal of work
for Ham Radio. I don't agree with them at times, but without them
Amateur Radio might not be near what it is today.
Recently our Township decided to redo their ordinances AGAIN. They redid
them a couple years ago and that time I found our about the changes the
day before they were to rule on them. Of primary concern were quite
restrictive tower regulations that made no distinctions between Amateur
and commercial towers. After a fairly "long and polite" telephone
conversation with the person in charge, they voted to exempt Ham Towers
from township zoning. THIS time they hired a professional to rewrite the
zoning and made available the proposed changes ahead of time. It
appeared "to me" he used a cookie cutter approach using Regulations that
may have been for HOAs, or larger, more densely populated areas. One of
our hams worked with a lawyer who worked with the ARRL and I believe
created a presentation for the township meeting. That resulted in the
voting being deferred until a rewrite could be done taking into account
the presentation.
We ended up with towers being regulated but to a much more lenient
degree than was originally proposed. IIRC up to a height of 50, or 60
feet requires no building permit. Up to 140 feet requires a simple
building permit. Beyond that requires the planning commission.
IOW, If you say nothing, nothing gets changed, nor do any of your ideas
become considered or incorporated.
73, Roger (K8RI)
On 12/6/2017 Wednesday 12:28 AM, w2ttt wrote:
> Gentlemen,1. There is no "big money" backing the ARRL. We should be
so lucky as to be rolling in a bounty of money from such a
commercially attractive enterprise, even as a non-profit hobby and
service.
> 2. The Parity Act clearly had unintended consequences, and it is a
blessing that Sen. Nelson mistakenly came to our "rescue", so that we
can revisit the issue properly at later time.
> 3. The FCC TAC proposal is out for comments by the public through
the end of January and reply comments through mid-February. Put
together coherent comments and submit them. If you don't write well,
then get your club together, or even a buddy or two, and share your ideas.
> 4. I am an ARRL Life Member and I receive a very wonderful
membership journal each month. I keep them on a shelf for a few
months and then give them away to those who might be interested in
getting their license along with other helpful and attractive
ARRL-produced flyers which are provided by the League at NO CHARGE
online, or for a nominal shipping charge if printed and shipped. These
flyers work very well in bringing in new Hams who get on the air in a
variety of modes and activities.
> Finally, I had the opportunity a year or so ago to contribute to my
employer's comments to the FCC TAC's Noise Inquiry. Further, I happily
observed that the corporate interests of my employer were well aligned
with those of the Amateur Radio community, and with the ARRL and the
Society of Broadcast Engineers. Let's take a look at what is being
proposed, and make our comments once again. We may get what we need,
but only if our objectives are expressed in a sensible and forthright
manner
> Vy 73,Gordon Beattie, W2TTT 201.314.6964
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab S2, an AT&T 4G LTE tablet
> -------- Original message --------From: Joe <w7rkn.7@gmail.com>
Date: 12/5/17 21:58 (GMT-05:00) To: rfi@contesting.com Subject: Re:
[RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological Advisory
> Council Recommendations
> Not RFI related, but the same inaction and endorsement by the ARRL.
(And
> reason I will no longer support them.)
>
> It seems to me that the ARRL is now being backed by big money. The bill
> winding its way through the halls of our esteemed (sic) leaders, you
know,
> the one that is supposed to give hams more options on antennas at their
> residences and to restrict what HOA's can demand of us? Well, the
ARRL came
> out supporting it and several attorneys have dissected it and found
that in
> fact, the damned bill will take away what few legs we have to stand
on, as
> it is.
>
> This FCC 'study', backed by the ARRL, is a blatant step in the wrong
> direction.
>
> INMNSHO, the ARRL has no interest in us, the amateur, any longer.
Don't get
> me started. The membership fee has gone up and we no longer have a
magazine
> to put up on the shelf. Seems to me their cost should have gone down
> substantially, yet I saw no reduction in my fees.
>
> Stuff them. I even told them in a nice, civil, letter, Two months
ago! Not
> even the courtesy of an "up Yours". Yeah, they care.
>
> My foot...
>
> Joe - W7RKN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Cole
(NK7Z)
> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological Advisory
> Council Recommendations
>
> So far you and I are on teh same track here... I did not take this as a
> good thing for hams... It looks to me, as if the FCC is getting
ready to
> due away with the, if it interferes it needs to stop rules... I
hope I am
> wrong in this.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
--
Roger (K8RI)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
--
Roger (K8RI)
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|