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outdated.We will help the town revise these points in the ordinance in the New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
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|