This reply on Ham Law put it where it is. There is a full fledged
discussion of HR4720 on the Ham Law reflector, and those interested in
joining can e mail
ham-law-request@altlaw.com
Use "subscribe" on a new line in the text.
>From: "Phil Kane" <k2asp@arrl.net>
>To: "Ham-law Reflector" <ham-law@altlaw.com>
>
>
> In the discussion of this matter, we've been skirting around one
> issue that no one has clearly enunciated. Being that I'm not noted
> for being timid on this subject let me put in in plain language.
>
> The real function why we need this legislation is not to ensure
> emergency communications or public service capability. That's only
> the window dressing.
>
> The function of this legislation - as with PRB-1 before it - is to
> pull the fangs of the Mini-Mussolinis and Little Hitlers on the condo
> boards and neighborhood associations who just delight in telling us
> what we can and can't do as hams. That sort of "telling" is the
> domain of the FCC, not of the condo board. If that's "Defying
> Authority".so be it.
>
> The argument that these are "private agreements that we freely
> made" is specious - a lawyer term for "so much BS". Remember Henry
> Ford's statement that he can supply a Model A in any color as long as
> the color is black? "Freely made" indeed. It's take it or leave it.
> No "freedom" involved. That's what we learn in first-year Contracts
> as a Contract of Adhesion which is not looked upon kindly.
>
> Those of us who are attornies who have had to represent amateur or
> even commercial radio licensees in these types of battles know
> exact; what I am talking about.
>
> We need pre-emption and we need it fast.
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
>---
> 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
> ARRL Volunteer Counsel
>
> From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
> Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon
|