Let's ask K1ZZ ! (fwd)

Ronald D. Klein rklein at lobo.rmh.pr1.k12.co.us
Sat Jul 10 08:34:05 EDT 1993

Steve, N2IC/0 makes an extremely valid point relative to the need to enhance 
PRB-1. There are an increasing numbers of examples - NQ0I's case being the most 
blatant that I am aware of - where the "broken" governmental and judicial 
processes have completely disregarded the intent of PRB-1 as written.

The current version of PRB-1 was a real breakthrough. It's usefulness depends 
on the zoning authorities and judicial system behaving in a rational and fair 
manner. It is obvious to me such a dependency is a problem. I suggest that 
those who are concerned about the direction things are headed provide 
constructive input to the ARRL to encourage them to make enhancements of PRB-1 
a top priority. It appears to me that the modifications MUST include clear 
technical criteria for antenna height based upon the operational need of the 
amateur. It needs to clearly override what the small-minded, petty, snobbish 
(and other less socially acceptable descriptors) neighborhood interests 
consider to be "aesthetics".

Yet another local example I am familiar with follows. About 2 years ago, an 
amateur in Larimer County, Colorado decided to apply for a permit for 3 towers 
up to 70 ft. high on a 2.3 acre parcel in a subdivision. The lot is immediately adjacent to the 
adjacent to the sewer plant which serves the subdivision. And, there is only 
one home to the east which could possibly have concerns about views of the 
Rocky Mountains to the west. There was such an uproar that the ham backed off 
and has yet to proceed. The point to be made follows. (by the way, I am not 
the ham referred to. I have 1 tower + 2 Hytowers on my lot 1/2 mile away in 
the same subdivision.)

Larimer County has wording in it's subdivision regulations which restricts 
structures to 40 feet, with wording that specifically excludes antennas. Their
"interpretation" is that this applies only to antennas attached to homes and 
not towers. The zoning administrator was claiming to be unaware of PRB-1. He 
was provided a copy during this period. Recently, I spoke with a friend of 
mine who is on the Board of Adjustment. He had been told by the Zoning 
Administrator that the 40 foot limit clearly complies with PRB-1. The claimed 
basis is that there are provisions for exceptions to be granted. I certainly 
don't see the situation this way and do not believe other rational people 
would either.  To me, this is a prime example of a bureaucrat who chooses to 
do things his way by twisting the intent of PRB-1 to suit his personal tastes 
- after all, he is chosen to know best, independent of the wording of the 
regulations, right? HOGWASH!

IT IS TIME TO PUT REAL TEETH INTO PRB-1 and build on the good work done by 
those who succeeded at getting the original one through. The system is so 
broken that there is no choice but to make it clear and specific so those who 
choose to play their silly little bureaucratic and unethical games can be 
prevented from doing so! It may also be time for another tea party.  My taxes 
certainly aren't being spent in a way that represents my wishes!

:soapbox off.

73, Ron - W0OSK (Berthoud, CO)

> N2IC/0 said:
> Those of you who have been following the discussions in rec.radio.amateur.policy
> know that NQ0I's recent PRB-1 antenna case loss has become a heated issue.
> As contesters, we have a vested interest in modifications to PRB-1
> that COMPLETELY preempt local antenna regulations that limit us based on
> aesthetic or psuedo-scientific health and safety issues.  The vagueness in the
> current version of PRB-1 just doesn't hack it !  If we don't start
> making some noise, then the issue of antenna restrictions will remain secondary,
> behind other "important" issues like:
> - Loss of part of the 220 MHz band
> - Use of scanners in cars
> - Increased privileges for Novices and no-code Technicians
> If we are silent on this issue, within 10 years contesting in the
> USA will be divided into two classes: A few big guns, who are lucky or rich enough
> to live where they can put up big antennas, and the rest, trying to work the
> big guns using their attic dipoles.  Even putting up a modest tribander at
> 50 feet will be impossible for those who live in suburbia.  Not very much different
> then it currently is in England.
> If we can get all fired up about issues like "equalized contesting", why are we
> so complacent about antenna restrictions ?   This is NOT a lost cause.  All it
> takes is action by the FCC.  Even the judges in the NQ0I case said  "...the FCC
> has the power to enact regulations which would preempt conflicting local
> ordinances ...".  The time is NOW to put pressure on the ARRL and the FCC to
> modify PRB-1.
> If you aren't doing a serious effort in the IARU contest, why not ask K1ZZ
> what the ARRL is doing about antenna restrictions ?  I'm sure he'll be on for at
> least a few hours.  There are also a few other contesters in a position to
> influence ARRL policy, such as K1KI.  Why not ask him what is going on, too !
> Steve London, N2IC/0

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list