PRB-1, DXers, Contesters and ARES

[D. R. Evans]

On 31 Jan 96 at 9:07, Pete Smith <n4zr at ix.netcom.com> wrote:


> The CQ article recounts ten years' experience with the application of PRB-1
> (for non-US readers, this is the U.S. FCC ruling that sought to protect
> radio amateurs from unduly restrictive local regulations governing towers
> and antennas).  The article notes that, in one case, "the zoning board
> investigated Williams's use of his amateur radio station and determined that
> he participated in neither Defense Department (MARS) nor emergency
> communication services; therefore his radio use was deemed to be primarily a
> hobby.  They then weighed this use against the interests of the city, such
> as aesthetics and public safety, and concluded that the needs of the city
> outbalanced Williams' hobby."  This position was upheld by two levels of
> court review.
> 

..


> Participation would also help to counter arguments such as that in the
> Williams case above, and help protect our right to reasonable antenna
> installations.  And finally, it could contribute to the policy arguments for
> continuing and expanding our frequency allocations.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 

Sorry, Pete. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit wasn't in
the slightest interested in our unrefuted argument that a 35' antenna was
insufficient for emergency communication. They held that it was
reasonable to limit a station located in a residentially zoned area in a
manner that would nullify its usefulness for emergency communication
(amongst other uses), providing only that a local authority provides a
mechanism whereby it may be possible to erect a useful antenna in other
(unspecified) places. 

I wish it were otherwise....

--------------------------------------------------------
D.R. Evans NQ0I / G4AMJ : devans at lynx.colorado.edu
                          al019 at freenet.uchsc.edu

"Palindor Chronicles" information and extracts:
   http://spot.colorado.edu/~romigj/drevans.html
--------------------------------------------------------


>From Doug Klein <wd8aub at ix.netcom.com>  Thu Feb  1 22:53:15 1996
From: Doug Klein <wd8aub at ix.netcom.com> (Doug Klein)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 17:53:15 -0500
Subject: Sorry FOC'ers!
Message-ID: <01BAF0CE.4262A440 at akr-oh1-17.ix.netcom.com>

No apology needed.  If FOC stands for what I think it stands for, your =
request
should already have been on our agenda.  A few years ago there was a =
scuffle about the use of .025 as our primary "meeting" frequency, and =
some unintentional qrm it caused to a prominent DXpedition.  Well, that =
was taken very seriously by the membership.  The published frequencies =
are to be .035 - .045 on the HF bands (above the LF bands).  And, it is =
only good operating practice to avoid DX windows.

My dear departed friend, Al, G3FXB always took the time out during the =
Marathon to say "Hello, mate!" to me, even though I was not a member of =
FOC (at the time)...  I hope that I speak for all FOC'ers when I say =
that even though we are calling CQ FOC, feel free to pop in and say =
hello, mate.

73 de Doug, WD8AUB


----------
From: 	Bill Tippett[SMTP:btippett at ctc.net]
Sent: 	Thursday, February 01, 1996 11:31 AM
To: 	dx at ve7tcp.ampr.org; CQ-Contest at TGV.COM; topband at lists.frontier.net
Subject: 	Sorry FOC'ers!

FOC'ers:      =20

        Pardon me for letting my sarcastic streak run wild and spoil =
what I
still think is a reasonable request.  For contests with very low or =
selective
participation, I think some consideration of others is in order on a =
small
band like 160 (maybe not 15 kHz worth but how about 5?)  As one person
suggested, "I would be very happy if NA FOC'ers just observe the
normal (?) contest etiquette of not CQing between 1830-1835".  Please
accept my humble apologies for my tactless words...it must be the
menopause medication.  Shame on me...and have fun in the Marathon!
               =20
                                                        73,  Bill  W0ZV



 =20