[Mldxcc] [NCCC] The case against the revised Amateur Radio Parity Act

[Bob Wilson, N6TV]

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Jim Venneman <wx6v at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Today - ARRL posted a FAQs page (actually five pages) addressing the
> issues noted in this message exchange. It's a good read and seems to
> provide reasonable explanations of the issues brought forward with this
> legislation. The FAQs were prepared by ARRL attorney Chris Imlay. Curious
> what others think.
> de Jim
> -WX6V-
>

I am not persuaded.  Hoping that the FCC will do the right thing is not
good enough.

You can read the entire bill for yourself here
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1534/text> (it's
not that long).  The introduction is fine, talking about Parity with
PRB-1.  But the meat of it, Section 3, is nothing like PRB-1.  In fact
Imlay states in the FAQ that it's not clear that favorable rulings based on
PRB-1 would even *apply* in similar cases against an HOA based on this new
bill S.1534.

As ARRL Volunteer Counsel K1VR pointed out, if an HOA permits you to put up
an "effective outdoor" 440 MHz whip antenna, and nothing more, then they
have met all requirements of the bill.  The 3rd paragraph requiring
"minimum practicable restriction" is preceded by the word "or," which makes
it inapplicable, something that can be ignored by the HOA *if* they permit
you to put up "an effective outdoor antenna" (one) for "an amateur service"
(one).

I hope you will write to your senators to tell them that this bill gives
HOAs more power than they ever had before, and no one wants that.  HOA
residents will now have to get prior HOA permission to string up a wire or
put a mobile whip on a tripod.

One should also understand that the ARRL has published a new "Code of
Conduct" for ARRL Directors, new rules that explicitly *prohibit* our
elected directors from disclosing how they feel about a decision that they
did not favor, or how they voted on it, unless they resign, or unless the
votes are made public, which in this controversial case, the League has not
done.

See http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/ARRL%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf
(a new policy published January 31st, 2017).  I found most of it to be very
disturbing, now requiring directors to publicly support The League's
decisions even when they strongly opposed those decisions.

How can we decide which directors need to be re-elected or replaced if
their ARRL voting record on important public matters such as this is kept
secret?

73,
Bob, N6TV
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/mldxcc/attachments/20170807/141065ca/attachment.html>