On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Jim Venneman
<wx6v@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 (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.
(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.