[RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological Advisory Council Recommendations

[Roger (K8RI)]

Well said Gordon.
I Too am a life member of the ARRL who have done a great deal of work 
for Ham Radio.  I don't agree with them at times, but without them 
Amateur Radio might not be near what it is today.

Recently our Township decided to redo their ordinances AGAIN. They redid 
them a couple years ago and that time I found our about the changes the 
day before they were to rule on them.  Of primary concern were quite 
restrictive tower regulations that made no distinctions between Amateur 
and commercial towers. After a fairly "long and polite" telephone 
conversation with the person in charge, they voted to exempt Ham Towers 
from township zoning. THIS time they hired a professional to rewrite the 
zoning and made available the proposed changes ahead of time. It 
appeared "to me" he used a cookie cutter approach using Regulations that 
may have been for HOAs, or larger, more densely populated areas.  One of 
our hams worked with a lawyer who worked with the ARRL and I believe 
created a presentation for the township meeting.  That resulted in the 
voting being deferred until a rewrite could be done taking into account 
the presentation.

We ended up with towers being regulated but to a much more lenient 
degree than was originally proposed.   IIRC up to a height of 50, or 60 
feet requires no building permit. Up to 140 feet requires a simple 
building permit. Beyond that requires the planning commission.

IOW, If you say nothing, nothing gets changed, nor do any of your ideas 
become considered or incorporated.

73, Roger (K8RI)


On 12/6/2017 Wednesday 12:28 AM, w2ttt wrote:
> Gentlemen,1. There is no "big money" backing the ARRL.  We should be so lucky as to be rolling in a bounty of money from such a commercially attractive enterprise, even as a non-profit hobby and service.
> 2. The Parity Act clearly had unintended consequences, and it is a blessing that Sen. Nelson mistakenly came to our "rescue", so that we can revisit the issue properly at later time.
> 3. The FCC TAC proposal is out for comments by the public through the end of January and reply comments through mid-February.  Put together coherent comments and submit them.  If you don't write well, then get your club together, or even a buddy or two, and share your ideas.
> 4. I am an ARRL Life Member and I receive a very wonderful membership journal each month.  I keep them on a shelf for a few months and then give them away to those who might be interested in getting their license along with other helpful and attractive ARRL-produced flyers which are provided by the League at NO CHARGE online, or for a nominal shipping charge if printed and shipped.  These flyers work very well in bringing in new Hams who get on the air in a variety of modes and activities.
> Finally, I had the opportunity a year or so ago to contribute to my employer's comments to the FCC TAC's Noise Inquiry.  Further, I happily observed that the corporate interests of my employer were well aligned with those of the Amateur Radio community, and with the ARRL and the Society of Broadcast Engineers.  Let's take a look at what is being proposed, and make our comments once again.  We may get what we need, but only if our objectives are expressed in a sensible and forthright manner
> Vy 73,Gordon Beattie, W2TTT 201.314.6964
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab S2, an AT&T 4G LTE tablet
> -------- Original message --------From: Joe <w7rkn.7 at gmail.com> Date: 12/5/17  21:58  (GMT-05:00) To: rfi at contesting.com Subject: Re: [RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological Advisory
>    Council Recommendations
> Not RFI related, but the same inaction and endorsement by the ARRL.  (And
> reason I will no longer support them.)
>
> It seems to me that the ARRL is now being backed by big money.  The bill
> winding its way through the halls of our esteemed (sic) leaders, you know,
> the one that is supposed to give hams more options on antennas at their
> residences and to restrict what HOA's can demand of us?  Well, the ARRL came
> out supporting it and several attorneys have dissected it and found that in
> fact, the damned bill will take away what few legs we have to stand on, as
> it is.
>
> This FCC 'study', backed by the ARRL, is a blatant step in the wrong
> direction.
>
> INMNSHO, the ARRL has no interest in us, the amateur, any longer.  Don't get
> me started.  The membership fee has gone up and we no longer have a magazine
> to put up on the shelf.  Seems to me their cost should have gone down
> substantially, yet I saw no reduction in my fees.
>
> Stuff them.  I even told them in a nice, civil, letter, Two months ago!  Not
> even the courtesy of an  "up Yours".  Yeah, they care.
>
> My foot...
>
> Joe - W7RKN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Cole (NK7Z)
> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological Advisory
> Council Recommendations
>
> So far you and I are on teh same track here...  I did not take this as a
> good thing for hams...  It looks to me, as if the FCC is getting ready to
> due away with the, if it interferes it needs to stop rules...  I hope I am
> wrong in this.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi


-- 
Roger (K8RI)


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus