[RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological Advisory Council Recommendations
Roger (K8RI)
k8ri at rogerhalstead.com
Fri Dec 8 00:30:05 EST 2017
Thanks Gordon,
I forgot to mention that on the first ordinance rewrite, I was the only
one with input from the ham community and that one input resulted in ham
towers being completely unregulated at the township level.
73, Roger (K8RI)
On 12/6/2017 Wednesday 6:05 AM, w2ttt wrote:
> Roger,
> Thanks and your eloquent comments further the cause for positive and
> polite engagement.
>
> My town put in an Amateur Radio exemption requiring only a building
> permit for towers up to 35 ft without a variance back in 1997. Houses
> are typically 30-33 ft. here, but they are reasonable when it comes to
> antennas and masts.
>
> The really humorous part of the ordinance has a $200 permit fee for
> each of a maximum of two satellite dishes. So for $400 you can have
> two dishes. While this permit fee was targeted for large C-band
> dishes, the text makes no distinction between dish sizes and permit
> fees. The good news is that the town does not enforce the fee for
> Ka/Ku band dishes, but the text is ambiguous.
>
> All of this came about at a time when when my wife and i were up to
> our ears raising three, now young men. Theyand we were involved in
> school, Church, Scouts, sports, emergency response as we were guiding
> them through that process. Today they are all fine adults, who are
> Eagle Scouts and licensed Amateur Radio operators. Each is involved
> in different lines of work, but are productive and fine people.
> During those years we didn't track the ordinances because we were busy
> doing our primary job - being parents.
>
> The point of all these changes was to prohibit the deployment of cell
> sites and towers not on municipal property because the town entered
> into an arrangement for a free tower for the municipal government and
> wanted to retain income rights for cell towers. The odd thing is that
> it does not limit the Wi-Fi access point deployment by the cable
> company. With small cells emerging in LTE, and with the emergence of
> millimeter wave 5G, the ordinance is just outdated.
> We will help the town revise these points in the ordinance in the New
> Year.
>
> 73,
> Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
> 201.314.6964
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Tab S2, an AT&T 4G LTE tablet
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri at rogerhalstead.com>
> Date: 12/6/17 02:42 (GMT-05:00)
> To: rfi at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARLB025 FCC Seeks Comments on Technological
> Advisory Council Recommendations
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
--
Roger (K8RI)
More information about the RFI
mailing list