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

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 millimeter wave 5G, the ordinance is just outdated.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)