Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... From: (Bill Gunshannon) on Sat, Mar 10 2007 9:35 am Alan WA4SCA writes: [snip] Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population. 0.023 % actually (understanding the typo on decimal point). Best to double check that math. It is indeed approximately 0.2% (not 0.02%) or about 2 hams per thousand people. Dee, N8UZE |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 11, 3:56�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... From: (Bill Gunshannon) on Sat, Mar 10 2007 9:35 am Alan WA4SCA writes: [snip] Hams make up approximately 00.2% of the US population. * 0.023 % actually (understanding the typo on decimal point). Best to double check that math. *It is indeed approximately 0.2% (not 0.02%) or about 2 hams per thousand people. Yes. :-) (710K / 300M) = 2.3^(10-3) = 0.23% 88, AF6AY |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 10, 12:35�pm, "Howard Lester" wrote:
wrote I think there *is* a compelling public interest in the anti-antenna regulations contained in many CC&Rs. First off, those regulations have become "boilerplate" in many if not most new construction since the 1970s. The percentage of "no antenna" homes keeps growing with time. However, a number of years ago the FCC prevented HOA's from restricting the use of outdoor TV antennas *and 3' satellite dishes unless the home is in a "historic district" or is on a list of "historic homes." The only restriction I know of otherwise is, as I recall, that the HOA may restricted the antenna's height to no more than 12 feet above the roof line. FCC only did that because the Supreme Court told them to. IANAL, but here's what I learned: What happened was the satellite TV folks claimed that no-antenna CC&Rs were unfair restraint of interstate commerce. IOW, they effectively created a cable-TV monopoly in many areas, because the satellite TV pizza-dish antennas won't work reliably unless they can 'see' the satellite. The satellite TV folks fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. But only for the small dishes. "Regular" TV broadcast reception was also included, if the TV antenna did not exceed a certain size and wasn't more than a certain height above ground. But the antenna must be used *only* for TV reception - not ham radio, Wi-Fi, FM radio, SW radio, public service, etc. For more details, search for the "OTARD" ruling ("Off The Air Reception Decision", IIRC.) It doesn't matter what the HOA rules, deed restrictions, covenants, etc., say, or that people knowingly bought into places with "no antennas" clauses. Unless they're in a certified historic district, they have the right to put up certain antennas for TV reception. The Feds preempted those contracts and rules. Yes, I know some HOA's prevent even the use of a 2 meter "J pole" taped to the inside of the owner's window.... --- In reading this discussion, it seems there's a major point being missed: reasonable accomodation. The issue isn't just about towers and big beams. It's about unreasonable prohibition of even simple wire and vertical antennas that are almost invisible. The simple solution of "don't buy a restricted property" works well in some places and not in others. It all depends on what houses are for sale in an area when *you* need to move. In some areas, there's no shortage of affordable unrestricted homes for sale, but in others, they are essentially nonexistent. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:11:53 CST, Alan WA4SCA
wrote: Some time back, I did some looking around for an Arizona retirement home. You would be interested to hear that the proposed Arizona statute mirroring PRB-1 is drafted to apply to homeowner restrictions enacted AFTER the statute goes into effect but not retroactively. At least it's a start. 73 de K2ASP -- Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 23:15:04 CST, "KC4UAI" wrote:
I was just reading on the ARRL's website where the FCC has once again declined to include CCNR's (Deed restrictions) in it's "must be accommodating to Ham Radio" rules. I was wondering if anybody knew much about the organization that petitioned the FCC? The ARRL, among others. I was also wondering if somebody has re-introduced the bill into the new congress that would force the FCC to include CCNRs in it's PRB-1 pre-emption rules? I'm just guessing but it seems that the previous bill that was introduced, got shuttled to committee and died there. I haven't heard that it was reintroduced, but I hope that it is shortly. This is important to me because I live in a deed restricted community with a very picky HOA. It's important to all hams nationwide, whether they know/admitted it or not. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:35:04 CST, "Howard Lester"
wrote: However, a number of years ago the FCC prevented HOA's from restricting the use of outdoor TV antennas and 3' satellite dishes unless the home is in a "historic district" or is on a list of "historic homes." The only restriction I know of otherwise is, as I recall, that the HOA may restricted the antenna's height to no more than 12 feet above the roof line. The history behind that is that The Congress in passing the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 specifically directed the FCC to do that. This of course was at the urging of the satellite TV companies. Money talks, and big money talks loudly. The FCC specifically said in reply to a petition by the ARRL recently that until and unless The Congress directs otherwise, they will not exercise the preemption on CC&Rs and HOA regulations. (I do this stuff for a living.....) -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:38:34 CST, "Bill Horne, W1AC"
wrote: I think homeowners are justified in seeking relief from _government_ regulation of antennas, since such rules are not the sort of thing local governments do well. Deed restrictions, however, are something I think the government should stay out of unless there's a _very_ compelling public interest. But there is a compelling public interest, Bill, there certainly is. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane ARRL Volunteer Counsel email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|