QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940198.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 14KB

Date: Tue, 10 May 94 04:30:07 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #198
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Tue, 10 May 94       Volume 94 : Issue  198

Today's Topics:
          Antenna CC&R restrictions -- let's change the law
                            FCC computers
     SBS club call? (was Re: Upgraded license expiration question

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 15:09:54 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!pacbell.com!att-out!walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com![e-mail]
Subject: Antenna CC&R restrictions -- let's change the law
To: [e-mail]

I offer my comments below, not as a critisism, but to merely
point out some clarifications of several points.

In article <[e-mail]>,
WB9VGJ <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Perhaps Congress can address the problem of CC&R (Covenants, Conditions
>& Restrictions) that appear in deeds and homeowner association documents
>that prohibit outside antennas which negatively impact amateur radio
>operators.  As you know, PRB-1 specifically exempted these saying they
>are part of a contract between two private parties.  I maintain this is
>not true as a valid contract has to meet several criteria, one being that
>both parties must be able to negotiate the terms and agree to them.  This
>is not the case with CC&Rs; there is no negotiation between seller and
>buyer.

That's an overly simplified view of contract law.  You don't "negotiate"
the price of all the items offered for sale in most any store, yet,
when you make a purchase you surely have completed a contract of sale.

Nothing in contract law mandates that the entity (person, store or
seller of property) must negotiate all elements of the contract.
The seller, especially the first sale of a property which is
created by subdivision with a new set of CC&Rs) can simply stand
by his (the sellers) position that if you don't want the property
with CC&Rs then you don't buy.  That may sound rather limiting (in the
mind of a potential buyer), but that's simply the way things are.

>When I wrote my U.S. representative, J. Dennis Hastert, to thank him
>for his co-sponsorship of H.R. 2623, a bill to limit the liability of
>hams who participate in volunteer programs for the benefit of the Amateur
>Radio Volunteer Services Act, I suggested that Congress consider legislation
>to preempt CC&Rs as they pertain to amateur radio antennas.  The FCC can
>only write regulations to enforce provisions of the Communications Act and
>other legislation regarding radio operation that are passed by Congress.
>
>Here is an excerpt of the reply dated 4/25/94 I got from Mr. Hastert:

Letter reply deleted for brevity....

>So, his letter indicates to me that he is open to looking at the issue
>of CC&Rs.  Also, it turns out, he is a member of the proper subcommittee
>to address this issue.  Therefore, I would urge anyone who has comments
>on the desirability of a CC&R preemption to contact him in his capacity
>as a subcommittee member.  Anyone who has factual information and/or
>personal experiences with problems caused by CC&R restrictions, please
>pass along that information to him.  I did mention in my letter that it
>often costs amateurs thousands of dollars and ties up courts with law suits
>in order to be able to erect and maintain antenna structures.  With most
>new subdivisions today having CC&Rs prohibiting antennas, this is an issue
>I think Congress needs to address.

Don't expect much help from the feds because they are always reluctant
to stray into state issues.  Contract law has a long standing history
of being a state by state approach and (IMHO) not generally changed
by action(s) at the federal level.

>Some states are passing laws preempting municipalities from enforcing
>restrictions stricter than PRB-1, but I am not sure how many are preempting
>CC&Rs.  They are quite different from local ordinances as they are an
>encumbrance upon a piece of real estate, like a utility easement or mortgage,
>rather than being just a municipal ordinance.

For the same reasons above, don't hold much optimism that states will
force a change on any "existing" CC&Rs.  Perhaps, as apparently is
being pushed in Georgia, state legislation against future CC&R
prohibitions against amateur radio (and/or antennas) will prevail.
Time will tell, BUT... be asssured it won't happen unless the amateur
community pushes hard for it.

Hope this doesn't appear to negative, but I did want to help direct
attention/effort to where it'll do the most good.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 03:13:49 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!perot.mtsu.edu!raider!theporch!jackatak![e-mail]
Subject: FCC computers
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Matthew B Cravit) writes:
> On 25 Apr 1994 16:10:44 GMT, strange alien beings caused Bill Gunshannon (bil
> > In article <[e-mail]>, kevin jessup <kevin.
> > |> BTW, what kind of computer are thay running over in Gettysburg?
>
> > Last time I heard (quite a while ago) it was a SPERRY 1100 runing EXEC-8.
> > A PDP-11/23 running RSX11 (or RT11 for that matter) would run circles aroun
> > it.
That comment isn't really worthy of a response, since all the
1100/2200 systems I worked on would easily BURY an MVS box...but how
hard would that be?  ;^)

> This Sperry is quite possibly still what is in use.
Actually, it is NOT a Sperry or Unisys... it is a truly ancient
Honeywell 200/2000 machine of late 1960s vintage that is programmed in
EasyCoder, an AutoCoder (you gotta be OLD to know what that is!  ;^)
type language... economics is why they still are trying to run it...
Federal administrative systems are among the very LAST to be updated.
Look at the mess the Social Security Admin was in not long ago...and
the FCC administrative computing is even less visible... save to hams
on on the UseNet groups! ;^)

> because the FCC is junking their Sperry and moving to a PC LAN this
> month (supposedly electronic filing by the VECs will then be possible
> by the end of June).
Geez... PC LAN... WOW.... NOT!!!! Too bad they couldn't get a real
computer that supported their needs easily and would have some growth
to it... Bad Boy Bill Gates didn't write DOS for future...just lits of
silly people gave him money to keep it obscure.

Oh well. I do hope electronic filing happens before the 1997 WARC...
but you'll turn blue if you hold your breath... making a PC LAN
actually work is no trivial event...
73,
Jack, W4PPT/Mobile (75M SSB 2-letter WAS #1657 -- all from the mobile! ;^)

+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--+
| Jack GF Hill        |Voice: [phone] -             Ham Call: W4PPT |
| P. O. Box 1685      |Modem: [phone] -  Bicycling and SCUBA Diving |
| Brentwood, TN  37024|Fax:   [phone] -          Life Member - ARRL |
| [e-mail]  -   "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" |
+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--+

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 03:02:22 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!perot.mtsu.edu!raider!theporch!jackatak![e-mail]
Subject: SBS club call? (was Re: Upgraded license expiration question
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Brad Killebrew N5LJV) writes:
> In article <2pguq9$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dana Mye
> >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> >>
> >>I know someone this happened to. She upgraded to extra and received AAxFU.
> >>She did not want this call, and was quite offended by it.
This same thing happened to a chap in Atlanta early in the callsign
setup. He was issued KB4FU...used it and never thought about it until
someone in the mall parking lot asked his wife about the "obsenity" on
her license tag... suddenly, Tom got all bent out of shape, and in his
very finest straight-laced penmanship, wrote out a new 610 and a
letter explaining the situation.

The FCC was happy to oblige and promptly sent KB4FOX-UNITED a new
call... one that was most befitting the situation, and proving that
the FCC *DOES* have a sense of humor... Tom's new call????

K B 4 TOUGH SHIT!!!!
Really, check it out for yourself...
> I know a fellow named Galen who's cal is KB5FU.  He has fun with pile-ups
> having to yell F-U all the time!!

These are really tough choices... especially with a chance to reclaim
old calls or "preferred" ones that have fallen out of use... sadly,
W4FU belongs to a club in OHIO... I've worked it on 75 a time or two.  ;^)
73,
Jack, W4PPT/Mobile (75M SSB 2-letter WAS #1657 -- all from the mobile! ;^)

+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--+
| Jack GF Hill        |Voice: [phone] -             Ham Call: W4PPT |
| P. O. Box 1685      |Modem: [phone] -  Bicycling and SCUBA Diving |
| Brentwood, TN  37024|Fax:   [phone] -          Life Member - ARRL |
| [e-mail]  -   "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" |
+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--+

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 12:45:58 GMT
From: newsgate.melpar.esys.com!melpar![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <phb.768060210@melpar>, <2qar4j$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: [News] FCC Gets New Weapon

[e-mail] (Shawn C. Masters) writes:

>    If the dealers have to be responsible for what they sell who,
>then does that mean Circuit City can't sell me parts that I can use to
>build a device that breaks the law?  The line where such responsibility
>are seems quite arbitrary.  Especially when one considers how easy it is to
>build something like a spark gap.  Should we ban those parts from
>sale:-)?

      I don't think it's arbitrary at all; I think it can quite easily be
defined.  In fact, that's exactly what the FCC did with linear amplifiers
some years ago.  For those who don't remember, high-power amplifiers used
to cover all ham bands including 10 meters (very old amplifiers AND
transmitters used to have an 11-meter position on them because 11 meters
was at one time a ham band).  In any event, there was a real problem
nationwide with CBers buying these all-band linears and firing them up
on the 11 meter Citizens Band (can you imagine a kilowatt on a band
with a 5-watt limit?).  So, FCC banned the manufacture of linear
amplifiers which covered the 10-meter band; not the construction by
homebrewers, mind you, but the commercial manufacture.  This has, of
course, drastically reduced the "illegal linear" problem on 11 meters,
and will continue to do so as older linears get junked.

     Obviously, someone can go and buy the necessary parts and build
his own illegal linear for CB use, and no doubt some have.  But the
responsible person in this case is the builder, not the store which sold
him the parts.  Can the police hold a store responsible for selling
dynamite to a licensed contractor who then proceeds to build a pipe
bomb and blow up his competitor's house?  I don't think so.

     My main concern with the salesman or dealer selling the radio
was that they had a moral responsibility to inform the buyer "You
know, you need a license to operate this thing."  The dealer doesn't
have to do this unless there is a law which requires it, and there
may be no such law anywhere.  But I see nothing wrong with a law
requiring a two-way radio dealer to (a) inform the buyer, perhaps
having him sign a disclaimer stating that he has been informed that
a license is required (which protects the dealer against prosecution
and places the burden squarely on the buyer, and (b) provide the
buyer with the necessary forms to obtain a license.  In fact, were
I a dealer, I would be inclined to make the forms available and
require the buyer to sign a disclaimer JUST TO PROTECT MY OWN BUTT!
Nothing works better as evidence in your favor like a signed piece
of paper (and I've sat on a number of juries where such a piece of
paper was the critical piece of evidence).

=================================================================
      *          Paul H. Bock, Jr. K4MSG    [e-mail]
     * *         Senior Systems Engineer    [phone] x2062
*   *   *   *    E-Systems, Melpar Div.     Falls Church, VA
  **  G  **
  * *   * *     We meet upon the level, and we part upon the square
 *    *    *
==================================================================

------------------------------

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #198
******************************