Washington Votes Forum

Fascinating that the legislature which is totally incapable to figuring out what is an emergency and what is not will allow junior legislators in a city or county council to determine what "is necessary to achieve a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic consideration, and the city or town finds that these considerations are of greater benefit to its citizenry than the value the proposed antenna would add to the ability of the amateur radio network to fulfill its mission as part of the state and local emergency management organizations, including the provision of back-up emergency communications coverage without gaps for the entire state."

Obviously any city, town, or county council cab drive a truck through this exemption.

   This is Fascinating that the legislature which is totally incapable to figuring out what is an emergency and what is not an will allow junior legislators in a city or county council to determine what "is necessary to achieve a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic consideration. How can they as legislatures even begin to know how high or what wave length the height of an antenna or tower need to be to operate within a city, town zone, state, region, or across the country.  I believe that no one would benefit from these considerations and this bill would not benefit any of the citizenry, this bill would not add to the ability of the amateur radio network to fulfill its mission as part of the state and local emergency management organization. It would hinder any provision of back-up emergency communications coverage and make gaps for the entire state. I do not believe the legislatures that wrote this bill nor do the legislatures that support this bill realize that emergency communications not only presides with in the state but also across the country and sometimes outside the country as well. Amateur radio operators within the State of Washington have helped with emergency communications in Mexico, Alaska, South America, they also have assisted with emergency communications in the Florida and teas hurricanes from the State of Washington. Putting a height restriction on towers totally defects the main propose of the tower to put antennas up to a height were they operate efficiently. There are many Amateur radio operators who belong to originations such as the Military Affiliated radio System (MARS) and the National communications system that communicate across the country providing long distance emergency communications and phone patches to other states and countries.............

I've been a licensed and active Amateur Radio operator since 1970 and you may count me as generally in support of SB5655.  I believe some in Amateur Radio (ham) circles have become unecessarily alarmed at proposed limitations to antenna structures for ham use. Many hams can (and do) have reasonably effective antenna systems with much less than what the proposed changes call for (I regularly "work the world" with fairly modest antennas).  The only item that I'm unsure of is how an antenna structure would be considered 'aesthetic'.  This is an area of individual taste.  What some consider an eyesore, others would consider a wonderful sight .

Hams used to be a service in the public interest but, with the exception of a few individuals, those days are long gone. For too many years, we hams have (as a group) touted the bygone era of being the sole providers of communications to/from the public during disasters.  We now pass written message "traffic" between only ourselves; it seems rare nowadays that we pass traffic to/from non-hams.  During disasters, we're not always the only means of communication available to the public.  I believe the driving reason for opposition is for personal reasons -- to work the world with ease and create "antenna envy" among other hams.

The time has past when we can justify being the exception to laws.  The proposed amendments to the RCW appear more than accommodating toward the majority of hams, who rarely (if ever) provide any sort of public service with our equipment.  It appears exceptions would be made for hams who are members of recognized emergency response organizations.  I have contacted my representative to give my support as a ham.

I wish I didn't have such a pessimistic view (I used to be more optimistic and supportive). However, I truly believe this is the reality of the majority of today's ham radio.

38yr_ham:

During disasters, we're not always the only means of communication available to the public.  I believe the driving reason for opposition is for personal reasons -- to work the world with ease and create "antenna envy" among other hams.

During the hurricane disaster of 2007 and the snow disaster of 2008, yes, Hams were the only source of communication to the outer world in the Pacific County area.

As for regulation, anytime the government wants to regulate anything, I'm against it.   This sounds like another case of californication to me.  Instead of antenna envy our legislatures are californenvy.  What I want them to be is proud of WA state and make it the best place to be, not copy CA. and become a poor substitute for it.

We all know the kind of state CA is in and you have to ask yourself, "would you rather be free, or califonicated where everything is set by the government."

DK

DK

R Dennis

I have had to address this ishue with the people around me when I put up my tower to 140 feet.  Our county went from 69 feet to 45 feet.  If you look at the Alaska legeslative law it is more what amateurs should be allowed to do.

Here in Nevada we do not have a law that gives your neighbor the right to see the mountains on the other side of your property.  So where do visual and asthetics play into this law.

Here in the United States all Building and Saftey departments who check plans also check towers for correct enginering and safety factors.  Every county has developed a requirement that the tower is to meet to be safe.  So why include safely constructed.  Most field inspectors do not have any idea about the construction of a tower from 45 feet to what we are allowed without notifing the FAA, 200 Feet

 Without exception, without any thought, every development in the last 15 to 20 years contains restrictions against any external antennas.   This restriction is absolutely killing Amateur Radio.   No one can consider obtaining a ham license in a neighborhood where outside antennas are prohibited.   The ignorance and hysteria against putting up any form of ham antenna is tragic for the future of Amateur Radio.

Unless a change is made to allow licensed Amateur Radio operators the right to put up an antenna, Amateur Radio has no future.  It is no wonder than our future electronic engineers, future electronic products will be from India, Scandanvia, and all places outside our country.    This bill needs to be passed immediately.

I frequently hear the question: how high should my dipole be? Or alternatively, will my dipole work well at this or that height? Unfortunately, these questions can not be answered without first stating what you want the dipole to actually DO, i.e. how you plan to operate with it.