1 / 9

PRB-1

PRB-1. What the Law Requires of Municipalities Presented By Trent A. Davis, Sr. N2WKL. FCC. Reasonably Accommodate Communications No unusual setbacks, fees, costs, height regulations. Minimum Practicable Regulation. Minimum necessary fees, costs, height regulations

jereni
Download Presentation

PRB-1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRB-1 What the Law Requires of Municipalities Presented By Trent A. Davis, Sr. N2WKL

  2. FCC • Reasonably Accommodate Communications • No unusual setbacks, fees, costs, height regulations. • Minimum Practicable Regulation. • Minimum necessary fees, costs, height regulations • If a municipality wishes to become more restrictive: • What is the problem not addressed? • Why is the new element needed?

  3. 47 CFR §97.15(b) • Are Height and Dimensions Sufficient to accommodate amateur radio?

  4. DA 99-2569 • Balancing of interests forbidden Regulations must not “impinge on the needs of amateur operators”

  5. COURT DECISIONS • An open mind. Bodony v. Sands Point (NY) • No fixed and unvarying height. Bodony (NY), Izzo (NJ), Howard (CA), Brower (FL - max of 70’ void), Pentel (MN). • Specifics of the application; from the ham applicant’s perspective. Marchand (NH), Snook (TX). • An attempt to negotiate a satisfactory compromise. Howard (CA), Pentel (MN)

  6. NO RFI REGULATION • Broyde v. Gotham Tower (FL) SW Bell v. Johnson County (KS) Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters (VT) • Palmer v. Saratoga Springs (NY): requesting info is “unreasonable on (its) face”

  7. ANSWERS MUST BE YES • Reasonably accommodate amateur communications? • Minimum practicable regulation? Each application approached with an open mind? • Considered from the amateur’s perspective?

  8. ANSWERS MUST BE NO • Balancing of interests? • Impinge on needs of amateur? • Fixed or unvarying height limit? • Consider RFI?

  9. The End

More Related