Presentation on theme: "PRB-1 What the Law Requires of Municipalities Presented By Trent A. Davis, Sr. N2WKL."— Presentation transcript:
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 If a municipality wishes to become more restrictive: What is the problem not addressed? Why is the new element needed?
47 CFR §97.15(b) Are Height and Dimensions Sufficient to accommodate amateur radio?
DA 99-2569 Balancing of interests forbidden Regulations must not “impinge on the needs of amateur operators”
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)
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”
ANSWERS MUST BE YES Reasonably accommodate amateur communications? Minimum practicable regulation? Each application approached with an open mind? Considered from the amateur’s perspective?
ANSWERS MUST BE NO Balancing of interests? Impinge on needs of amateur? Fixed or unvarying height limit? Consider RFI?