Opinion


Tim Eichelman
 

Here is a comment from Bob Famiglio K3RF

Timothy Eichelman
DMR repeater owner
Brandmeister
440.350 CC 15


From: Robert B. Famiglio, Esq. <RBFamiglio@...>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 5:36:39 PM
To: 'Timothy Eichelman' <N3TPE@...>
Cc: k3rf@... <k3rf@...>
Subject: RE: Opinion
 

The League does not provide lobby services in that regard so there is no formal ARRL position on this bill.  However, the League HQ sent me a notice of the bill when passed by the house in PA.  It is different that the bill presented last year in committee which excepted hams only.  It was changed in committee and voted on before any word went out. I am not sure why no one got word before, but that may have been on purpose.  However, the PA Senate will not be voting on this likely for many months – maybe not until the summer at the earliest I am informed.

 

In the meantime, we, (which usually means I since it appears no one else wants to do the work it seems), am scrambling to come up with language that will allow mobile operation with a handheld microphone at the least since the bill is ambiguous as to whether that is allowed. Right now it is best interpreted as it does not unless you are in a commercial vehicle under new exception (4).  I do not know whether they will allow handhelds since they specifically rejected that language.   The way it is worded, it does not allow mobile operation if you have a device in your hand or are manipulating a communications device not integrated into the car. Integrated into the car means more than connected to or bolted under the dash.   Commercial vehicles (not really defined) using CB or 2 way radio are exempt, but only in a commercial vehicle.  Non-lawyers wrote this and had no one reviewing the language who knew anything professionally about radio technology.  This happens all the time when politicians write laws without engineers or lawyers guiding the process asking the right questions.

 

I am meeting with personal contacts Sunday, and with the PA Senator who will be reviewing this on Monday.  I am trying to have precise language by then which does not let Hams get away with anything but has some reasonable exceptions.  The problem is that the legislator decided hams are not necessarily better drivers than the public and they do not way accidents from people playing with their radios while driving.  More to come as hundreds of hams are calling/writing to me.  More will be published on the ARRL EPA reflector sent to members.

 

 

Bob Famiglio, K3RF

Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division

610-359-7300

 

www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF

 

 

 

From: Timothy Eichelman
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:19 AM
To: k3rf@...
Subject: Opinion

 

What’s the ARRLs opinion of proposed law changes.

 

 

 

 

Timothy Eichelman

DMR repeater owner

Brandmeister

440.350 CC 15


Jim McCusker (K3YO)
 

Thanks for the email.  For those interested in reading the House bill that was passed, here's a link to the language. 

Page 2 is where the amateur radio exclusion was removed.  Read the rest of the document for further details.

 73, Jim KC3FFX
 


On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:58 PM Tim Eichelman <n3tpe@...> wrote:
Here is a comment from Bob Famiglio K3RF

Timothy Eichelman
DMR repeater owner
Brandmeister
440.350 CC 15

From: Robert B. Famiglio, Esq. <RBFamiglio@...>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 5:36:39 PM
To: 'Timothy Eichelman' <N3TPE@...>
Cc: k3rf@... <k3rf@...>
Subject: RE: Opinion
 

The League does not provide lobby services in that regard so there is no formal ARRL position on this bill.  However, the League HQ sent me a notice of the bill when passed by the house in PA.  It is different that the bill presented last year in committee which excepted hams only.  It was changed in committee and voted on before any word went out. I am not sure why no one got word before, but that may have been on purpose.  However, the PA Senate will not be voting on this likely for many months – maybe not until the summer at the earliest I am informed.

 

In the meantime, we, (which usually means I since it appears no one else wants to do the work it seems), am scrambling to come up with language that will allow mobile operation with a handheld microphone at the least since the bill is ambiguous as to whether that is allowed. Right now it is best interpreted as it does not unless you are in a commercial vehicle under new exception (4).  I do not know whether they will allow handhelds since they specifically rejected that language.   The way it is worded, it does not allow mobile operation if you have a device in your hand or are manipulating a communications device not integrated into the car. Integrated into the car means more than connected to or bolted under the dash.   Commercial vehicles (not really defined) using CB or 2 way radio are exempt, but only in a commercial vehicle.  Non-lawyers wrote this and had no one reviewing the language who knew anything professionally about radio technology.  This happens all the time when politicians write laws without engineers or lawyers guiding the process asking the right questions.

 

I am meeting with personal contacts Sunday, and with the PA Senator who will be reviewing this on Monday.  I am trying to have precise language by then which does not let Hams get away with anything but has some reasonable exceptions.  The problem is that the legislator decided hams are not necessarily better drivers than the public and they do not way accidents from people playing with their radios while driving.  More to come as hundreds of hams are calling/writing to me.  More will be published on the ARRL EPA reflector sent to members.

 

 

Bob Famiglio, K3RF

Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division

610-359-7300

 

www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF

 

 

 

From: Timothy Eichelman
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:19 AM
To: k3rf@...
Subject: Opinion

 

What’s the ARRLs opinion of proposed law changes.

 

 

 

 

Timothy Eichelman

DMR repeater owner

Brandmeister

440.350 CC 15