Question: If the basis for permitting the tower is the reasonable accommodation of the Amateur’s communication needs under PRB-1; and the commercial interest prevents the amateur from operating because of interference with the commercial installation; what is the legal rationale for continued use of the tower for exclusively commercial purposes? Yes folks, this is the proverbial slippery slope. Jay, KØQB

...

...

...

...

...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Steve, If the ham, who is a tower owner with equipment on that tower, signs an agreement with a commercial radio service agreeing that the commercial service is the primary user, then the ham deserves everything he/she gets. - Bill N3LLR AR>I must respectfully disagree Greg. AR>I have seen a number of hams (4) agree to use their towers to host AR>commercial services. There IS a little problem called mixing. When AR>the ham fires up his rig and it interferes with the commercial AR>account it usually results in the ham being asked to shut down, AR>making the tower a commercial entity. AR>I've seen hams asked to vacate 440 MHz because the 2nd harmonic AR>energy desensed the commercial 8-900 MHz equipment. AR>Most commercial firms that ask to use a hams tower will also have him AR>sign a contract calling for the firm's transmitter to be the primary AR>user. AR>The result is that the ham becomes a prisoner to the commercial firm AR>and cannot kick them off his own tower until the contract expires. AR>Its a VERY dangerous road to go down. AR>Once hams give up their right to their own towers for the sake of AR>renting to commercial firms, they have given away the argument that AR>we are the good guys. And in time, town governments will catch on to AR>this and there goes any chance we have of winning a zoning variance. AR>You cant have it both ways. Your either commercial or you are not. AR>Like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you are not. AR>-73- Steve, W2ML AR>-----Original Message----- AR>From: Greg Milnes [ mailto:w7oz@attbi.com <mailto:w7oz@attbi.com> ] AR>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 4:06 PM AR>To: arrl-odv AR>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7365] Re: Antenna Rights AR>I agree with no commercial installations on a ham tower where such AR>commercial towers are not allowed. My point is if we could take down AR>some commercial towers and put those on a nearby ham tower, that AR>would be a win-win situation: the Community gets rid of a commercial AR>tower but still keeps the service. Since the ham tower is there AR>anyway, what's the difference if there is or is not a commercial AR>service one it? Of course we'd have to work out some continued AR>prohibitions for facilities such as Art showed. 73/Greg W7OZ AR>----- Original Message ----- AR>From: <dick@pobox.com> AR>To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> AR>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:59 AM AR>Subject: [ARRL-ODV:7362] Re: Antenna Rights AR>> 18 JUN, 2002 - 1350 CDT AR>> AR>> Hello Greg... AR>> AR>> My concern about an amateur radio operator allowing/selling space AR>> on his amateur radio tower in an urban residential district that AR>> has restrictions on towers. AR>> AR>> Currently, here in St. Charles, IL no towers of any kind are AR>> allowed in any residential district. This was the end result of AR>> the early days of the cell phone tower installations and the same AR>> people wanting cell phone service did not want the towers in their AR>> view. Our zoning ordinance was amended so quickly and the local AR>> hams were so apathetic that "all towers" were prohibited... the AR>> baby went out with the bath water. AR>> AR>> Eventually some ham will want a tower and I will help him either AR>> knock down that part of our zoning code, or get it amended using AR>> the one paragraph legal citation I have had on hand for several AR>> years that will exempt Amateur Radio Service towers. But this AR>> would mean that ONLY amateur radio operations will be conducted AR>> using that tower. This is already the norm in several communities AR>> in the Chicago area. AR>> AR>> If your community is willing to allow the mixed use, fine. But I AR>> think most communities and certainly homeowners' associations are AR>> not going to allow this to happen. And we need to make sure there AR>> is no confusion on this issue.