There is no need for that. The OTARD rules have a section that instructs entities on how to Petition the fcc for a waiver etc.
Just follow OTARD and don't back down. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe a good approach is to educate the county, then if the association > argues, send them to the county. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Douglas A. via Af Hass <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > To: Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Sent: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:10:40 -0600 (CST) > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > An attorney letter isn't the first option. And recommending a meeting > isn't good either, as you suggest. There are a world of options, none which > involve losing a potential customer or delaying an install. > > > > ------ Original message ------ > From: Ken Hohhof via Af > Date: 11/12/2014 10:06 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;>; > Subject:Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > Understood. It’s the letter, not the lawsuit, that does the work. Oh crap, > we got a letter from his lawyer, can we just settle this? > > Just like with Title II regulation, it’s the paperwork, not the actual > rules, that would kill us. > > From a practical standpoint though, many people decide one day to search > for Internet service, and start calling around. You may have been sending > out flyers for months, but this is your tiny window of opportunity to sell > them your service. The window may just be a few hours, we’ve all had the > case where you return voicemail in 30 minutes and the customer already > ordered from the next ISP they called and signed a 2 year contract, so you > lost the sale. > > So I think the answer “let me meet with the landlord or HOA or city and > tell them about OTARD” is not going to be a successful sales technique > except in a few situations like: > > - You are truly the only game in town > > - There is a large potential customer base that you can open up going > forward by overcoming one obstacle now (like a subdivision or apartment > complex or even a whole city) > > - This is a high value (commercial) customer and they are willing to wait > a few weeks or months to get your service > > > From: Hass, Douglas A. via Af <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:11 AM > To: Rory Conaway via Af <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > Ken, > > > > The last thing I would advocate is for anyone to "lawyer up" against their > neighbors. The overwhelming majority of these situations are resolved with > only behind the scenes work by lawyers. There's a "go softly" way to do > this. > > > > Rory, > > > > Depends on what exactly you mean by unreasonable. Again, some informed > lobbying of the city often takes care of these issues. I've written (or > rewritten) many ordinances and policies to help city attorneys get things > right, as I'm sure Steve, Jonathan, Rebecca and many others have. > > > > ------ Original message ------ > From: Rory Conaway via Af > Date: 11/12/2014 9:00 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;>; > Subject:Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > But what do you do when the city has unreasonable restrictions and the > buildings are company buildings on a property such as an RV park? > > Rory > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Ken > Hohhof via Af > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:36 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > Well, Open Range has been gone for quite awhile. > > But people are not looking for us to help them lawyer up and fight their > neighbors over an antenna. They are looking for us to fix the problem by > providing them service without an outdoor antenna. > > This is probably more of an issue in town, we are more rural. But HOA > covenants aside, many people will be on the opposite side of the building > from the tower. And even OTARD doesn’t let you put an antenna on common > areas, only the areas for your exclusive use like a balcony. So there will > always be some demand for indoor CPE, probably not a ton though. And as > people have noted, Mimosa seems optimistic about how well this will work. > > > From: Hass, Douglas A. via Af <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:27 AM > To: mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > > ☺ > > While you certainly can contract away certain rights, this isn’t one of > them. It’s like trying to contract with your employee that you will give > him a 1099 or not pay him overtime. Your employee an sign it, but you can’t > enforce it. > > OTARD trumps any contract laws that purport to force some other regime. > There’s still quite a bit of confusion out there on this among HOAs, > surprisingly. A local government, HOA, neighborhood association, etc. can’t > enforce a covenant that impairs the installation, maintenance or use of > antennas covered by OTARD (and yours are) in “exclusive use” areas. Many > (most?) HOAs have long since fixed their covenants so that the restrictions > apply only to common areas (like a roof of a multiunit condo building) or > only when there’s some common antenna for use. > > You have to look at the covenant, but I would be very surprised if you > couldn’t still service all of those customers who called. Ken—hit me up off > list if you are still getting calls like these and we can look at what you > have. > > Doug > > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Mike > Hammett via Af > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:55 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > Doug Haas's favorite example is that it's illegal to kill somebody. You > can't sign a contract to kill somebody and make it legal. > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[ > http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]< > https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[ > http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]< > https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[ > http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > ________________________________ > From: "Ken Hohhof via Af" <[email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:;>>> > To: [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:47:00 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > When Open Range went poof, we got several calls from people in townhomes > who really loved their indoor CPEs, their HOA didn’t allow outdoor > antennas, and OTARD was no use because they had signed a covenant. > > From: Rory Conaway via Af <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:34 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > This is going to have limited use the U.S.. Unfortunately , with tax > credits for certain type of windows and window films, most of our windows > don’t work well with indoor radios. We did a test one day and found that it > was easier to get the signal through red brick than the window it > surrounded. > > However, we have been installing 2.4GHz radios in windows in pre-built > homes very successfully since they don’t have tinting. > > On another note, it’s also why you don’t want to put your radar detector > on the top of the windshield. > > Rory > > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Mike > Hammett via Af > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:17 AM > To: [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > This is better than previous attempts in that it's a beamforming antenna > on the CPE. It shapes the beam to point at the best signal it sees. > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[ > http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]< > https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[ > http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]< > https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[ > http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > ________________________________ > From: "Jason McKemie via Af" <[email protected] <javascript:;><mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>>> > To: [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:25:25 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > Allowing customers to install their own CPE is a bad idea in any > unlicensed frequency, both for your network as well as the spectrum in > general. > > On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Stefan Englhardt via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>>> wrote: > Now Mimosa announced an indoor window mountable CPE: > > „Mimosa's C5i just changed urban Internet forever! Never wait on your > service provider install again. Self-install in seconds and experience 500+ > Mbps!“ > > To the mimosa Fans: How they change physics to make 5GHz penetrate through > windows. We have not much > luck doing this with 3,5GHz licensed, beamforming and high power. > > > > > > > > Douglas A. Hass > Associate > 312.786.6502 > [email protected] <javascript:;><mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>> > > Franczek Radelet P.C. > Celebrating 20 Years | 1994-2014<http://www.franczek.com/20thAnniversary/> > > 300 South Wacker Drive > Suite 3400 > Chicago, IL 60606 > 312.986.0300 - Main > 312.986.9192 - Fax > www.franczek.com<http://www.franczek.com> > www.wagehourinsights.com<http://www.wagehourinsights.com> > Connect with me: > <<http://linkedin.com/in/douglashass>> > [linkedin] > > > <<https://twitter.com/WageHourInsight>> > [twitter] > > > Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal > Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated otherwise, > any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any > attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for > the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or > (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction > or tax-related matter herein. > ________________________________ > For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit > franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any > attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only for > the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient of this > message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or > copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is strictly prohibited. > If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and > delete all copies. > ________________________________ > Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the > environment before printing this email > >
