Balcanies only or work a deal with the whole building. If their balcony doesn't face your tower then they are not in your coverage area...same as if they can't see your tower because of a wall of trees.
Being in the mountains tho we usually have a view to a couple towers because the towers are up on the mountains and the MDUs are in the valley. Not always tho. On Thursday, November 13, 2014, Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > How helpful has the OTARD rule been for you at multi-tenant buildings? > My understanding is the roof and outside walls can be considered common > areas, so basically you are talking about balconies. Often these buildings > are in rows the same height so the only practical place to get LOS to a > tower is the roof. Even satellite TV is a problem for people on the north > side of buildings. > > *From:* Sean Heskett via Af > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:22 PM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again > > if the county has rules that go against OTARD then they are breaking > federal law too. > > just instal per the OTARD rules and you have nothing to worry about. if > they give you flack then direct them to this website > http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule and tell them > to pound sand or contact the FCC if they think you are operating outside > the OTARD rules. done and done. > > i've been doing this for 15 years now and we have always won once we send > them that link. they realize the have no leg to stand on and the back > down. usually you can get them to rewrite their unlawful rules. > > -sean > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> The county could have restrictive regulations as well. >> >> >> >> ----- >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com >> >> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"Sean Heskett via Af" <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >> *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:16:30 PM >> >> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >> >> i have never gotten an attorney (that i was paying or my client was >> paying) involved. the HOAs have wasted their money on attorneys only to be >> told by their attorneys that they should stop breaking federal law. >> >> the county has nothing to do with HOAs or federal law. HOAs are >> corporations set up under state law. OTARD is a federal law passed by >> congress that the FCC enforces. >> >> if you want to waste your time and talk to someone at the county level by >> all means knock yourself out but i have better things to do and the county >> has **NO** jurisdiction what so ever over the matter. >> >> 2 cents >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <[email protected] >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >> >>> The county needs to be educated anyway and redirecting them to the >>> county sure is a lot cheaper than getting an attorney involved. >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Sean Heskett via Af" <[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> >>> *To: *[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:10:18 PM >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>> >>> 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] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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]> >>>> To: Ken Hohhof via Af <[email protected]> >>>> 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]; >>>> 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]> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:11 AM >>>> To: Rory Conaway via Af <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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]; >>>> 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]] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:36 AM >>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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]> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:27 AM >>>> To: mailto:[email protected] >>>> 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]] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:55 AM >>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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]> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:34 AM >>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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]] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:17 AM >>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> 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] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >
