Maybe all governments speak from both sides of their mouth. In this
case I think there's a good reason for it, they say "Landlords, you
cannot prohibit tenants from having an antenna." They're not saying,
"Landlords, you must let John and Adam drill holes in your house",
because they straight up can't make a mandate like that.
If you *can* force the landlord to accept your antenna being on their
building against their will, would you really want to? You gain
$30-50/month, but also make a permanent enemy. IMO, better to just
defuse the anger as best you can and fix the damage.
So like everything else they are talking out both sides of their
mouth. The problem becomes, how much aggravation does the landlord
want to go through as the burden of proof undisputedly lies with them.
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi
-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
I've been going by the FCC Q&A posted here:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA
Highlighting added by me
*Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this
rule apply to me? *
*A: *The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling
unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the
antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the
antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you,
and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other
residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a
balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule
applies to these areas. /The rule does not apply to common areas, such
as the roof/, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a
condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed
in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. /For
example, the rule would //*not*//apply to restrictions that prevent
drilling through the exterior wall //of a condominium or rental unit
and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such
drilling./
Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted restrictions
have to be "reasonable" and if there is a "conflict" the burden of
proof is on the landlord.
Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in
section 2.2 i.e. may not unreasonable delay or increase costs, or
preclude reception or transmission of an acceptable quality signal.
This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the
misconceptions that have been voiced here
http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on
the house. The landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put
holes in his property. The FCC website on the topic spells this
out pretty clearly.
I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any
penetrations. This is why you'll see apartment complexes with
dishes clamped on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go
in through a window.
OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of
the building including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk
to the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service
makes his property more rentable.
On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who
rents it out to one of our new internet customers. We were
never made aware the home was a rental in any way. Our
techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and
bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount
the dish on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it
was a rental, we would have talked to the landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and
holes and restore everything to original condition. He
wants new siding, new shingles, the whole works.
I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation.
We won't be pulling the mount off the roof because it is
sealed if we leave it there. We can't move the dish
because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort
of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to
keep things in place since we were given permission from
the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to
pay for new siding or roofing when we were given
permission to install. If anything, the tenant would be
responsible since we did the work on their behalf.
--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com <http://www.mnwifi.com/>
507-634-WiFi
<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi> Like us on
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi>
