I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is
getting kickbacks from the cable company for having service in
an MDU I call BS. If the landlord allows a satellite for TV but
not an antenna for Internet I call BS. It all depends on the
situation.
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi
-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
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" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
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" <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
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
<darin.ste...@mnwifi.com
<mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> 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>
