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>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
To: af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: af@afmug.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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>
