dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29
 ·ViaTalk
1 edit | Yea so
Does this really change anything. Years ago we rented a house. Didn't have cable. The cable company would not touch it until the landlord signed some kind of agreement allowing them access to install lines on the house.
Couldn't they just deny installation. Of course if everything is done via wires in place this point is moot. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. |
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29 | Yes but they can maintain the exclusivity agreements just by denying anyone else access to install any additional equipment. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to dcurrey
This would still give you the ability to 'choose'
Cable
Telco
Satellite
Antenna/OTA
None
vs.
'prearranged' forced deal (you want rent - you end up with the deal that the cable/telco has structured with owner). Cable/Telco gets monthly service deal 'for life', Owner gets a few extra $$/month, renter has service - whether they like it or not.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to dcurrey
said by dcurrey  :Yes but they can maintain the exclusivity agreements just by denying anyone else access to install any additional equipment. Then take that up with your landlord. Again, as RadioDoc noted, this has nothing to do with the ruling. |
|
CT3
@comcast.net
| reply to en102
said by en102 :This would still give you the ability to 'choose' Cable Telco Satellite Antenna/OTA None vs. 'prearranged' forced deal (you want rent - you end up with the deal that the cable/telco has structured with owner). Cable/Telco gets monthly service deal 'for life', Owner gets a few extra $$/month, renter has service - whether they like it or not. I think his point was it gives the property owner the right to choose and NOT the tenant. Most apartments say NO sat's they look ugly to begin with. Depending on what all is needed for the other providers to operate they may have another property owner does not want uglification issue I suppose. But at that point it seems like the company just needs to figure out how to do a PROFESSIONAL clean installation so... |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | said by CT3 :
Most apartments say NO sat's they look ugly to begin with. That's the spin cable companies have been putting on satellite TV since it first appeared. They also dealt the same dirt on OTA antennas decades ago, lobbying homeowners associations, etc., to ban outdoor antennas.
However, it is now illegal for apartment building owners and homeowners associations to outright ban satellite antennas unless there is an equivalent option available. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | reply to CT3
I think a majority of all tenants would be happier with a choice of services, while the property owners are happier with a kickback from the exclusivity deal. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to CT3
said by CT3 :
I think his point was it gives the property owner the right to choose and NOT the tenant. Most apartments say NO sat's they look ugly to begin with.
And that's agaisnt the law. The FCC says they HAVE to allow satellite. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | said by BF69 :The FCC says they HAVE to allow satellite. For reference: The FCC's OTARD Fact Sheet.
Building owners do not "have to" allow satellite in cases where there is no place to put the dish inside an area exclusively within the control of the tenant or condo owner. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :And that's agaisnt the law. The FCC says they HAVE to allow satellite. No they don't HAVE to. They can't charge an unreasonable fee (read: any fee) to gain permission to place a dish on exclusively controlled property that is properly installed to local codes.
They don't have to allow you to drill holes in their walls, let you place your dish in non-exclusively controlled areas, or violate codes. Many installs are technically against code as they aren't grounded properly in apartment settings. If the building is also of historical significance, you may also be prohibited from installing one. |
|
Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA
 ·AT&T Wireless Broa..
 ·DIRECTV
·Charter Pipeline
·America Online
·Skype
·Vonage
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :said by CT3 :
Most apartments say NO sat's they look ugly to begin with. That's the spin cable companies have been putting on satellite TV since it first appeared. They also dealt the same dirt on OTA antennas decades ago, lobbying homeowners associations, etc., to ban outdoor antennas. However, it is now illegal for apartment building owners and homeowners associations to outright ban satellite antennas unless there is an equivalent option available. No, some people HATE the look of satellites. I have Directv, and go to forums dedicated to satellite users, and sometimes we get that debate with people hating how satellites look. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| If you can see the satellites you have much better eyes than I do.
It's not that hard to plan a dish installation that doesn't look like it belongs on the roof of a rusted trailer. Mine is on my roof at the back of the house and you can't even see it from the street. It is near the lowest part of the roof so it doesn't stand out from the back yard either. I'd rather look at that than the tangle of overhead service drops Comcast uses in our neighborhood. |
|
Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA
·AT&T Wireless Broa..
·DIRECTV
·Charter Pipeline
·America Online
·Skype
·Vonage
·AT&T Southeast
| I like the look of satellites, I like having the latest technology.
And the main point is, the people who hate the look of them go out of their way to find them. Some are neighbors who get a vendetta to remove other's satellites. Some just want them gone and think their an eyesore.
It's not something you can hide, it's just humans not caring about others. And personally, I WANT that type of person to see my satellite any fucking chance they get. |
|
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: Yea so
said by RadioDoc :The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. no you have the right to your own dish and the owner can't say no by fcc law. |
|
meister_sd
Premium
join:2006-01-29
La Mesa, CA
| said by Joe12345678 :said by RadioDoc :The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. no you have the right to your own dish and the owner can't say no by fcc law. You are correct, but the manager can put limits on it - such as the dish cannot go on the roof, or the top of the dish cannot extend past the roof, etc... |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by meister_sd :said by Joe12345678 :said by RadioDoc :The property owner or their agent has to give permission for the initial installation of the cable line (or satellite dish for that matter) for liability reasons. That has nothing to do with this ruling. no you have the right to your own dish and the owner can't say no by fcc law. You are correct, but the manager can put limits on it - such as the dish cannot go on the roof, or the top of the dish cannot extend past the roof, etc... Or cannot be attached to specific parts of the property, especially "common areas." |
|
