Topic 'Re: Yea so' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452388 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:07:47 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:07:47 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22468902 said by markopoleo:

Actually we can. The law does not apply to a lease signed by the tenant, it which case you can include such language that makes it so you can't have dishes at all.I find it very surprising - and almost unbelievable - that a lease or a contract could trump law, even in the US. Around here, the law overrides any illegal language in a lease. As an example, if a landlord put a "No Pets" clause in a lease up here, it's void, as the law specifically protects a tenant's right to have a pet. If they include fees for things that are more than what are defined under law, they're also illegal and unenforceable, etc.
--
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22468902 Sat, 30 May 2009 13:11:53 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22466482 said by Skippy25:

The limits they can put on them is defined in the law. The landlord cannot modify these limits regardless of what they want.
Actually we can. The law does not apply to a lease signed by the tenant, it which case you can include such language that makes it so you can't have dishes at all.

We do in some apartments/condos we have simply because having a dish at all would require more effort than its worth (roof mounted, long cable runs under ground, etc).

This ruling does nothing for most of rural areas anyways, since no such contracts existed in the first place with providers. Even then, only one provider is around. :p]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22466482 Fri, 29 May 2009 20:47:43 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22457500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22457500 Thu, 28 May 2009 11:28:41 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22456530 --
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22456530 Thu, 28 May 2009 07:57:42 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22455781 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22455781 Wed, 27 May 2009 23:49:44 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22455445 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."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22455445 Wed, 27 May 2009 22:45:24 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22455174 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22455174 Wed, 27 May 2009 22:04:30 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22454973 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22454973 Wed, 27 May 2009 21:32:47 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453201 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453201 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:32:59 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453185 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453185 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:30:55 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453138 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453138 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:25:20 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453033 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22453033 Wed, 27 May 2009 16:07:59 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452857 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452857 Wed, 27 May 2009 15:41:18 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452855 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452855 Wed, 27 May 2009 15:41:07 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452823 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...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452823 Wed, 27 May 2009 15:36:58 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452591 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 See Profile noted, this has nothing to do with the ruling.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452591 Wed, 27 May 2009 15:00:56 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452473 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452473 Wed, 27 May 2009 14:41:32 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452458 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452458 Wed, 27 May 2009 14:37:58 EDT Re: Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452410 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Yea-so-22452410 Wed, 27 May 2009 14:30:07 EDT Yea so http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Yea-so-22452388
Couldn't they just deny installation. Of course if everything is done via wires in place this point is moot.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Yea-so-22452388 Wed, 27 May 2009 14:26:08 EDT