The history of OTARD dates back to the early days of digital satellite service (today it's dish and directv). What happened was the cable companies lost their monopoly hold when suddenly everyone could just put up a small 1' dish (instead of a 7' dish). The cable companies got cities and towns and HOAs to ban dishes so they could retain their monopoly hold on the market. After a few years congress intervened and had the fcc establish the OTARD rules to spur competition in the market. When the Internet came along and the same thing started to happen in our industry (and the satellite internet industry) the fcc extended the rules to cover internet reception too.
Is it a government over reach into private property rights?...kind of. But it's also the government trying to make sure the market is somewhat a level playing field. Sean On Thursday, November 13, 2014, That One Guy via Af <af@afmug.com> wrote: > Wow, I never actually have read through that before, Im halfway through > and its pretty clear, you can about do whatever the hell you want. We have > lost alot of apartment customers at one particular complex because the > landlord said no to the balcony mounts, maybe I should have read this > before, and now that I know we can put up a 1 meter antenna, its on. > > > But Im also very big on government not interfering, and this is a pretty > big governmental intervention into something I cant quite grasp the > reasoning behind. What is the history on this. How did this become the > governments problem in the first place? > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Sean Heskett via Af <af@afmug.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> wrote: > >> Balcanies only or work a deal with the whole building. If their balcony >> doesn't face your tower then they are not in your coverage area...same as >> if they can't see your tower because of a wall of trees. >> >> Being in the mountains tho we usually have a view to a couple towers >> because the towers are up on the mountains and the MDUs are in the valley. >> Not always tho. >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 13, 2014, Ken Hohhof via Af <af@afmug.com >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');>> wrote: >> >>> How helpful has the OTARD rule been for you at multi-tenant >>> buildings? My understanding is the roof and outside walls can be >>> considered common areas, so basically you are talking about balconies. >>> Often these buildings are in rows the same height so the only practical >>> place to get LOS to a tower is the roof. Even satellite TV is a problem >>> for people on the north side of buildings. >>> >>> *From:* Sean Heskett via Af >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:22 PM >>> *To:* af@afmug.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>> >>> if the county has rules that go against OTARD then they are breaking >>> federal law too. >>> >>> just instal per the OTARD rules and you have nothing to worry about. if >>> they give you flack then direct them to this website >>> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule and tell them >>> to pound sand or contact the FCC if they think you are operating outside >>> the OTARD rules. done and done. >>> >>> i've been doing this for 15 years now and we have always won once we >>> send them that link. they realize the have no leg to stand on and the back >>> down. usually you can get them to rewrite their unlawful rules. >>> >>> -sean >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <af@afmug.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The county could have restrictive regulations as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> Mike Hammett >>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>> >>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From: *"Sean Heskett via Af" <af@afmug.com> >>>> *To: *af@afmug.com >>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:16:30 PM >>>> >>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>> >>>> i have never gotten an attorney (that i was paying or my client was >>>> paying) involved. the HOAs have wasted their money on attorneys only to be >>>> told by their attorneys that they should stop breaking federal law. >>>> >>>> the county has nothing to do with HOAs or federal law. HOAs are >>>> corporations set up under state law. OTARD is a federal law passed by >>>> congress that the FCC enforces. >>>> >>>> if you want to waste your time and talk to someone at the county level >>>> by all means knock yourself out but i have better things to do and the >>>> county has **NO** jurisdiction what so ever over the matter. >>>> >>>> 2 cents >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett via Af <af@afmug.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The county needs to be educated anyway and redirecting them to the >>>>> county sure is a lot cheaper than getting an attorney involved. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> *From: *"Sean Heskett via Af" <af@afmug.com> >>>>> *To: *af@afmug.com >>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:10:18 PM >>>>> >>>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>> >>>>> There is no need for that. The OTARD rules have a section that >>>>> instructs entities on how to Petition the fcc for a waiver etc. >>>>> >>>>> Just follow OTARD and don't back down. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Mike Hammett via Af <af@afmug.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Maybe a good approach is to educate the county, then if the >>>>>> association argues, send them to the county. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Douglas A. via Af Hass <af@afmug.com> >>>>>> To: Ken Hohhof via Af <af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:10:40 -0600 (CST) >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> An attorney letter isn't the first option. And recommending a meeting >>>>>> isn't good either, as you suggest. There are a world of options, none >>>>>> which >>>>>> involve losing a potential customer or delaying an install. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Original message ------ >>>>>> From: Ken Hohhof via Af >>>>>> Date: 11/12/2014 10:06 AM >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com; >>>>>> Subject:Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> Understood. It’s the letter, not the lawsuit, that does the work. Oh >>>>>> crap, we got a letter from his lawyer, can we just settle this? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just like with Title II regulation, it’s the paperwork, not the >>>>>> actual rules, that would kill us. >>>>>> >>>>>> >From a practical standpoint though, many people decide one day to >>>>>> search for Internet service, and start calling around. You may have been >>>>>> sending out flyers for months, but this is your tiny window of >>>>>> opportunity >>>>>> to sell them your service. The window may just be a few hours, we’ve all >>>>>> had the case where you return voicemail in 30 minutes and the customer >>>>>> already ordered from the next ISP they called and signed a 2 year >>>>>> contract, >>>>>> so you lost the sale. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think the answer “let me meet with the landlord or HOA or city >>>>>> and tell them about OTARD” is not going to be a successful sales >>>>>> technique >>>>>> except in a few situations like: >>>>>> >>>>>> - You are truly the only game in town >>>>>> >>>>>> - There is a large potential customer base that you can open up going >>>>>> forward by overcoming one obstacle now (like a subdivision or apartment >>>>>> complex or even a whole city) >>>>>> >>>>>> - This is a high value (commercial) customer and they are willing to >>>>>> wait a few weeks or months to get your service >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Hass, Douglas A. via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:11 AM >>>>>> To: Rory Conaway via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The last thing I would advocate is for anyone to "lawyer up" against >>>>>> their neighbors. The overwhelming majority of these situations are >>>>>> resolved >>>>>> with only behind the scenes work by lawyers. There's a "go softly" way to >>>>>> do this. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rory, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Depends on what exactly you mean by unreasonable. Again, some >>>>>> informed lobbying of the city often takes care of these issues. I've >>>>>> written (or rewritten) many ordinances and policies to help city >>>>>> attorneys >>>>>> get things right, as I'm sure Steve, Jonathan, Rebecca and many others >>>>>> have. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Original message ------ >>>>>> From: Rory Conaway via Af >>>>>> Date: 11/12/2014 9:00 AM >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com; >>>>>> Subject:Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> But what do you do when the city has unreasonable restrictions and >>>>>> the buildings are company buildings on a property such as an RV park? >>>>>> >>>>>> Rory >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:36 AM >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, Open Range has been gone for quite awhile. >>>>>> >>>>>> But people are not looking for us to help them lawyer up and fight >>>>>> their neighbors over an antenna. They are looking for us to fix the >>>>>> problem >>>>>> by providing them service without an outdoor antenna. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is probably more of an issue in town, we are more rural. But HOA >>>>>> covenants aside, many people will be on the opposite side of the building >>>>>> from the tower. And even OTARD doesn’t let you put an antenna on common >>>>>> areas, only the areas for your exclusive use like a balcony. So there >>>>>> will >>>>>> always be some demand for indoor CPE, probably not a ton though. And as >>>>>> people have noted, Mimosa seems optimistic about how well this will work. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Hass, Douglas A. via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:27 AM >>>>>> To: mailto:af@afmug.com >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ☺ >>>>>> >>>>>> While you certainly can contract away certain rights, this isn’t one >>>>>> of them. It’s like trying to contract with your employee that you will >>>>>> give >>>>>> him a 1099 or not pay him overtime. Your employee an sign it, but you >>>>>> can’t >>>>>> enforce it. >>>>>> >>>>>> OTARD trumps any contract laws that purport to force some other >>>>>> regime. There’s still quite a bit of confusion out there on this among >>>>>> HOAs, surprisingly. A local government, HOA, neighborhood association, >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> can’t enforce a covenant that impairs the installation, maintenance or >>>>>> use >>>>>> of antennas covered by OTARD (and yours are) in “exclusive use” areas. >>>>>> Many >>>>>> (most?) HOAs have long since fixed their covenants so that the >>>>>> restrictions >>>>>> apply only to common areas (like a roof of a multiunit condo building) or >>>>>> only when there’s some common antenna for use. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have to look at the covenant, but I would be very surprised if >>>>>> you couldn’t still service all of those customers who called. Ken—hit me >>>>>> up >>>>>> off list if you are still getting calls like these and we can look at >>>>>> what >>>>>> you have. >>>>>> >>>>>> Doug >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via >>>>>> Af >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:55 AM >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> Doug Haas's favorite example is that it's illegal to kill somebody. >>>>>> You can't sign a contract to kill somebody and make it legal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>>> >>>>>> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]< >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[ >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]< >>>>>> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[ >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]< >>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[ >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]< >>>>>> https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: "Ken Hohhof via Af" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:47:00 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> When Open Range went poof, we got several calls from people in >>>>>> townhomes who really loved their indoor CPEs, their HOA didn’t allow >>>>>> outdoor antennas, and OTARD was no use because they had signed a >>>>>> covenant. >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Rory Conaway via Af <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:34 AM >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> This is going to have limited use the U.S.. Unfortunately , with tax >>>>>> credits for certain type of windows and window films, most of our windows >>>>>> don’t work well with indoor radios. We did a test one day and found that >>>>>> it >>>>>> was easier to get the signal through red brick than the window it >>>>>> surrounded. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, we have been installing 2.4GHz radios in windows in >>>>>> pre-built homes very successfully since they don’t have tinting. >>>>>> >>>>>> On another note, it’s also why you don’t want to put your radar >>>>>> detector on the top of the windshield. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rory >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via >>>>>> Af >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:17 AM >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> This is better than previous attempts in that it's a beamforming >>>>>> antenna on the CPE. It shapes the beam to point at the best signal it >>>>>> sees. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> Mike Hammett >>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com >>>>>> >>>>>> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]< >>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[ >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]< >>>>>> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[ >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]< >>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[ >>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]< >>>>>> https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: "Jason McKemie via Af" <af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> >>>>>> To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 2:25:25 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again >>>>>> >>>>>> Allowing customers to install their own CPE is a bad idea in any >>>>>> unlicensed frequency, both for your network as well as the spectrum in >>>>>> general. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, November 12, 2014, Stefan Englhardt via Af < >>>>>> af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote: >>>>>> Now Mimosa announced an indoor window mountable CPE: >>>>>> >>>>>> „Mimosa's C5i just changed urban Internet forever! Never wait on your >>>>>> service provider install again. Self-install in seconds and experience >>>>>> 500+ >>>>>> Mbps!“ >>>>>> >>>>>> To the mimosa Fans: How they change physics to make 5GHz penetrate >>>>>> through windows. We have not much >>>>>> luck doing this with 3,5GHz licensed, beamforming and high power. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Douglas A. Hass >>>>>> Associate >>>>>> 312.786.6502 >>>>>> d...@franczek.com<mailto:d...@franczek.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Franczek Radelet P.C. >>>>>> Celebrating 20 Years | 1994-2014< >>>>>> http://www.franczek.com/20thAnniversary/> >>>>>> >>>>>> 300 South Wacker Drive >>>>>> Suite 3400 >>>>>> Chicago, IL 60606 >>>>>> 312.986.0300 - Main >>>>>> 312.986.9192 - Fax >>>>>> www.franczek.com<http://www.franczek.com> >>>>>> www.wagehourinsights.com<http://www.wagehourinsights.com> >>>>>> Connect with me: >>>>>> <<http://linkedin.com/in/douglashass>> >>>>>> [linkedin] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <<https://twitter.com/WageHourInsight>> >>>>>> [twitter] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal >>>>>> Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated >>>>>> otherwise, >>>>>> any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any >>>>>> attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, >>>>>> for >>>>>> the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or >>>>>> (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any >>>>>> transaction >>>>>> or tax-related matter herein. >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit >>>>>> franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or >>>>>> any attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended >>>>>> only >>>>>> for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient of >>>>>> this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >>>>>> distribution, >>>>>> or copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is strictly >>>>>> prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact >>>>>> the >>>>>> sender and delete all copies. >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the >>>>>> environment before printing this email >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the > parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you > can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not > use a hammer. -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925 >
