I view it more a move to allow free access to the space segment and RF
spectrum. The satellite broadcasters pay big money to pour down RF upon our
heads. We should be allowed to use it if we can view the right portion of the
sky. Same for OTA TV. If you can receive it why should your landlord be
allowed to prevent that from happening.
The flip side is harming someone’s viewshed. OTARD comes down on the side of
the citizen wanting to receive a signal.
From: Sean Heskett via Af
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa did it again
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
<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
<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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
