This is from the FCC website re the OTARD FAQs:

"The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a 
community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where 
the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area.  Such common areas may 
include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit.  Therefore, 
restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable."

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:[email protected]]<http://mkt2.us/TelrdNet>





From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Paul Conlin
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

It doesn’t sound like a common roof to me.  If the houses are the typical where 
there are 6 houses side-to-side-to-side each would have its own roof.  So six 
roofs all connected to look like one roof.  If you look carefully in the attics 
you will see the firewalls divide to create six individual attics and, by 
extension, six individual roofs.  Tell the landlord building code says it is 6 
roofs.  He can own all 6 but they are individual roofs.  Then OTARD clearly 
makes each of those roofs exclusive to each of the respective tenants.  I think 
this situation is exactly why OTARD was created.

So while I do recommend you work things out with the landlord, don’t 
inadvertently give any weight to his arguments.  You still may need to trump 
him with Federal Law.  The tenant’s security deposit might be used to “fix” the 
roof when they move out.  Ordinary wear and tear has been defined by the courts 
so many times I would expect leaving the J-arm foot on the shingles will not be 
considered extraordinary damage.  I hope you took photos of your install.

Offer to not charge the owner for increasing the value of his property with the 
availability of your service.  ;)

PC
Blaze Broadband



From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Darin Steffl
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:00 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

So the landlord owns 6 townhomes and they all share the same roof. It sounds 
like this is a common space and one not protected by OTARD if I read it right. 
If that sounds right to you guys, my next option would be to ask permission on 
behalf of the tenant to leave the equipment up since it's already there.

If they still say no, I can tell them to talk with the tenant since we were 
given permission to mount the antenna on the roof and approval on drilling hole 
for cable.

Any other ideas?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:46 PM, tim Maylone 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:
One reason we use nonpenetrating.
Second is a signed form providing you permission.

Otard does not protect you from property damage.


Tim Maylone - General Manager
Cherry Capital Connection believes that every home deserves High Speed 
Internet. Where you choose to live or work should not be a barrier to access. 
It is our mission to make this a reality "one customer" at a time.


-------- Original message --------
From: alex phillips
Date:03/16/2015 4:30 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Also, since now the deed is done why not ask the land lord if they can just 
keep it.  It is ultimately their responsibility to fix all of this in the 
future so why loose the service and pay for repairs.

I think you can explain to the land lord how the work was done and the tenant 
should explain how they are going to fix it all when they leave but honestly, 
having internet there makes the place more rent-able and all my landlords say 
leave it.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Darin Steffl 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi> Like us on 
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi>

_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members



--
Alex Phillips
CEO and General Manager
RBNS.net
HighSpeedLink.net
WISPA.org Board of Directors  (2011-2016)
WISPA Vice President (2014-2015)
FCC Committee Chairman
540-908-3993<tel:540-908-3993>

_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members



--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com<http://www.mnwifi.com/>
507-634-WiFi
[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi> Like us on 
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi>




************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.
************************************************************************************

 
 
************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.
************************************************************************************

Reply via email to