If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final
say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case,
bye-bye deposit.
I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to
the roof and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but
they'd either be fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would
definitely be part of the lease agreement.
Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with
honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right.
If you handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business
- especially if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how
you resolved the issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about
it and will cool off to a more reasonable level in the next few days.
Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.net
On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is
getting kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU
I call BS. If the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an
antenna for Internet I call BS. It all depends on the situation.
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi
-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
Maybe all governments speak from both sides of their mouth. In this
case I think there's a good reason for it, they say "Landlords, you
cannot prohibit tenants from having an antenna." They're not saying,
"Landlords, you must let John and Adam drill holes in your house",
because they straight up can't make a mandate like that.
If you *can* force the landlord to accept your antenna being on their
building against their will, would you really want to? You gain
$30-50/month, but also make a permanent enemy. IMO, better to just
defuse the anger as best you can and fix the damage.
So like everything else they are talking out both sides of their
mouth. The problem becomes, how much aggravation does the landlord
want to go through as the burden of proof undisputedly lies with them.
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi
-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
I've been going by the FCC Q&A posted here:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA
Highlighting added by me
*Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does
this rule apply to me? *
*A: *The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple
dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment
building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which
to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the
property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use
to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your
condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or
patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas.
/The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof/, the
hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or
apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these
common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. /For
example, the rule would //*not*//apply to restrictions that
prevent drilling through the exterior wall //of a condominium or
rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that
requires such drilling./
Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted
restrictions have to be "reasonable" and if there is a
"conflict" the burden of proof is on the landlord.
Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in
section 2.2 i.e. may not unreasonable delay or increase costs,
or preclude reception or transmission of an acceptable quality
signal.
This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the
misconceptions that have been voiced here
http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/
John
-----Original Message-----
From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna
on the house. The landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to
put holes in his property. The FCC website on the topic
spells this out pretty clearly.
I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without
any penetrations. This is why you'll see apartment complexes
with dishes clamped on the deck railings and they make flat
coax to go in through a window.
OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their
portion of the building including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to
talk to the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service
makes his property more rentable.
On Monday, March 16, 2015, 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
<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi> Like us on
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi>
