Hmm...
There may be a silver lining...
From: Jeremy
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power. We
are a utility now, right?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield <john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz> wrote:
I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON <cpeter...@portnetworks.com> wrote:
This issue isn’t about OTARD. It is an issue between the tenant and the
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord. If the tenant
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best
Buy. This situation is no different.
If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but
if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up,
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord. The Tenant is
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.
On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann <rmm.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.netOn 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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
To: af@afmug.com
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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: af@afmug.com
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 <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>
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
507-634-WiFi
Like us on Facebook
