nice :)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:58 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


  Apparently.

  From: Mike Hammett 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:42 AM
  To: [email protected] 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

  Is the property uninhabitable without us?




  -----
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
  http://www.ics-il.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: "Jeremy" <[email protected]>
  To: [email protected]
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:54:59 AM
  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 <[email protected]> 
wrote:

    I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

    Sent from my iPhone

    On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON <[email protected]> 
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 <[email protected]> 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:[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" mailto:[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" mailto:[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]> 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




Reply via email to