Court Backs Renters in DBS Fight [Archive] - Lounge0101 Discussion Forum

View Full Version : Court Backs Renters in DBS Fight

Justin

July 9th, 2001, 06:30 PM

http://www.tvinsite.com/multichannelnews/index.asp?layout=story&doc_id=34984&display=breakingNews

Court Backs Renters in DBS Fight

By Ted Hearn
Multichannel News
7/9/2001 12:53:00 AM

Washington -- A federal appeals court here ruled Friday that property renters have a right to install direct-broadcast satellite dishes in locations under their control even if prohibited by landlords in lease agreements.

The case, handed down by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was a victory for the Federal Communications Commission, DirecTV Inc. and EchoStar Communications Corp. over real estate owners that sought to control whether renters could use the balconies and patios they lease as the installation sites for DBS dishes.

In 1996, Congress ordered the FCC to draft rules that would eliminate restrictions on the installation of DBS dishes. The agency first moved against zoning and homeowner restrictions, then took on restrictions imposed on renters by landlords.

A group of landlords, including the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA), claimed that the FCC did not have the authority to void lease agreements regulating DBS-dish placements. The building owners also said the commission’s protections for renters ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment prohibition of the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The court, however, rejected both arguments.

In an opinion written by Judge Judith W. Rogers, the court said Congress authorized the FCC to ban 'restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive' DBS programming. Rogers added that the commission did not abuse its authority by including both owners and renters within the ambit of the words 'restrictions' and 'viewer.'

'Congress demonstrated no intent to qualify the terms `viewer' and `restrictions.' It did not specify which types of `viewers' were covered, nor which types of `restrictions' were permissible. Had Congress intended to qualify those terms, it clearly would have done so,' Rogers said, adding that the intent of the law was to give the FCC 'a very broad mandate.'

On the taking-of-property issue, Rogers said the landlords failed to demonstrate that a renter was an 'interloper with a government license.' Instead, she said, a renter had an agreement to occupy space over which the landlord had ceded control, and the FCC had authority from Congress to alter the terms of the lease agreement.

'Having ceded such possession of the property to a tenant, a landlord thereby submits to the [FCC's] rightful regulation of a term of that occupation,' Rogers said.

She added that the FCC's power to void a DBS restriction in a lease without violating the Fifth Amendment was akin to government regulations that impose rent controls on landlords and that require landlords 'to accept tenants [they do] not like.'

To The Real King!!

July 9th, 2001, 09:50 PM

Thanks Justin,

Its good to see the WINS in the rights of people when so many stories are about losses. This is a good one and can be used by many who in the future will be disallowed to have a satellite dish by their landlords.

Its also good to see you posting more and more in this forum Justin as we need more people to be aware of the quickly dissipating rights of both Canadians and Americans caused mostly by the fact that broadcasters have the MONEY in society to lobby the government to work in their interests thus letting the rights of individuals get trampled on continuously.

We need both strong thinkers and those who are DOERS to work in the interests of Citizens and I am glad to see that you are here and keeping on top of the situation.

Many thanks Friend,

Thanks & Good Luck,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org">To The REAL King!!</a>

 Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/bllrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)

July 9th, 2001, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by To The Real King!!
...we need more people to be aware of the quickly dissipating rights of both Canadians and Americans caused mostly by the fact that broadcasters have the MONEY in society to lobby the government to work in their interests thus letting the rights of individuals get trampled on continuously...

Whoa! Back the "testers' rights" truck up, just a moment, please. Reality check: I don't think Justin's post had anything to do with the big, bad broadcasters dissipating civil liberties. My take was that the issue revolved around renters' rights (in the U.S. - sorry, you Canucks are on your own in this one) being assaulted by landlords and apartment managers despite a clear FCC mandate to allow the mounting of a dish in areas under the exclusive control of the renter. TTRK, if you want a forum for your personal vendetta against whatever injustices, real or imagined, you feel you've suffered, at least pick a thread that's relevant.

Justin

July 10th, 2001, 01:20 AM

seymour_teevee,

Actually one of the reasons the landlords don't want people to have dishes is the big bad cable companies. They like to sign exclusive agreements (for part of the take $$$$) to insure that renters in that complex don't have dbs and subscribe to cable.

10 million DTV subscribers for DTV in 7 years, 6 million for Dish in 4. I for one are glad to see some real competition to cable. It's nice to see the government doing something right once in awhile. :)

Testing in the US isn't getting any easier. For the people that give up this hobby it'll be nice to know atleast they aren't at the mercy of their cable company.

mmwt

July 10th, 2001, 08:11 AM

Justin,

You're right about the $$ part.

I own apartment complexes and the local cable company literally beats the daylights out of me to sign exclusive agreements with them.

They make it pretty tempting as an income source. They'll discount up to 50%, depending on # of units. What I would have to do is collect and pay. Saves them money on billing and collections.

Still I hate the SOBs, so screw 'em...........

SammyBoy

July 10th, 2001, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Justin
seymour_teevee,

Actually one of the reasons the landlords don't want people to have dishes is the big bad cable companies. They like to sign exclusive agreements (for part of the take $$$$) to insure that renters in that complex don't have dbs and subscribe to cable.

10 million DTV subscribers for DTV in 7 years, 6 million for Dish in 4. I for one are glad to see some real competition to cable. It's nice to see the government doing something right once in awhile. :)

Testing in the US isn't getting any easier. For the people that give up this hobby it'll be nice to know atleast they aren't at the mercy of their cable company.

Thanks for the info! Very well put.

Prospector123

July 14th, 2001, 10:08 AM

Any one know of a Canadian case like this? My landlord is trying to bust my balls on this issue. I decided to offer him free installation and free programming of his card (he lives in the same townhouse complex). If he doesn't go for that, I will take him to court.

qnx22

July 16th, 2001, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Prospector123
Any one know of a Canadian case like this? My landlord is trying to bust my balls on this issue. I decided to offer him free installation and free programming of his card (he lives in the same townhouse complex). If he doesn't go for that, I will take him to court.

Industry Canada are whimps and should be the ones to defend you but they won't unless a USA type law is adopted.

To The Real King!!

August 11th, 2001, 03:51 PM

Hi Guys,

I believe what I am saying is that this is another case of big business dollars over citizens rights.

Luckily I have suspended Seymour's posting due to another issue but anyone who is AGAINST people's rights in favor of the big Corporations is a

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/hiena.jpg

in my opinion.

I have a gentleman up here who is having a problem with this as well and I am trying to get some info to help him.

Cable companies tie these buildings up by paying big bucks to the landlord and then acting unfairly to the tenants. Why should a tenant suffer with what he is able to get, just so the landlord should profit. I see this as reducing rights and its serious and happening every day.

I am GLAD to see people in the USA get their rights back and I am hopeful that we will be able to do something UP here.

This does NOT affect me for the ----heads who think I have some unknown agenda as I have a nice dish farm on a large 11 acre compound and couldn't care less. But I am VERY concerned at the dissipation of rights for me or anyone and will constantly do what I can to stop it. People are SURPRISED at just what can be done when we are PRO ACTIVE and don't sit on our asses like those who just constantly criticize, doing nothing positive.

Great article Justin.

My dish farm showing how little I could PERSONALLY be affected by cablehttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

Bye the way I have added three more dishes since these pics including an Internet 2 way dish (pegasus) and a dual dish setup of 119 degrees and 101 degrees so that I get a perfect HD picture on my Tivo and I am awaiting a new 65 inch Toshiba High Definition TV and will get the top HD receiver when that comes in next month. As my big dish is on horizon to horizon and goes out over the Atlantic in winter for European soccer games etc., there is not much programming available anywhere that I don't get without cable. So up yours Seymour.

I built here 28 years ago and still do not have cable available but I guess with my 2 way Internet dish (some downloads at 150 K) I don't miss it that much .
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/16paraclipse.jpg http://www.legal-rights.org/images/3dishplus.jpg

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/3dishtower.jpg http://www.legal-rights.org/images/4chimney.jpg

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/4onroof.jpg http://www.legal-rights.org/images/paraclipsefar.jpg

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/towerfar.jpg . http://www.legal-rights.org/images/regdish10.jpg

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/regdish6.jpg

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkblack.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,
[ttrkmailname]

[red]Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth![/color][/size]
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/bllrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)[Edited by To The Real King!! on August 11th, 2001 at 03:08 PM]

Justin

August 17th, 2001, 03:15 PM

Thought I would ad this info as it might help some people.

http://www.skyretailer.com/air.htm#three

Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule

The Federal Communications Commission and its Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule, a set of regulations that concern the use of DTH dishes, wireless cable/MMDS equipment and off-air antennas, prohibit restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to dishes that are less than one meter (39.37 inches) in diameter or of any size in Alaska.

The rule applies to viewers who place video antennas on property that they own and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio.

The rule allows local governments, community associations and landlords to enforce restrictions only for safety or historic preservation. In addition, under some circumstances, the availability of a central or common antenna can be used by a community association or landlord to restrict the installation of individual antennas.

On Nov. 20, 1998, the FCC amended the rule so that it will also apply to rental property where the renter has exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio.

The following Q&A is provided by the FCC:

Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to install, maintain or use a video antenna. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property.

A restriction impairs if it: 1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of, 2) unreasonably increases the cost of, or 3) precludes a viewer from receiving an acceptable signal.

The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.

Q: What types of restrictions unreasonably delay or prevent viewers from using an antenna?
A: A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by the rule. For example, local regulations that require a person to obtain a permit or approval prior to installation create unreasonable delay and are generally prohibited.

Q: What is an unreasonable expense?
A: Any requirement to pay a fee to the local authority for a permit to be allowed to install an antenna would be unreasonable because such permits are generally prohibited

Q: What restrictions prevent a viewer from receiving an acceptable quality signal?
A: For antennas designed to receive analog signals, a requirement that an antenna be located where reception would be impossible or substantially degraded is prohibited by the rule. However, a regulation requiring that antennas be placed where they are not visible from the street would be permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay.

Q: Are all restrictions prohibited?
A: No, many restrictions are permitted. Clearly-defined, legitimate safety restrictions are permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use because they are necessary to protect public safety.

Examples of valid safety restrictions include fire codes preventing people from installing antennas on fire escapes; restrictions requiring that a person not place an antenna within a certain distance from a power line; electrical code requirements to properly ground the antenna; and installation requirements that describe the proper method to secure an antenna.

Restrictions necessary for historic preservation may also be permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use of the antenna.

Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?
A: The rule applies to viewers who live in a multiple-dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the viewer has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you 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.

Q: Does the rule apply to residents of rental property?
A: Yes. Renters may install video antennas within their leasehold, which means inside the dwelling or on outdoor areas that are part of the tenant's rented space and which are under the exclusive use or control of the tenant. Typically, for apartments, these areas include balconies, balcony railings and terraces.

For rented single-family homes or manufactured homes which sit on rented property, these areas include the home itself and patios, yards, gardens or other similar areas. If renters do not have access to these outside areas, the tenant may install the video antenna inside the rental unit.

Renters are not required to obtain the consent of the landlord prior to installing a video antenna in these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof or the exterior walls of an apartment building.

Q: Are there restrictions that may be placed on residents of rental property?
A: Yes. A restriction necessary to prevent damage to leased property may be reasonable. For example, tenants could be prohibited from drilling holes through exterior walls or through the roof. However, a restriction designed to prevent ordinary wear and tear (marks, scratches, and minor damage to carpets, walls and draperies) would likely not be reasonable.

In addition, rental property is subject to the same protection and exceptions to the rule as owned property. Thus, a landlord may impose other types of restrictions that do not impair installation, maintenance or use under the rule.

Q: I live in a mobile home that I own but it is located in a park where I rent the lot. Am I covered by the FCC rule?
A: Yes. The rule applies if you install the antenna anywhere on the mobile or manufactured home that is owned by you. The rule also applies to antennas installed on the lot or pad that you rent, as well as to other areas that are under your exclusive use and control. However, the rule does not apply if you want to install the antenna in a common area or other area outside of what you rent.

Q: What restrictions are permitted if the antenna must be on a very tall mast to get a signal?
A: If the mast is more than 12 feet above the roof line, the local government, community association or landlord may require you to apply for a permit for safety reasons. If you meet the safety requirements, the permit should be granted.

Q: Does the rule apply to commercial property or only residential property?
A: Nothing in the rule excludes antennas installed on commercial property. The rule applies to property used for commercial purposes in the same way it applies to residential property.

Q: What is the procedure for filing a petition or requesting a waiver at the Commission?
A: Petitions for declaratory rulings and waivers must be served on all interested parties. For example, if a homeowners' association files a petition seeking a declaratory ruling that its restriction is not preempted and is seeking to enforce the restriction against a specific viewer, service must be made on that specific viewer. The homeowners' association will not be required to serve all other members of the association, but must provide reasonable, constructive notice of the proceeding to other residents whose interests may foreseeably be affected. This may be accomplished, for example, by placing notices in residents' mailboxes, by placing a notice on a community bulletin board, or by placing the notice in an association newsletter.

All allegations of fact contained in petitions and related pleadings before the Commission must be supported by an affidavit signed by one or more persons who have actual knowledge of such facts. An original and two copies of all petitions and pleadings should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, Attention: Cable Services Bureau.