Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

The Battle is on! My landlord now demands I remove my dish


  • Please log in to reply
1045 replies to this topic

#621 OFFLINE   Carl Spock

Carl Spock

    Superfly

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,567 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2004

Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:23 PM

The 1112 would have the same frequency response range so it wouldn't work, too, if it exists.

Multiplex Technologies was purchased by Linear Corp back in 1999. I see from doing some basic Googling here that Channel Plus is also owned by Linear Corp. Maybe they always were.

I doubt any of this old technology exists anymore.

Edited by Carl Spock, 25 August 2011 - 02:30 PM.

hangin' with the bros at 40 Eridani A

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#622 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Special Member

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,152 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:28 PM

Well, I'm not a lawyer or a member of the SBCA, but it seems to me that part of this addendum is not permissible; therefore, in its entirety it is not permissible. I base this reasoning, which I admit can be wrong, on the fact that management is requiring renters to purchase an item that does not exist, and even if it did exist, the item would not completely work with my Slimline dish (for the reasons Jeremy cited in the preceding post). Because this would have the effect of rendering my setup unusable, it would not be permissible under the FCC's regs.

Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation?

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

Opinions are my own but should be those of all Americans, who would be much better off intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally if that were the case.


#623 OFFLINE   Jeremy W

Jeremy W

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,447 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:34 PM

Because this would have the effect of rendering my setup unusable, it would not be permissible under the FCC's regs.

Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The Slimline dish is within the size constraints the FCC allows, and that's all that matters. They can't have any sort of restriction that would prevent you from installing an otherwise legal dish.

#624 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Special Member

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,152 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:55 PM

I think the fit's going to hit the shan soon anyway, because in response to an Email, I fired off a polite but firm reply to Amanda, my property manager, the reasons why the addendum may be impermissible, notwithstanding that some parts of it don't apply to me directly (deposit, glass transmitter because I'm going to use flat cabling).

I'm sure she'll read that Email as a proposal to battle, to which I say, "Bring it on!" :box:

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

Opinions are my own but should be those of all Americans, who would be much better off intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally if that were the case.


#625 OFFLINE   Avder

Avder

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,395 posts
Joined: Feb 06, 2010

Posted 25 August 2011 - 04:20 PM

Didn't they fight tooth and nail to force you to use a non-pen mount and now they're telling you you have to clamp it to the railing?

#626 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Special Member

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,152 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 25 August 2011 - 04:24 PM

Amanda didn't say anything about having to clamp it to the railing, and since I did relocate it--per their instructions--to a non-pen mount on the floor of the balcony, it's fine that way. She also didn't say anything about me having to do anything differently from what I've done recently. This just happens to be the first satellite dish addendum I have ever seen while living here and the first I've ever been asked to sign in my 13 years I've lived here.

My hope is that the SBCA and/or the FCC deems this addendum improper or impermissible. Then I can tell management that and tell all the residents that as well. :D

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

Opinions are my own but should be those of all Americans, who would be much better off intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally if that were the case.


#627 OFFLINE   trh

trh

    This Space for Sale

  • Registered
  • 3,242 posts
  • LocationNE FL
Joined: Nov 02, 2007

Posted 25 August 2011 - 04:41 PM

My hope is that the SBCA and/or the FCC deems this addendum improper or impermissible.


Have you filed a petition with the FCC yet? The SBCA is a great organization, but they are a trade organization representing the satellite companies. The FCC carries a lot more "weight" when their lawyers send a letter to your management company informing them that they are in violation of federal regulations.

#628 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Special Member

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,152 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 25 August 2011 - 04:44 PM

But what if management technically is not in violation of federal regulations? That's why I'm waiting for an advisory opinion from Lisa at the SBCA. I don't want to file a petition if there's nothing to aggrieve.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

Opinions are my own but should be those of all Americans, who would be much better off intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally if that were the case.


#629 OFFLINE   trh

trh

    This Space for Sale

  • Registered
  • 3,242 posts
  • LocationNE FL
Joined: Nov 02, 2007

Posted 25 August 2011 - 04:51 PM

The 'through the window transmitter' seems to make their addendum illegal.

Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule...A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule


Let the FCC read the addendum and rule if it is illegal.

#630 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,338 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 25 August 2011 - 04:52 PM

But what if management technically is not in violation of federal regulations?

If management prescribes a method that both won't satisfy the need and isn't commercially available, it doesn't seem likely to hold much authority.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#631 OFFLINE   Justin23

Justin23

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,212 posts
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 25 August 2011 - 05:01 PM

The 'through the window transmitter' seems to make their addendum illegal.



Let the FCC read the addendum and rule if it is illegal.



That "transmitter" might violate this part: "(3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule"

#632 OFFLINE   leeliam

leeliam

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 35 posts
Joined: Aug 02, 2010

Posted 25 August 2011 - 07:33 PM

We had an apartment here that had an addendum stating flat cable couldn't be used. It was ruled illegal due to that. I would assume your through the glass transmitter would also be ruled illegal.

#633 OFFLINE   Drucifer

Drucifer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,726 posts
  • LocationNY Hudson Valley
Joined: Feb 12, 2009

Posted 25 August 2011 - 07:39 PM

Though the glass transmitter is probably a CIA or MI6 tool.

DREW

Do it Right, Do it Once
LR: HR34-7, Den: HR24-1, MB: HR24-5, Bsm: HR21-2, Kit: H25-5
PrimeStar '95, DirecTV  '00


#634 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Special Member

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,152 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 26 August 2011 - 05:06 PM

OK, folks, an update...

Spoke to the SBCA today. They recommended I file a petition with the FCC, which is what I will do once I finish moving all this crap upstairs (ain't easy to do when one's not in his 20s anymore--hell, I'd pay to be in my 30s even!).

Here's a brief synopsis of what the SBCA believes violates the OTARD rules:


  • Written notices to install dishes are not permitted if installation is done on one's exclusive use property
  • Requiring the purchase and use of a device such as a so-called "through the glass" transmitter are not permitted if such devices no longer exist, or are not technically capable of delivering a consistent, quality signal, or if a renter/owner is legally able to utilize a dish via another means
  • Requiring a dish to be "as invisible as possible" is not permitted, so long as the dish is within the confines of the exclusive use property
  • A deposit to install a dish is not permitted
  • A requirement to purchase additional insurance that assesses an undue burden upon the resident is not permitted
So, I guess these are just some of the primary improprieties in this addendum.

Looks like it's off to the FCC I go. Management is going to loooovvvve me after this! :D


Note: Even though much of this doesn't really apply to me--they're not prohibiting me from relocating my dish; they just wanted me to sign this--I decided to dig into this addendum for two reasons: (1) They MAY try to get it to apply to me in the future if I sign it and don't contest it; and (2) No other current or future resident should have to put up with this stupid thing.

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

Opinions are my own but should be those of all Americans, who would be much better off intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally if that were the case.


#635 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,721 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 26 August 2011 - 05:20 PM

Go LV, don't stop - the Force is strong with you !

#636 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Special Member

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,152 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 26 August 2011 - 05:21 PM

Indeed it is. !Devil_lol

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

Opinions are my own but should be those of all Americans, who would be much better off intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally if that were the case.


#637 OFFLINE   trh

trh

    This Space for Sale

  • Registered
  • 3,242 posts
  • LocationNE FL
Joined: Nov 02, 2007

Posted 26 August 2011 - 05:23 PM

I'm glad you're going to file with the FCC. I've had to do it twice with my HOA; the FCC is easy to work with and are very pro-DBS user. Their first letter to your management company will be "nice" and explain OTARD and what part of the satellite addendum doesn't comply with OTARD. They will also give your management company time to respond and a "let's handle this informally; give Mr./Mrs. XYZ a call at the FCC to discuss this."

But I'll be interested to see how close the FCC decision matches the SBCA's. Specifically written notices and the invisibility requirements. From the OTARD:

Although a simple notification process might be permissible, such a process cannot be used as a prior approval requirement and may not delay or increase the cost of installation. The burden is on the association to show that a notification process does not violate our 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.



#638 ONLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,731 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 26 August 2011 - 05:37 PM

Personally I see no problem with a hide it as best you can rule.

A courtesy call to say when an installer is coming so they know the workers vehicle is legitamte while its there and not a cover for someone breaking in, I have no issue with that concept.. The rest is just junk though.

#639 OFFLINE   azarby

azarby

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,017 posts
Joined: Dec 15, 2006

Posted 26 August 2011 - 06:07 PM

Though the glass transmitter is probably a CIA or MI6 tool.


Good trick in passing DC to power the LNB. Probably have to convert the DC to AC have a really good coil to generate a magnetic field that will pass through the glass and then another pickup coil on the other side to recover the AC and reconvert to the proper DC

#640 OFFLINE   Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Special Member

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 8,152 posts
  • LocationGalactic Empire
Joined: Sep 20, 2004

Posted 26 August 2011 - 06:11 PM

Maybe I can then build this massive transformer, stick it on the roof or something. Blow out the power to the whole complex. :D

FAITH: I find the lack of it disturbing.

Opinions are my own but should be those of all Americans, who would be much better off intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally if that were the case.





spam firewall