DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Icon
Joined
·
701 Posts
rventura said:
Rventura,

According to Federal Legislation and the FCC it is ILLEGAL to ban outright or to otherwise place conditions on Antenna Installation (satellite Dish's less than one meter or ANY Size OTA Antenna) that causes the prospective subscriber to NOT be able to get a signal or place UNDUE installation costs upon them.

Boston, when they determine what they propose is ILLEGAL will have to back down.

The only way Boston can LEGALLY place any conditions upon installers would be to declare all of BOSTON a Historic district and only then could they place conditions on Antenna installations, and still not be able to ban then outright.

America, "Home of the Free", YEAHH RIGHT. As long as you pick the right color House, agree with the status quo ETC.., LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE!!!

John
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,138 Posts
All they need is a judge to decide that the rule isn't unreasonable. OTARD scares most communities into not having laws/regulations but it does not prohibit all laws/regulations. Perhaps what the issue needs is a major city like Boston who can afford to take the issue through the court process to decide what OTARD can and cannot do.

The question to ask is "Is there a less obtrusive place I could put my dish without excessive extra cost?" The definition of excessive is the key. Some believe that OTARD allows you to put a dish anywhere they want - it doesn't.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
I'm pleasantly surprised. That was a balanced article that described OTARD (not by name) as well as what some Boston city counsilors want.

My favorite quote from the article is by Robert Mercer of DirecTV, saying that dishes are unfairly singled out. "Why not force cable to bury their lines in the ground? What's so attractive about a bunch of cables?"
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
2,498 Posts
I don't know if Boston is like my town but some of our city commissioners are also members of the county cable board. They receive free cable service for being on the board and many people think that they are "bought and paid for" because whenever something comes up that concerns the cable company (like franchise disputes) they always seem to vote in favor of the cable company. I sure hope that the satellite dish owners in Boston win this one because if they don't it is likely that they will try the same thing here.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
668 Posts
So...antennas are unsigtly but telphone,
cable TV, and electrical services are'nt:nono2: ?

Sounds like opening a can of worms to me.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,138 Posts
It is amazing how a repetitive ugly can blend in to the background.
It would also depend on the neighborhood, but utility poles can be found in alleys behind homes (with other ugly stuff). Perhaps if there are front yard utilities front yard dishes would be more "acceptable".
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,658 Posts
A lot of these kinds of rules and restrictions just seem to me like a whole bunch of nobody-else's-business. Some folks in this country get so worked up over what other people are doing.

If my neighbor was running a crack-house that would not be good.... but putting up an antenna or dish to watch TV? How could anyone possibly have any problem with that?
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
668 Posts
James Long said:
It is amazing how a repetitive ugly can blend in to the background.
It would also depend on the neighborhood, but utility poles can be found in alleys behind homes (with other ugly stuff). Perhaps if there are front yard utilities front yard dishes would be more "acceptable".
That is a good point. After reading the article the first thing I thought of was San Fransisco. I used to visit my sister there and always remember how beautiful some of the houses were but it was hard to see it because of all of the poles and wires.
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
299 Posts
I suppose one way they could go is work out a deal with Dish and Direct such that each building can have a single dish + appropriate splitters and the signals get routed to the people inside that require signals. It'd cut down on the number of dishes at least.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
152 Posts
My subdivision already has this requirement -- no dishes in view from street or neighboring properties. All telephone and cable is underground, too. Regarding the dishes, though, all houses here are flat-roof adobe style with parapets so it's very easy for the dish to be invisible from the street and surrounding properties.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
34 Posts
[The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. 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 within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. 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. 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.

A local restriction that prohibits all antennas would prevent viewers from receiving signals, and is prohibited by the Commission's rule. Procedural requirements can also unreasonably delay installation, maintenance or use of an antenna covered by this 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. Permits or prior approval necessary to serve a legitimate safety or historic preservation purpose may be permissible. 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
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
484 Posts
"We have buildings that have three floors, but there are six dishes hanging off the front," said Marygrace Gravallese, a 49-year-old East Boston resident who subscribes to cable. "I'm sick and tired of looking at them. It makes me sick when I'm driving down the street. Somebody needs to do something."
Well, one can certainly see the safety hazard here.

I think there's a clear need for remedial driver education classes in East Boston.
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
319 Posts
We had a major fire that destroyed many poles and the county decide to underground utilities (power and cable) in that area but the phone company (Qwest) said no and refused although they do it in other areas of the city/county of 18000. I guess they could not be forced to eliminate the ugly poles.
-Ken
 

·
Charter Gold Club Member
Joined
·
22,056 Posts
City plan envisions requiring citizens to move satellite dishes
to backs of buildings, but proposal may violate FCC Rules.


The Boston City Council, citing a proliferation of satellite television dishes across
the city, is considering banning the devices from the front of buildings.

Saying that the dishes are potentially dangerous and increasingly hard to overlook
in parts of the city where some buildings are festooned with them, city council
members will consider a measure to confine the satellite television receivers to
the rear of buildings, out of public view.

"For some, it's an eyesore," said Council Pres. Michael Flaherty, who sponsored
the measure. A public hearing before the council's Public Utilities and Cable
Communications Committee is scheduled for Friday. ...

Full story @ The Boston Globe

(Ed. Note: The other "Boston" thread, originally in the Dish Discussion thread was
moved and was properly merged into this General Discussion thread to avoid
having two threads running concurrently on the same topic.)
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
545 Posts
Just read this article! Thanks for posting that link here, because I never would have seen it! Have not read the globe in 25 years!!

First, if the City Council is going to try to do this then they better also grant a video franchise to Verizon! I'll bet that this has less to do with dishes being eyesores and more to do with the council being in comcraps pocket! Just another attempt to limit choice of consumers!
My dish is not on the front of my house so it wouldn't effect me, but I am dead set against any such ban!

Maybe I'll slip outof work on friday and slip into cityhall!
 

·
Charter Gold Club Member
Joined
·
22,056 Posts
Satellite dishes are asthetically pleasing to me -- I suppose it's because they're
cool symbols of the latest in modern, pie-in-the-sky high-technology.

Utility poles, with all those messy wires hanging down and breaking off during
winter siorms, endangering life and limb, are obsolete, unattractive relics of the
early days of the previous century.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
844 Posts
scooper said:
Ever driven in the Bostan area ? As far as I'm concerned, the whole area needs to go back to driver's ed....
Agreed. Worst drivers in the nation, and I've driven in New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Orlando, and D.C., just to name a few places. Not that any of this is on topic. :p
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top