Dish Network understands that rule perfectly well. The issue is, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. You don't understand the issue either.BobaBird said:
That FCC ruling says nothing about drilling holes in walls, roofs, etc.
The reason Dish lost a customer today.
- Thread starter .O.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 45
- Views 6K
That FCC ruling says nothing about drilling holes in walls, roofs, etc.
Actually, it does. From OTARD: (emphasis mine)
Q: Does the rule apply to residents of rental property?
A: Yes. Effective January 22, 1999, renters may install antennas within their leasehold, which means inside the dwelling or on outdoor areas that are part of the tenant's leased 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 antenna inside the rental unit. Renters are not required to obtain the consent of the landlord prior to installing an antenna in these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof or the exterior walls of an apartment building. Generally, balconies or patios that are shared with other people or are accessible from other units are not considered to be exclusive use areas.
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 (e.g., marks, scratches, and minor damage to carpets, walls and draperies) would likely not be reasonable provided the antenna is installed wholly within the antenna user's own exclusive use area. 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. The landlord may also impose restrictions necessary for safety or historic preservation.
Q: Does the rule apply to residents of rental property?
A: Yes. Effective January 22, 1999, renters may install antennas within their leasehold, which means inside the dwelling or on outdoor areas that are part of the tenant's leased 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 antenna inside the rental unit. Renters are not required to obtain the consent of the landlord prior to installing an antenna in these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof or the exterior walls of an apartment building. Generally, balconies or patios that are shared with other people or are accessible from other units are not considered to be exclusive use areas.
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 (e.g., marks, scratches, and minor damage to carpets, walls and draperies) would likely not be reasonable provided the antenna is installed wholly within the antenna user's own exclusive use area. 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. The landlord may also impose restrictions necessary for safety or historic preservation.
Last edited:
As an ex employee of Dish I can say that the rental / lease issue was at times a problem but never have I had a customer that got so analy torqued over the issue as the OP has. I would never install on a rental or lease property without a letter or the customer signing off on my paper work removing Echostar and all of its sub companies as well as anyone employeed and no longer employeed ( me ) liable for any damage that may occur and that said customer would accept for and complete responsibility financialy for said damages.
What the OP does not seem to comprehend is that even though he has free reign to take care of the upkeep of the property he does not have permission to damage the property and should he damage it he is responsible except when it comes to the case of outside individuals ( companies ) that he has come out to do any kind of service work. Any person(s) or company(s) that step foot on the property are responsible for the work they do and any damages that result from it, on rental property it is critical for the person(s) doing the work to enquire about the status of the property and its ownership otherwise the person(s) and the company that employ's him or her can face legal action if the actual owner of the property feels that it has been damaged as can the tenant to.
Frankly for as outraged as the OP is over the miniscule issue of the landlords letter of persmission I would think that he would be even more outraged at his own ignorance for not realising how important it is to protect not only himself but that no self respecting technician is going to put himself or his family at risk for some couch potatoe to sit on his ass watching his HD tv.
What the OP does not seem to comprehend is that even though he has free reign to take care of the upkeep of the property he does not have permission to damage the property and should he damage it he is responsible except when it comes to the case of outside individuals ( companies ) that he has come out to do any kind of service work. Any person(s) or company(s) that step foot on the property are responsible for the work they do and any damages that result from it, on rental property it is critical for the person(s) doing the work to enquire about the status of the property and its ownership otherwise the person(s) and the company that employ's him or her can face legal action if the actual owner of the property feels that it has been damaged as can the tenant to.
Frankly for as outraged as the OP is over the miniscule issue of the landlords letter of persmission I would think that he would be even more outraged at his own ignorance for not realising how important it is to protect not only himself but that no self respecting technician is going to put himself or his family at risk for some couch potatoe to sit on his ass watching his HD tv.
Who is liable if landlord permission is not asked and the installer accidentally burns the house down like that comcast installer did while drilling a hole in the wall?
scooby2 said:
*If* the damage occurs due to negligence upon the installer, then the installer and/or installation company is liable.
