Hams For Action

[K3VR]

February 28, 2007
DA 07-898

Don Schellhardt
P.O. Box 9536
Roanoke, VA #24020

Dear Mr. Schellhardt: #

This is in response to the petition dated July 21, 2006 that you filed on behalf of Hams for Action (HFA), requesting that the Commission adopt rules that, under certain circumstances, override covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that prevent amateur radio operators from installing antennas and antenna support structures. #Specifically, HFA requests that the Commission preempt CC&Rs that do not provide reasonable accommodation for an amateur radio operator who is an “emergency communications operator” (ECO). #HFA proposes rules regarding certification of ECOs and setting specific criteria for what constitutes reasonable accommodation. #For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petition.

The Commission has previously addressed the question of whether to preempt CC&Rs in deeds and bylaws that restrict the installation of antennas and associated support structures used by amateur radio stations. #In the PRB-1 decision, the Commission established a policy of limited preemption of state and local regulations governing amateur station facilities, including antennas and support structures, but expressly decided not to extend its limited preemption policy to CC&Rs in home ownership deeds and condominium bylaws because “[s]uch agreements are voluntarily entered into by the buyer or tenant when the agreement is executed and do not usually concern the Commission.” #In 2001, the Commission rejected a rejected a petition requesting that the Commission adopt rules to preempt CC&Rs that do not provide reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operators, and affirmed that the limited preemption policy of PRB-1 applies only to state and local regulations. #The Commission noted that its decision in PRB-1 to exclude CC&Rs from its preemption policy was premised upon the fundamental difference between state and local regulations, with which an amateur operator must comply, and CC&Rs, which are contractual terms to which an amateur operator voluntarily subjects him- or herself. #The Commission also concluded that “there ha[d] not been a sufficient showing that CC&Rs prevent amateur radio operators from pursuing the basis and purpose of the amateur service.” #It added that, should Congress see fit to enact a statutory directive mandating the expansion of its limited preemption policy to include more than state and local regulations, it would expeditiously act to fulfill its obligation thereunder.

We conclude that HFA has not presented grounds for the Commission to revisit this policy. #HFA argues that its proposal is different from proposals the Commission rejected in the past, in that HFA proposes that the Commission preempt CC&Rs only when the amateur operator is an ECO. #It also offers specific guidelines to define reasonable accommodation, rather than relying on case-by-case determination. #Neither of these features of the HFA proposal, however, addresses the Commission’s reasons for excluding CC&Rs in private covenants from its limited preemption policy. #As the Commission reiterated in 2001, it is reluctant to preempt private parties' freedom of contract unless it is shown that private agreements will seriously disrupt the federal regulatory scheme or unless there is another strong countervailing reason to do so. #Preempting contractual terms only when one party is an ECO, and only according to specific technical guidelines, would not be consistent with that concern. #We conclude, therefore, that the petition presents no evidence of an existing problem that has not been considered before or other evidence meriting a rule change.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.401(e) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.401(e), the petition for rulemaking filed July 21, 2006 by Hams for Action IS DENIED. #

This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131 and 0.331.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau




http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-898A1.pdf

[K3VR]

I purposely chose an area without undue restrictions where I could erect a tower and low band wire antennas. Maybe some folks don't have that choice? This Order appears to indicate that if you sign a private contract limiting your ability to erect an antenna, the federal government will not overturn your agreement, even if you do emergency communications.

[K4KWH]

This can and has been addressed in Congress. It's been introduced several times only to die in commitee.

73

[N5LRZ]

I have to agree with Richard, above. If one voluntarily signs a contract to restrict their freedom of action then they should and ought to be bound by that contracts terms. No one put a 357 magnum to their head and ordered them to sign on the dotted line.


Not only that, there is also the fact that there are many very stealthy antennas out there on the web that if done properly even the most snoopiest of neighbors will ever tell you have an external antenna. All it takes is a little imigination and a good antenna tuner.

IF one is an amateur radio operator, or even a CB operator for that matter, why in the jell would anyone viluntarily sign any agreement to restrict their ability to put up a good but highly visible antenna system in the first place.

Life must after all have its priorities---Firstly BEER/with piza followed by whoopie woo woo followed by ham radio. Priorities are very important

[KM5FL]

Quote[/b] (N5LRZ @ Feb. 28 2007,18:06)]IF one is an amateur radio operator, or even a CB operator for that matter, why in the jell would anyone voluntarily sign any agreement to restrict their ability to put up a good but highly visible antenna system in the first place.
Most people are initially intrigued by the eliteness of a Gated Community and will do anything to be "accepted". 90% of the time, it's because the wife says that's how it's gonna be.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

KM5FL

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (KM5FL @ Feb. 28 2007,20:11)]90% of the time, it's because the wife says that's how it's gonna be.
*ding* *ding* *ding*

We have a winner!

[NA4BH]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Feb. 28 2007,18:13)]Quote[/b] (KM5FL @ Feb. 28 2007,20:11)]90% of the time, it's because the wife says that's how it's gonna be.
*ding* *ding* *ding*

We have a winner!
You have a second on the DING DING DING, WE HAVE A WINNER !!!! Just raise the number a few points.

Quote[/b] ]Life must after all have its priorities---Firstly BEER/with piza followed by whoopie woo woo #followed by ham radio. #Priorities are very important


You SIR, have your priorities right.

[WA2ZDY]

I live with restrictions. This area is where I want to live and raise my kids. There are ZERO non-restricted communities within many miles of here that aren't VERY substandard housing or trailer parks. And this is Florida and God HATES trailer parks.

So I've made my choice. Flagpoles are even getting harder to get permission for. I asked a housing company salesman if I could put one up and he said the HOA does not allow freestanding flagpoles. When I asked why since I'm a patriotic kind of guy, he said "too many CB radio owners use them as antennas and cause trouble." We didn't buy there.

Life is tough.

[KA4DPO]

My community has very strict covenants regarding external antennas. We had to have a community petition to allow small DTV installations and even those must meet certain criteria.

I Have two attics in my home the larger one over the main part of the house is chock full of wiring and HVAC equipment and ducts. The smaller one over the rear and side is virtually empty and has enough room for a 40 meter dipole. I also have a Diamond X-300A, a homebrew 4 element 2 meter quad on a TV rotator, and a home brew 6 meter ground plane in there as well. It all works very well considering that it's inside, and no one knows I'm here.

I'll be retiring soon and will not buy in a deed restricted community when we move. XYL is OK with that so I'll be putting up some real antennas.

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,22:45)]My community has very strict covenants regarding external antennas. We had to have a community petition to allow small DTV installations and even those must meet certain criteria.
Right... the criteria in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000.

Quote[/b] ]A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:

(1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.

(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.

(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.

In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.

A lot of these HOAs like to think that doesn't apply to them, but they're not quite correct there.

Quote[/b] ]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. 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.

Note that while this rule is similar to PRB-1, it does not cover amateur radio antennas.

It just bugs me when I see people bowing to HOA rules that are outside the scope of this rule.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Feb. 28 2007,22:53)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,22:45)]My community has very strict covenants regarding external antennas. #We had to have a community petition to allow small DTV installations and even those must meet certain criteria.
Right... the criteria in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000.

Quote[/b] ]A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:

(1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.

(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.

(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.

In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.

A lot of these HOAs like to think that doesn't apply to them, but they're not quite correct there.

Quote[/b] ]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. 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.

Note that while this rule is similar to PRB-1, it does not cover amateur radio antennas.

It just bugs me when I see people bowing to HOA rules that are outside the scope of this rule.
You pretty much got it except that no other type of antennas are permitted period. This includes the old log periodic type TV or FM antennas and no masts at all.

Ours even goes so far as to say that no one may construct or maintain any amateur radio antenna or equipment on the premises. They didn't say anything about in the premises though.

I don't feel unduly burdened by this at all since we have a very nice neigborhood and I would be as opposed as anyone else at having a bunch of unsightly antennas hanging all over one of the homes near me.

When I move I'll be a little more out in the country and will still plan my antenna installation to be as unobtrusive as possible. No one wants to live next door to an aluminum factory.

[KS4VT]

I got a little creative with the rules in my favor, specifically forced I "forced the board" to change the outdoor antenna rules that is in our doc's thanks to the FCC.

Once that was done I proceeded to install a Rohn 25 tower in the backyard that fit the FCC R&R's (less than 12' above the roofline). #Then I attached a "dish antenna" on the side to conform to the rule and also had the top of the tower to install something else, at this point it is currently a modest U/V dual bander vertical.

The FCC doesn't touch on multi-use antenna structures, but as long as you use it for a mounting support for either a dish or tv antenna it should fit the rules to support any other kind of antennas, including amateur radio.

Also the rules doesn't say that the dish or TV antenna has to work, but that may be pushing it.

Now since the initial installation I have gotten very friendly with the property manager and the new board and I'm currently assisting them to install a new community 450 MHz. UHF repeater system. #In addition to using it for the property's maintenance activities they want to use it for CERT and security and I believe I have convinced them to re-write the amateur radio antenna prohibition that is currently on the books, but not enforced. #I'm working the political side of the house to do this considering CERT has become very popular since the recent hurricanes in FL.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,21:17)]
You pretty much got it except that no other type of antennas are permitted period. #This includes the old log periodic type TV or FM antennas and no masts at all. #

Ours even goes so far as to say that no one may construct or maintain any amateur radio antenna or equipment on the premises. #They didn't say anything about in the premises though.

I don't feel unduly burdened by this at all since we have a very nice neigborhood and I would be as opposed as anyone else at having a bunch of unsightly antennas hanging all over one of the homes near me.

When I move I'll be a little more out in the country and will still plan my antenna installation to be as unobtrusive as possible. #No one wants to live next door to an aluminum factory.
I think you missed something here. Your HOA CANNOT prevent you from mounting a log periodic TV antenna on a mast as long as the mast is 12 feet or less.

That is the point of the rule: you cannot be prevented from erecting a TV antenna for the reception of broadcast television. It's not limited to satellite dishes.

I also live in an HOA restricted community and have been successfully using a rather stealthy wire for over a year now. This setup includes a black, 33 foot telescoping fiberglass pole next to one of my trees. At least one HOA board member knows it's there, but is also aware of my attitude should they ever tell me to take it down. If that should ever occur, I'll mount the biggest, most visible log periodic TV antenna that I can find on my roof, and there is nothing that they can do about it. This board member is aware that they have a choice with me: they can accept my difficult to see wire, or a very visible and ugly TV antenna (which I will have guyed and still end up having some form of HF antenna!)

No one has ever mentioned my wire or the pole to me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Mike, Raleigh NC

[W0BKR]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Feb. 28 2007,16:00)]Did they honestly think the FCC would grant their request? If you are an amateur radio operator and voluntarily move to a community with CC&Rs, you must abide by them or face legal action from the homeowner's association or your neighbors individually.

There is still plenty of areas where such draconian restrictions do not apply.
Actually, that depends on the municipality. Yeah, if you want to live 60 miles from town perhaps. Even where I live out in the county, there are deed restrictions.

Areas that allow towers and antennas are shrinking.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Feb. 28 2007,18:00)]Did they honestly think the FCC would grant their request? If you are an amateur radio operator and voluntarily move to a community with CC&Rs, you must abide by them or face legal action from the homeowner's association or your neighbors individually.
That's why I had my attorney carefully research all deed restrictions before purchasing.

There were none that seemed problematic.

Quote[/b] ]There is still plenty of areas where such draconian restrictions do not apply.


Are you sure you live in Florida? Those types of places are getting more and more scarce.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Mar. 01 2007,06:44)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,21:17)]
You pretty much got it except that no other type of antennas are permitted period. #This includes the old log periodic type TV or FM antennas and no masts at all. #

Ours even goes so far as to say that no one may construct or maintain any amateur radio antenna or equipment on the premises. #They didn't say anything about in the premises though.

I don't feel unduly burdened by this at all since we have a very nice neigborhood and I would be as opposed as anyone else at having a bunch of unsightly antennas hanging all over one of the homes near me.

When I move I'll be a little more out in the country and will still plan my antenna installation to be as unobtrusive as possible. #No one wants to live next door to an aluminum factory.
I think you missed something here. Your HOA CANNOT prevent you from mounting a log periodic TV antenna on a mast as long as the mast is 12 feet or less.

That is the point of the rule: you cannot be prevented from erecting a TV antenna for the reception of broadcast television. It's not limited to satellite dishes.

I also live in an HOA restricted community and have been successfully using a rather stealthy wire for over a year now. This setup includes a black, 33 foot telescoping fiberglass pole next to one of my trees. At least one HOA board member knows it's there, but is also aware of my attitude should they ever tell me to take it down. If that should ever occur, I'll mount the biggest, most visible log periodic TV antenna that I can find on my roof, and there is nothing that they can do about it. This board member is aware that they have a choice with me: they can accept my difficult to see wire, or a very visible and ugly TV antenna (which I will have guyed and still end up having some form of HF antenna!)

No one has ever mentioned my wire or the pole to me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Mike, Raleigh NC
That may be true but the document clearly states " no external antennas or other appliances".

I guess they figure you won't want to spend the time and money to fight it even if they know they'll loose in the end.

[wa3vjb]

Deed restrictions can be tossed out by a court of law if discrimination and bias can be proven.

A friend of mine owns a house built in 1954 and the original deed includes a "photostat" (remember them?, white letters on black background) with a series of restrictions.

One of them was that the house could not be sold to, or otherwise be owned by, blacks.

So, even though the "deed" continues to reflect the language used, it no longer carries the force of law.

Legal scholars could probably figure out an angle to show it discriminates to establish pre-emptive restrictions against radio antennas.

Good luck in the contest.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 01 2007,08:20)]That may be true but the document clearly states " no external antennas or other appliances".

I guess they figure you won't want to spend the time and money to fight it even if they know they'll loose in the end.
Oh, I have no doubt that is what the document says. Our's clearly and explicitly specifies no dish antennas (for example), and now of course they're all over the place.

Most HOAs are aware that they cannot enforce this aspect of your contract. That doesn't mean they're going to change it, they just know that they can't enforce it.

I wouldn't mind spending the time and money because one of the results my inevitable win, if it should ever go that far, would include reimbursement for my legal fees. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KS4VT]

There really is no need for you to spend any time or monies. If the HOA is truly violating the OTAR Rules the FCC will do all of the fighting for you to include fining them.

The FCC page has a number of past references on the enforcement of this law to HOA's all over the US. All you have to do is to let them know as they must change their doc's to conform.

[N5PVL]

I live on a farm, and make up one-third of the total ham population for this entire county, which is just about all farmland.

As long as we put a light on anything over 100ft so the cropdusters won't knock it down on the way back home in the evening, we can pretty well do what we please. - And do! Right now we're getting ready to put up our second tower.

Sometimes I feel disadvantaged because I'm out in the sticks like this so please! - More horror stories about the teeming yuppie warrens!

[K3UD]

According to the editorial QST getting
the same kind of covenant preemptions that allowed satellite dishes and over the air TV antennas to be erected is the main goal of the ARRL for this year. However it looks like the FCC just fired a warning shot across the ARRL's bow.

Here is some clear info on the OTAR rules.

OTAR (http://home.earthlink.net/~w6rmk/otard.htm)

73
George
K3UD

[kn4ds]

It's obvious the Commission isn't going to entertain any new petitions in this area unless someone can come up with some novel arguments.

That's going to be some tough going.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Feb. 28 2007,18:13)]Quote[/b] (KM5FL @ Feb. 28 2007,20:11)]90% of the time, it's because the wife says that's how it's gonna be.
*ding* *ding* *ding*

We have a winner!
If that's really the case, I'd say we have a wiener, not a winner.

When my wife pays for everything 100%, including the mortgage, insurance, taxes and utilities, and I go for a free ride, then I think it's fair she should make these decisions.

Otherwise, there's lots of potential wives out there.

WB2WIK/6

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Mar. 01 2007,04:44)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,21:17)]
You pretty much got it except that no other type of antennas are permitted period. This includes the old log periodic type TV or FM antennas and no masts at all.

Ours even goes so far as to say that no one may construct or maintain any amateur radio antenna or equipment on the premises. They didn't say anything about in the premises though.

I don't feel unduly burdened by this at all since we have a very nice neigborhood and I would be as opposed as anyone else at having a bunch of unsightly antennas hanging all over one of the homes near me.

When I move I'll be a little more out in the country and will still plan my antenna installation to be as unobtrusive as possible. No one wants to live next door to an aluminum factory.
I think you missed something here. Your HOA CANNOT prevent you from mounting a log periodic TV antenna on a mast as long as the mast is 12 feet or less.

That is the point of the rule: you cannot be prevented from erecting a TV antenna for the reception of broadcast television. It's not limited to satellite dishes.
This isn't quite true, although it's a popular rumor.

If you read the entire OTARD rule, it is permitted for an HOA or a landlord to absolutely prohibit the installation of outdoor over-the-air-receiving-devices (OTARD antennas) if they provide this service free of charge for association members or tenants to use.

This has already been tested in the courts.

If an HOA or landlord provides, say, free cable television for all residents and that includes local television channel service, he can then prohibit stuff to his heart's content and the OTARD rule will not apply.

It's happened, and I'm surprised it hasn't happened more, since it's easy to negotiate a huge discount for a large cable television network installation -- costs only a few bucks per household per month.

WB2WIK/6

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Feb. 28 2007,21:17)]I don't feel unduly burdened by this at all since we have a very nice neigborhood and I would be as opposed as anyone else at having a bunch of unsightly antennas hanging all over one of the homes near me.

When I move I'll be a little more out in the country and will still plan my antenna installation to be as unobtrusive as possible. No one wants to live next door to an aluminum factory.
This is a popular theme, but there's another side to it.

First, most people don't think towers and antennas are unsightly until you suggest it to them. Thousands upon thousands of multimillion dollar homes all over America, and lots of them are here in California, are built literally under 250' towers carrying high tension lines. Until you point up and say, "Aren't you worried about that?" most of the homeowners never notice them.

Thousands of multimillion dollar homes, surely here in California (and probably elsewhere, too) are right next door to active DXer hams' homes where lots of antennas are installed. They're "nicely" installed so as not to be eyesores, but they're surely there, and a lot of them are "big."

If you go on Google Earth and tour the overhead snapshot of some of these properties, you might be surprised. I have several examples in my own backyard, so to speak.

I have towers up now and my neighbors couldn't care less. When I sold my last hillside home in Chatsworth a few years back, the buyers came for a "final walkthrough" a few days before escrow closed. I said, "Oh, don't worry about the towers and antennas -- by Thursday, they'll be gone!" (I had eleven antennas, including six beams, on towers at the high end of the backyard, uphill from the swimming pool and patios.)

Their joint response was, "What antennas?"

Typical.

Hams notice antennas because we're kind of looking for them, and when we see them we probably know what they are. But average people? Nah, they really don't.

WB2WIK/6

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Mar. 02 2007,13:37)]If you read the entire OTARD rule, it is permitted for an HOA or a landlord to absolutely prohibit the installation of outdoor over-the-air-receiving-devices (OTARD antennas) if they provide this service free of charge for association members or tenants to use.

This has already been tested in the courts.

If an HOA or landlord provides, say, free cable television for all residents and that includes local television channel service, he can then prohibit stuff to his heart's content and the OTARD rule will not apply.
This is what the FCC fact sheet (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html) says:

Quote[/b] ]
Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?

A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.

So you are correct in that if they have a central antenna available to residents, that they would be able to ban individual antennas.

However, they have to provide access to the services that the tenant or homeowner desires. I don't see how they could feasibly do that. Let's say they give free cable to everyone, and one guy decides he wants DirecTV because he wants a specialty sports package like NFL sunday ticket or MLB extra innings. If I understand it correctly, the landlord or HOA has to allow him to install a dish or they have to provide DirecTV through their master antenna system if they want to ban all dishes.

It gets even more complicated if the homeowner or tenant wants to use fixed wireless services, such as satellite internet, which require a two way connection.

[KA4DPO]

WIK, I know we discussed this on the air once before.
I grew up in Southern California in Laguna Beach in fact, my parents still live there, so I'm very familiar with the housing situation up in the LA area. Northern Virginia is very different.

Here in leesburg there is a lot of emphasis on historic preservation and esthetics. All of the associations in the area have the same dim view of antennas be they amateur or other. Most of the area is served by cable, but a few of us opted to install satellite a few years ago and that was a major effort. Since then I have switched to Fios for TV, internet, and phone so the dish is gone.

There are many multi million dollar homes here in the Leesburg area, some of our neighbors include Steve Spurrier (Ex Redskins coach), and Joan Irvine ( of Irvine CA). I would say the biggest difference is that the majority are much newer than the homes in and around greater Los Angeles (not Orange County), most are less than 10 years old. It is the consensus of the majority of the home buying public in this area that radio antennas are unsightly hence the restrictions. I know a couple of local hams who were nearly tarred and feathered when neighbors spotted their very small, and well hidden wire antennas.

I suspect a lot of the deed restrictions in LA county were written some time ago. As I recall most of the homes in and around Chatsworth date back to the 60's and 70's so the restrictions may have been a lot looser than some of the newer developments.

I do know that it's easy for someone who doesn't live here to say how they would put up an antenna and defy anyone to tell them they can't. By all means there is a home for sale behind us, be my guest but please let me know how you fare against the HOA and the town of Leesburg.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Mar. 02 2007,12:43)]WIK, I know we discussed this on the air once before.
I grew up in Southern California in Laguna Beach in fact, my parents still live there, so I'm very familiar with the housing situation up in the LA area. Northern Virginia is very different.

Here in leesburg there is a lot of emphasis on historic preservation and esthetics. All of the associations in the area have the same dim view of antennas be they amateur or other. Most of the area is served by cable, but a few of us opted to install satellite a few years ago and that was a major effort. Since then I have switched to Fios for TV, internet, and phone so the dish is gone.

There are many multi million dollar homes here in the Leesburg area, some of our neighbors include Steve Spurrier (Ex Redskins coach), and Joan Irvine ( of Irvine CA). I would say the biggest difference is that the majority are much newer than the homes in and around greater Los Angeles (not Orange County), most are less than 10 years old. It is the consensus of the majority of the home buying public in this area that radio antennas are unsightly hence the restrictions. I know a couple of local hams who were nearly tarred and feathered when neighbors spotted their very small, and well hidden wire antennas.

I suspect a lot of the deed restrictions in LA county were written some time ago. As I recall most of the homes in and around Chatsworth date back to the 60's and 70's so the restrictions may have been a lot looser than some of the newer developments.

I do know that it's easy for someone who doesn't live here to say how they would put up an antenna and defy anyone to tell them they can't. By all means there is a home for sale behind us, be my guest but please let me know how you fare against the HOA and the town of Leesburg.
Well, I'd probably opt out of living in Leesburg for the same reason I opted out of living in Ridgefield, CT after putting a down payment on a home and opening escrow there.

Turns out that particular place had no CC&Rs but the house I was buying was on the Register of Historic Homes and it was forbidden to change anything about it. No thanks! Got out of that one.

My home in Chatsworth was up on the hill in the Porter Ranch area and built in 1984. It has no CC&Rs at all; however it is a pricey area. Actually the very house I owned on Celtic Street was the house used for the film, "Poltergeist II" during production. That was before I owned it, since we bought it in '93. Buying the house from the movie actually turned out very good because it was pre-wired for sixty telephone lines throughout the house, obviously some requirement of the production company and nothing we would bother to order or pay for.

Because we were adjacent to the Rocky Point Chatsworth Studios that were used for many western films over the years, there was still a lot of filming going on in the area. You probably remember what that was like! Came home from work one day to find a gunfight in the street, right in front of my driveway. I ducked down in the car to dial "911," only to be told they were filming an episode of the TV show "Hunter," and we got a note in the mailbox about this. I missed the note.

Anyway, there's lots of places to live. Sounds like Leesburg probably wouldn't be one for me. But most of So. Cal., including brand-new contruction, is very "ham friendly."

You've probably worked my friend Dave WA6DKN, who's very active on 17, 20 and 40 and lives closeby. 7000 s.f. home at the very top of Hidden Hills, nice place. No CC&Rs, and he has several antennas installed that can be seen a long way off. His neighbors include Charlie Sheen, Jessica Simpson, etc. It's allowed, and nobody seems to care.

Maybe part of the "laid back California" attitude, which I am growing to like more all the time... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73

Steve WB2WIK/6

[KS4VT]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Mar. 02 2007,15:09)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Mar. 02 2007,13:37)]If you read the entire OTARD rule, it is permitted for an HOA or a landlord to absolutely prohibit the installation of outdoor over-the-air-receiving-devices (OTARD antennas) if they provide this service free of charge for association members or tenants to use.

This has already been tested in the courts.

If an HOA or landlord provides, say, free cable television for all residents and that includes local television channel service, he can then prohibit stuff to his heart's content and the OTARD rule will not apply.
This is what the FCC fact sheet (http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html) says:

Quote[/b] ]
Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?

A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.

So you are correct in that if they have a central antenna available to residents, that they would be able to ban individual antennas.

However, they have to provide access to the services that the tenant or homeowner desires. #I don't see how they could feasibly do that. #Let's say they give free cable to everyone, and one guy decides he wants DirecTV because he wants a specialty sports package like NFL sunday ticket or MLB extra innings. #If I understand it correctly, the landlord or HOA has to allow him to install a dish or they have to provide DirecTV through their master antenna system if they want to ban all dishes. #

It gets even more complicated if the homeowner or tenant wants to use fixed wireless services, such as satellite internet, which require a two way connection.
And don't forget about over the air HD transmssions. #Basic cable does not include these and the only way to receive it is over the air direct.

So even if my cable was being provided by the HOA for free, it would still be within my right to erect an outdoor antenna to receive over the air HD programming.