FCC invalidates exclusive cable TV contracts

[N0NB]

The FCC has long maintained to the Amateur Radio Community that exempting amateur radio antennas from the scope of CC&Rs was beyond their federal jurisdiction as they consider CC&Rs to be private contracts. #Well, just this week the FCC has invalidated exclusive contracts cable companies have with apartment complexes (http://www.themoneytimes.com/articles/20071101/new_fcc_ruling_is_sweet_music_for_cable_viewers_in _apartments-id-1012470.html). #

From the article:

Quote[/b] ]The new ruling by the FCC stands for all future contracts between cable service providers and building owners, as well as for all such currently existing arrangements. The ruling bars owners of apartment buildings from having exclusive arrangements with specific cable operators, something that has so far resulted in the people staying in such apartment buildings having access to just one service provider.

So, now that the FCC has kicked the door open by invalidating private contracts, will they be convinced to do the same with CC&Rs?

Honestly, I think they'll weasel their way out of intervening on amateur radio's behalf simply because we can't bring the same level of lobbyist money to bear that the cable companies did to provoke this ruling. #Still, it doesn't hurt to dream and perhaps a judge can be convinced that a precedent has been set.

For the record, I am not a party to a CC&R, I'm just thinking of other hams that are.

[KD6NIG]

There is no money in removing CC&R's.

There is the outcry from people who suddenly would be aghast because they were removed.

And since CC&R's applying to Ham Radio is only a slight sliver of what they entail totally. And just because we, the 800,000 or so licensed hams want the ability to put up an antenna everywhere, doesn't mean the remaining millions and millions of remaining non-ham Americans want to look at them.

Its not going to happen because there is no money in it, though. If you could somehow make it to where the FCC would make $10,000 per exception used they just might consider it.

This move is simply to encourage competition, and to get people who don't have Cable TV now because they don't like the company that has the place they live in locked down to be able to make another choice and start paying. Its to get commerce going, get subscriptions to go up, and get people to spend money.

The FCC will do more about Ham Radio when it becomes a service like commercial licensed services-which pay a yearly fee for the privledge. Until then, we're way on the back burner in all issues.

EDIT: And by the way, I feel the fee that would have to be established to get the FCC to "do more" would be $25/5 years. Multiply that by the number of licensees and you'd get some enforcement attention. Oh, and yes, I know, the current term is 10 years, but if you reduce it to 5, then people come up for renewal more often, meaning they can be 'offlined for review' more often, and the penalties for not having a license (and, avoiding the fee) are much higher. Thats why I suggested the shorter term, also. But in order to get more enforcement, we have to have the funding. It will have to come from the people using the service itself, as it won't ever be funded from other sources, much. I think the current source of funding for Amateur Radio Enforcement is Vanity callsigns, BTW, and only a portion of that-without it, we'd see even less. Just my opinion.

[kb2vxa]

There's always a fly in the ointment and a loophole in the law. Motels, hotels and others offer "free" cable TV which is of course included in the rent. So, what's preventing apartment landlords from doing the same and reselling the service as a hidden (in the rent) cost? Ah money! Money money money money money!

Pipe dreams are nice but you've got to have the right stuff in the pipe.

[w3wn]

I suspect that the FCC took this action along the same grounds or reasoning it used to prohibit communities and HOA's etc. from banning small profile satellite TV dishes... to foster "competition" so that you get a choice in who you pay for your TV reception.

Personally, I don't think that there is an issue as to whether or not the FCC has the authority to over-ride regulations and unfair contracts etc. banning or limiting Amateur Radio antenna systems. They do. They simply choose to not to use it.

[kn4ds]

Remember, there are size limits on satellite dishes, too. Dishes larger than 1 meter *can* be prohibited by CC&Rs.

Sure, the FCC could also rule that CC&Rs can't prohibit amateur antennas... but where would you draw the line? 160 meter dipole? Triband beam?

Amateur HF antennas tend to be a bit larger than 1 meter, and while it's possible to hide/stealth some, there are some that're just honkin' big and are out there for everyone to see.

*I* don't have a problem with that, but I see where others might, and if we're going to say the FCC should override CC&Rs with respect to amateur antenna systems, we should be willing to reach a compromise with those who say "no antennas at all" and present that to the Commission.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (w3wn @ Nov. 02 2007,10:17)]Personally, I don't think that there is an issue as to whether or not the FCC has the authority to over-ride regulations and unfair contracts etc. banning or limiting Amateur Radio antenna systems. They do. They simply choose to not to use it.
You are 100% correct, because if they did apply PRB-1 to HOAs and CC&Rs, the HOAs would raise one hell of a stink...

They only use the "jurisdiction" BS to keep us from pestering them.

I think the FCC also feels that there are enough homes without restrictive CC&Rs for hams to live in and put up antennas. Doesn't jive with reality but that's what they see.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Nov. 02 2007,10:25)]Remember, there are size limits on satellite dishes, too. Dishes larger than 1 meter *can* be prohibited by CC&Rs.

Sure, the FCC could also rule that CC&Rs can't prohibit amateur antennas... but where would you draw the line? 160 meter dipole? Triband beam?

Amateur HF antennas tend to be a bit larger than 1 meter, and while it's possible to hide/stealth some, there are some that're just honkin' big and are out there for everyone to see.

*I* don't have a problem with that, but I see where others might, and if we're going to say the FCC should override CC&Rs with respect to amateur antenna systems, we should be willing to reach a compromise with those who say "no antennas at all" and present that to the Commission.
Typically, you don't need a dish more than 1 meter in diameter to receive DTH satellite in CONUS, or even Alaska or Hawaii.

For OTA TV antennas, they only specify a height restriction (12 feet above the roof line) which means that theoretically I can put up a long, high gain TV antenna 12ft above a house 40 feet high...

I think the bottom line is that the FCC doesn't want to anger the HOAs. That's all it really boils down to. The HOA commandos outnumber us and most non hams when asked would think that a ham radio antenna is an eyesore.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ Nov. 02 2007,11:25)]Remember, there are size limits on satellite dishes, too. #Dishes larger than 1 meter *can* be prohibited by CC&Rs.

Sure, the FCC could also rule that CC&Rs can't prohibit amateur antennas... but where would you draw the line? #160 meter dipole? #Triband beam?

Amateur HF antennas tend to be a bit larger than 1 meter, and while it's possible to hide/stealth some, there are some that're just honkin' big and are out there for everyone to see.

*I* don't have a problem with that, but I see where others might, and if we're going to say the FCC should override CC&Rs with respect to amateur antenna systems, we should be willing to reach a compromise with those who say "no antennas at all" and present that to the Commission.
The other FCC ruling with respect to CC&Rs deals with OTAR of VHF/UHF TV. You are permitted a TV antenna so long as it is soley on your property and does not extend more than 12 feet above the roof line.

I have a friend locally who bought and installed the biggest TV log periodic he could find to cover 50 MHz through 440 MHz right after this ruling. The HOA sued and lost. He had the antenna connected to the TV except then he wanted to operate. Switched it to his VHF/UHF station and had a ball.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[W1REH]

The fundamental difference is that cable and telephone companies are tariffed, regulated utilities delivering services to consumers. The FCC is exercising its mission to protect consumer choice against perceived collusion between apartment landlords and one or another regulated utilities resulting in less consumer choice and higher rates for certain members of the public.

The public derives little benefit from you or I having 3 element beam on a 150 foot tower; let's not over-hype our EMCOMM credentials here. So the FCC has no perceived responsibility to protect the public's access to amateur communications. Thus we're essentially asking them to override the public's interest in protecting their property values via voluntary HOAs to protect the interest of a minority of licensed amateurs providing a "service" with no monetary value by which to measure it and dubious emergency or public safety value.

It'll never happen -- these are completely different positions and the competition the FCC is fostering with this ruling has no analogous position in the amateur service.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 02 2007,10:03)]EDIT: #And by the way, I feel the fee that would have to be established to get the FCC to "do more" would be $25/5 years. #Multiply that by the number of licensees and you'd get some enforcement attention. #..........#But in order to get more enforcement, we have to have the funding. #It will have to come from the people using the service itself, as it won't ever be funded from other sources, much. #I think the current source of funding for Amateur Radio Enforcement is Vanity callsigns, BTW, and only a portion of that-without it, we'd see even less. #Just my opinion.
Unfortunately, your opinion is incorrect. I'm not surprised, though, as it seems most hams have this same delusion.

Any and all monies from fees, fines, spectrum auctions, etc. are not kept by the FCC. They go into the General Fund. The FCC's budget is set by Congress. What our Congress decides they need, they get and that's it.

If you want better enforcement, convince Congress to give the FCC the funds they require to do it.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (kj3n @ Nov. 02 2007,13:24)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 02 2007,10:03)]EDIT: And by the way, I feel the fee that would have to be established to get the FCC to "do more" would be $25/5 years. Multiply that by the number of licensees and you'd get some enforcement attention. .......... But in order to get more enforcement, we have to have the funding. It will have to come from the people using the service itself, as it won't ever be funded from other sources, much. I think the current source of funding for Amateur Radio Enforcement is Vanity callsigns, BTW, and only a portion of that-without it, we'd see even less. Just my opinion.
Unfortunately, your opinion is incorrect. I'm not surprised, though, as it seems most hams have this same delusion.

Any and all monies from fees, fines, spectrum auctions, etc. are not kept by the FCC. They go into the General Fund. The FCC's budget is set by Congress. What our Congress decides they need, they get and that's it.

If you want better enforcement, convince Congress to give the FCC the funds they require to do it.
True, but a request for more funding for Amateur enforcement might be better received if the service is shown to be producing money to enter said general fund. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 02 2007,16:31)]Quote[/b] (kj3n @ Nov. 02 2007,13:24)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 02 2007,10:03)]EDIT: #And by the way, I feel the fee that would have to be established to get the FCC to "do more" would be $25/5 years. #Multiply that by the number of licensees and you'd get some enforcement attention. #.......... But in order to get more enforcement, we have to have the funding. #It will have to come from the people using the service itself, as it won't ever be funded from other sources, much. #I think the current source of funding for Amateur Radio Enforcement is Vanity callsigns, BTW, and only a portion of that-without it, we'd see even less. #Just my opinion.
Unfortunately, your opinion is incorrect. I'm not surprised, though, as it seems most hams have this same delusion.

Any and all monies from fees, fines, spectrum auctions, etc. are not kept by the FCC. They go into the General Fund. The FCC's budget is set by Congress. What our Congress decides they need, they get and that's it.

If you want better enforcement, convince Congress to give the FCC the funds they require to do it.
True, but a request for more funding for Amateur enforcement might be better received if the service is shown to be producing money to enter said general fund. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'm trying to contain my laughter, but it's not working. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KC5CSG]

I'm just happy to see the FCC stick it to cable companies. Well, in this case, cable companies and landlords.........hehehehe

Gotta love it,

Jerry

[k7mh]

Quote[/b] ]The FCC has long maintained to the Amateur Radio Community that exempting amateur radio antennas from the scope of CC&Rs was beyond their federal jurisdiction as they consider CC&Rs to be private contracts. Well, just this week the FCC has invalidated exclusive contracts cable companies have with apartment complexes.

Are you really that dumb? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
The FCC regulates the cable industry.
They do not regulate the house building or realty industry.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W1REH @ Nov. 01 2007,11:02)]The fundamental difference is that cable and telephone companies are tariffed, regulated utilities delivering services to consumers. The FCC is exercising its mission to protect consumer choice against perceived collusion between apartment landlords and one or another regulated utilities resulting in less consumer choice and higher rates for certain members of the public.

The public derives little benefit from you or I having 3 element beam on a 150 foot tower; let's not over-hype our EMCOMM credentials here. So the FCC has no perceived responsibility to protect the public's access to amateur communications. Thus we're essentially asking them to override the public's interest in protecting their property values via voluntary HOAs to protect the interest of a minority of licensed amateurs providing a "service" with no monetary value by which to measure it and dubious emergency or public safety value.

It'll never happen -- these are completely different positions and the competition the FCC is fostering with this ruling has no analogous position in the amateur service.
What you say is true in that the action taken was to foster competition. #But, where is the FCC in requiring HOAs to remove broadcast-TV-antenna-prohibiting language from existing CC&Rs and all new CC&Rs? #Short answer: #No where.

Even though they promulgated the now-famous Part 1.4000 section to foster consumer choice, it does not contain language that requires removal or modification of CC&R antenna-prohibitive language. #The problem being that to the unknowing, such language chills any interest in erecting an outdoor, over-the-air TV antenna.

The FCC, about 2 weeks ago, levied rather significant fines against several TV set retailers, including Radio Shack, HH Gregg, F.Y.E, Fred Meyer and others for not placing labels on the backs of analog-only TVs sold by them. #Part 15.117(k) requires same to warn consumers that in 2009 only digital signals will be broadcast over the air (which will require either the purchase of a digital converter box or connection to cable or satellite TV).

Just who, these days, still has an outdoor TV antenna? #Or, more pointedly, with CC&R language that still prohibits, on paper, the installation of any outdoor antennas, what business does the FCC have levying these fines if virtually no one will be installing new outdoor antennas?

Perhaps some clever counsel at some or all of these victims of FCC prosecution will be wise enough to see how the FCC has continued to leave language stand in thousands of HOA documents that forbids outside broadcast TV antennas, thus virtually invalidating the practiaclity for Part 15.117(k) anyway. #Its time the FCC gets off its a** and penalizes HOAs and developers who continue to leave such language in CC&Rs.

BTW, the FCC announcement of these fines coincided with a status report on the cutover to digital TV by Chairman Martin before Congress, the very next day.......

73.

[ka0gkt]

It isn't a lack of ability on the part of the Federal Communications Commission, it is a lack of will on the part of the Federal Communications Commission and on the part of the Legislative branch of the Federal Government. Remember, it took an act of Congress to get the FCC to make the OTARD rule in the first place.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve