OTA - Local By-Laws, Legal & Regulatory Aspects - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
 

Go Back   Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums > Canadian Internet, Phone, TV and Wireless Service Providers > Over-The-Air (OTA) Digital Television

Digital Home Helpful Information

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 2008-01-29, 06:40 PM   #1
xboy360
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Port Moody, BC
Posts: 33
Exclamation OTA - Local By-Laws, Legal & Regulatory Aspects

So in the USA they have this law:
Quote:
As directed by Congress in Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the Over-the-Air Reception Device Rule concerning governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on viewers' ability to receive video programming signals from direct broadcast satellites ("DBS"), multichannel multipoint distribution (wireless cable) providers ("MMDS"), and television broadcast stations ("TVBS").

The rule is cited as 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000 and has been in effect since October 14, 1996. It prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.
Is there something similar in Canada?
xboy360 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 2008-01-29, 08:51 PM   #2
JohnnyCanuck
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,649
Default

No, there is no similar law and yes, your strata corporation can create a bylaw banning an antenna.

Remember, anywhere you would mount an antenna is limited common property or common property (including any balcony or deck attached to your suite). That means it is not owned by you (unlike your suite) and rather is owned by the Corporation, of which you own a share proportionate to the square footage of your unit.

As long as the strata corporation bylaws are non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory, and are arrived at using a voting process consistent with the relevant legislation in whatever province you live in ... the bylaw is legal and appropriate.
JohnnyCanuck is offline  
Old 2008-01-29, 10:07 PM   #3
TECHNOKID
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gatineau
Posts: 2,944
Default

Your best approach would be to ask other condos owners in the property if they wish and create some sort of committte as you are their clients and if done properly, they would more likely feel it is benifial to them to accomodate, please their clients. What owners are worried about is having mass of antennas of all kinds all over their building which may be detoriation to the building if not properly installed. This could also create a depreciation of the building(s). If owners, clients make proper pressure, it might generate some discussions and agreement that might satisfy both parties. IE: Bell, Star Choice (and more likely the other companies) will seek owners sign authorisation from owners and furtermore, will do the ground work them selves by involving little more money on the installs and in order to accomodate owners, will install multiple users on to the same antennas. You could discuss such a possibility with other potential users and once ready, propose this to the association. The more people, the more organised the better chances!

Good luck!
René
TECHNOKID is offline  
Old 2008-01-29, 11:16 PM   #4
57
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Toronto, Rogers, 9865 & 8300-eHDD, Panasonic TCP65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci; Sony KDL40W3000, 8300-eHDD
Posts: 52,161
Default

The other options have been "cloaked" antennas or dishes:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=24380

These may or may not work in your particular application.

I believe the law in the US is there (mostly) to protect poor people so that they can watch basic TV. In Canada most apartments, condo, multi-dwellings, etc have basic cable. Also, OTA in the US is more popular and more available.
__________________
57's Optimization Services (Home Theatre Optimization) . . . . 57's Home Theatre (Latest equipment & photos)
57 is offline  
Old 2008-01-30, 01:43 PM   #5
Whidbey
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 57
Default

Here, in the US, the law also protects those in HOA's who wish to have a digital satellite dish, such as DirecTV or Dish Network. Many HOA's banned satellite dishes way back before digital satellite service began, when satellite dishes were 8 and 10 feet in diameter and very unsightly. With the advent of smaller, easier to conceal satellite dishes, those HOA rules are now kind of archaic. The FCC ruling, noted by a previous poster, not only protects home-owners, but bans HOA's from having a rule that bans most outdoor antenna.
Whidbey is offline  
Old 2008-02-01, 07:55 PM   #6
Blackburst
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Laval, QC
Posts: 821
Default Buildings

I think the best way to go about this is to have a condo meeting presentation. Explain to them that they can get free Digital TV, and I'm sure most people will agree with you. No need to pay cable bills when you can pay your mortgage instead.

I live in a apartment building (rent) I asked the owner for permission to get a OTA antenna on the roof. He had the same sort of concern. Everybody putting up dishes and now an antenna. But when I explained that one antenna with a splitter (4 to 6) can feed the remaining apartments (10 in total), then he agreed. So I will be getting somebody to install it properly, and allow extra outs so that if anybody wants to connect they can if they cover the cost of their RG6 wire.
Blackburst is offline  
Old 2008-02-01, 08:38 PM   #7
TECHNOKID
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gatineau
Posts: 2,944
Default

Exactly, that is the proper way to go about it! Make it appealing for everyone that is involved instead of making it look like a personal right! The old saying:
``The best way to convince a man to remove his winter coat is not by throwing a storm at him but ratter by giving him a nice and warm sunshine!``
TECHNOKID is offline  
Old 2008-02-02, 09:44 AM   #8
99gecko
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 2,557
Default

Hi Blackburst,
Be careful with supplying OTA feeds to your neighbouring apartments, which is basically a MATV system. Read this thread:
Installing OTA For A Condo: MATV & Legal Info

Good Luck
99gecko is offline  
Old 2008-02-03, 10:09 PM   #9
Blackburst
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Laval, QC
Posts: 821
Default That is Sick

That is really Sick....99gecko....

I read the suggusted thread, and I'm upset about it. I can't believe just allowing somebody to pull a line of my spliter would complicate matters as such. It's as if the government & it's industry scum are trying to control the Canadian population as to what it can see or not.

The reason I thought about allowing a open spliter with a few outs was simply a good gesture to both the owner of the building and a few poor tenants that probably coun't afford Cable or Satellite. No charge. Help yourself. Whatever the antenna manages to get, is what you'll get. But, it sure shows that you can't do anything good for anybody without opening up possible problems. Really sucks.
Blackburst is offline  
Old 2008-02-04, 06:13 AM   #10
naftalim
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 58
Default

I've been the President of a Strata Council (Condo Owners Assoc.) for 4 years now, so perhaps I can advise. There are two issues to address here. The standard bylaws that came with the building disclosure statement and any bylaws modified/added by the Strata Council and approved by the owners.

Often the standard bylaws prohibit modifications or changes to limited or common property, even so far as what colour blinds you can have. This is so that there is a consistent look to the exterior of the building.

Keep in mind that a balcony or outside of a building is either limited common property or common property, so you can't modify any of it without approval. For example, to make a change from limited common property to strata ownership, in BC, you need 100% ownership approval.

Check your latest bylaws, and rules as the Strata can create rules without owner voting that may prohibit certain activities. If you feel that there is a strong enough concensous for allowing antennas, it has to be submitted as a bylaw modification to a Special or Annual General Meeting.
naftalim is offline  
Old 2008-02-06, 01:01 AM   #11
TECHNOKID
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gatineau
Posts: 2,944
Default

Serious stuff and yes sickening, it is all a question of licensing, one must have a license for broadcasting. No wonder this is hard for condo owners to convince any boards of such involvement. As nice as one wants to be, ignorance is not a defence.

Quote:
I read the suggusted thread, and I'm upset about it. I can't believe just allowing somebody to pull a line of my spliter would complicate matters as such. It's as if the government & it's industry scum are trying to control the Canadian population as to what it can see or not.
As angry as we can all feel as the above, I have been thinking about it and we should stop and honestly think about this; there is a lot of money involved by those companies for the broadcasting systems (even more today than ever with satellites... can we imagine the billions). If we see it the way those companies and the CRTC do see it If there were no control, licensing, rights and limitations, and if everyone could do as they pleased, anyone could use the reason that they are only being good neighbours when in fact, some could be operating black or grey market and jeopardise the life of those companies and at the same time the rights of the poor people (that were mentioned above) that couldn’t afford because of the rates becoming so high due the limited paying users. As hard as it may be to digest, even those signals floating in the air originate from a huge investment from those companies. The only thing one’s own is strictly is equipment not the signal coming through it. Thus the justification for the existence of the CRTC and the regulations. In order for the CRTC to protect the consumers by controlling the pricing, they must also control and regulate the method of use in order to prevent potential abuse. Having written this, I my self have a hard time to digest it but it is still a fact that we have to consider.

Quote:
BROADCAST Definition
We define BROADCAST

BROADCAST - A method of sending information over a network. With broadcasting, data comes from one source and goes to all other connected sources. This has the side effect of congesting a medium or large network segment very quickly. Sometimes broadcasting is necessary to locate network resources, but once found, more advanced networking protocols change to point-to-point connections to transmit data. Nowadays, switches and routers often do not pass along broadcast packets, but in the days of shared Ethernet broadcasting could really congest a network.
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/cla...broadcast.html


Quote:
The CRTC publishes all its decisions, which may be appealed to the federal Cabinet within 60 days. The Cabinet can issue policy directives to the CRTC or request a re-examination of any CRTC decision. Cabinet decisions cannot be appealed and few CRTC decisions have been successfully appealed to the courts to date. However, questions of the CRTC's right to license particular services or facilities are increasingly being addressed by the courts when the CRTC has sought an injunction against an unlicensed operator or service.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...=A1ARTA0001808
TECHNOKID is offline  
Old 2008-02-06, 09:50 AM   #12
evil_md
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3
Question is a satellite dish an antenna?

hi,

I live in downtown Toronto. I installed a dish on my condo balcony a few weeks ago and recently received notice to remove it from management. They are quoting a bylaw that reads:

"No television antennae, aerial, tower or similar structure and appurtenances therto shall be erected on or fastened to any unit, except in connection with a common television cable system."

Is there any loophole here?

The only things i can think of is to argue that a satellite dish is not similar to an antennae, aerial or tower. They use different frequencies to receive signals.

Thanks for any help.
evil_md is offline  
Old 2008-02-06, 10:53 AM   #13
evil_md
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3
Unhappy

To clarify, the dish is NOT fastened to the balcony. It is free standing and secured with weights. I dont know if this counts as "being erected" or not.

I'm not sure if this can be fought. Even if i am correct from a legal standpoint, i am a renter, and this may annoy my landlord to not offer a lease renewal.
evil_md is offline  
Old 2008-02-06, 10:59 AM   #14
57
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Toronto, Rogers, 9865 & 8300-eHDD, Panasonic TCP65S1, Denon AVR4310Ci; Sony KDL40W3000, 8300-eHDD
Posts: 52,161
Default

Check out post 4 and the link. Most times these condo organizations are concerned with the appearance of the building and don't want a bunch of dishes visible. If you make the item invisible, then you may be OK, unless you have a nosy neighbour who objects to what you have on your balcony and complains (it does reduce property values for some people).

The bylaw states "or similar structure".
__________________
57's Optimization Services (Home Theatre Optimization) . . . . 57's Home Theatre (Latest equipment & photos)
57 is offline  
Old 2008-02-06, 12:03 PM   #15
evil_md
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure how i can hide my dish. Maybe i have to get a 'cube sat'

I can think of 2 arguments vs the management.

1. Dish is NOT a similar structure to antennae, aerial, tower.

2. Dish is NOT "fastened, or erected" on the condo property. That depends on the definition of to erect something. The dish is not attached, mounted, or fastened. So is it erected?

Not great arguments. I'm going to run this by the landlord and see what his opinion is.

Thanks for you help.
evil_md is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:15 PM.

OTA Forum Sponsor


Search Digital Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.