[xboy360]

So in the USA they have this law:

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?

 

[JohnnyCanuck]

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.

 

[TECHNOKID]

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

 

[57]

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.

 

[Whidbey]

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.

 

[Blackburst]

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.

 

[TECHNOKID]

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!``

 

[99gecko]

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

 

[Blackburst]

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.

 

[naftalim]

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.

 

[TECHNOKID]

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.

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.

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/class/law/1.9broadcast.html

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.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001808

 

[evil_md]

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]

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.

 

[57]

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".

 

[evil_md]

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.

 

[nospam]

What we really need is for the federal government to pass a law that supercedes local and HOA bylaws to permit owners/renters to install satellite dishes, with suitable limitations. I rarely suggest that the government getting involved in anything is a good idea, but in this case I don't see what choice we have.

One of the benefits of the law in the United States is that condo and home owners associations have a impetus to install a common dish for the use of all residents if they wish to reduce the visual clutter of a dish on every balcony or roof.

Of course the cable companies would fight this tooth and nail, but I really don't see an alternative as there is really no incentive for condo associations to permit satellite dishes as the law now stands. Thankfully I live in a building where dishes are permitted, but I can't imagine the outcry that would have ensued in my previous building had I suggested changes to the bylaws. There was a raft of ridiculous and burdensome rules that the blue hairs managed to push through the geriatric dominated board. It was one of the reasons I left that particular building, in fact.

 

[mokrofuz]

OTA Reception - Local By-Laws, Legal & Regulatory Aspects

Hi Folks,

Sorry to bother if this was addressed somewhere already, but I didn't manage to come across this subject when performed search.

I'd like to ask for a an advice or insight about legal issues related to OTA reception from the antenna installer's perspective. I want to make sure that by installing antenna(s) to a client, I'm not exposing:

a. my client
b. myself as a service provider

to legal consequences caused by eliminating the fees (or any other duties), that would otherwise hypothetically flow from the cable or satellite provider towards an individual broadcaster on behalf of the individual subscriber. By this fees I mean copyrights, program licenses, etc. I don't know if such fees and flows do exist or not, just want to make sure I'm legally clear.

I was trying to get an answer to this question talking to CAB or CRTC, but no one is willing to provide me with any binding statement.

I myself have a couple of other "underlying" questions such as, who is the owner of the individual transmitters? A broadcaster? Are this transmitters available for the public or are they part of the infrastructure to help distributing the signal? How can broadcaster measure how much audience they reached through OTA transmission in order to quantify airtime price for advertizing? What would motivate a broadcaster to invest their money into OTA transmition when potential reach is (for now) so tiny?

I'd really appreciate any feedback on this, I'm sure there are other people who might be interrested in this...

Cheers,

Mokrofuz

 

[magnet]

OTA is free to receive...
You are not stealing... these are public broadcasts... just like listening to FM in your car.

By broadcasting OTA, this establishes a TV channels local region which defines what area it has advertising rights to simsub over on Cable.

 

[stampeder]

You are 100% Safe

TV broadcasting in Canada has been done Over The Air since the 1950s. Cable and Satellite came along later as supersets of that. OTA is 100% legal and always has been.

By installing antennas for clients you are not exposing yourself or your clients to any legal consequences arising from their receiving Digital OTA TV. Antenna installers have been doing it for almost 60 years in Canada and it is completely safe from a legal perspective regarding their clients' reception of broadcasts.

Please read through the OTA Knowledge Base & FAQ if you haven't had a chance to already:

 

[vmpv]

Well everyone seems to have given the quick and easy answers but there are other aspects to consider...
1. Who in fact owns the property where the antenna is to be located
2. Local bylaws regarding such installations
3. MATV setups as discussed in this thread and others:http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=57242&highlight=antenna+condo

I realize this isn't exactly what the OP is asking about but it is legal stuff to be concerned about before installing antennas for clients...