Slashdot Mirror
FCC Nixes Airport's Ban On Private Net Access
Several readers wrote to let us know about a ruling by the US Federal Communications Commission forbidding Boston's Logan Airport from shutting down airline-supplied Internet access services that compete with the airport's own, for-pay wireless coverage. From the article: "A two-year effort by Logan International Airport officials to shut down private alternatives to the airport's $8-a-day wireless Internet service was decisively rejected yesterday by federal regulators, who blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments."
I can't believe it.. the FCC did the right thing for once.. I... I am out of words.. lets hope this moment of competency continues.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Way to go FCC, actually doing something that benefits the little guy!
From a legal standpoint though, doesn't the airline own the cables in the airport, and hence could restrict access to high speed connections? Or were the airlines using wireless?
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Here is a nice lil list I found a while ago of US airports with free wifi, enjoy.
http://www.wififreespot.com/airport.html
You are all a bunch of idots.
blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments.
OK, this just needs to be done another few hundred times now...
Clearly the Airport officials were not paying the right people enough lobbying money. I mean the FCC is perfectly willing to accept bogous legal and technical arguments for deregulation of the airwaves. And it has been happy to digest bogous arguments against community wireless. Ditto the bogous arguments for the Broadcast flag. One can only assume that Logan Airport's lobbying budget is too small or has been misspent.
The FCC was involved because Massport had complained to the FCC that the WiFi service would interfere with other radios... the FCC rightly said this was shenanigans.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
What right would the FCC have in the first place to shut down publically accessable wireless traffic using approved media?
Ummmmmmmmmm, none?
KFG
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Fair enough, and they (for once) made the right decision, saying they don't have any business twiddling with who operates on unlicensed frequencies in public places.
Everytime I see "FCC" I have this gut reaction that makes me squirm. They should dole out frequencies to proper carriers and then back off and have little more to do with it in my opinion.
Even having them look at appeals regarding frivolous cases like this seems silly.
Stew
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
The airlines lease physical space, in all probability their leases make no mention of wireless conditionals, the FCC controls the spectrum and is the arbitor when spectrum usage is in question.
Nine different acts give the FCC full authority to do what they did in the Massport decision. They start with The Communications Act of 1933, and go forward. Can they intrude? Yes. Have nexus of authority? Without question.
The 2.4ghz band, when used for unlicensed communications, is fully and internationally acknowledged as free and open for legal communications. That amounts to about anything within power limitations. The FCC can and has ruled effectively in this circumstance, and the Massport arguments ought to result in a serious rethinking about who has the ability to 'authorize' unlicensed wireless activities.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
A few years back there was a newspaper article about (my) local airport: St Louis International--and how the pay phones were vanishing. With the arrival of cheap cellphones, the once-numerous pay phones were going mostly unused. Over a period of two years, they had removed almost 95% of the phones, and had plans to keep removing phones, because the revenues they were seeing were not covering the lease costs.
The airport management said that this wouldn't be a problem except that it was the revenue from the pay phones that used to pay for internal maintenance--that is, the phones paid the janitors. Most (US) airports were managed this way, and they didn't have anything else to shift funding from to allow for this loss. All the other fee structures they charged were to other companies, that were only for use related to what those companies did. The terms of these charges are set in contracts that cannot usually be easily, or immediately, changed.
Charging for 802.x was assumed to be the next internal maintenance income stream--but now, we see that it is not so.
....So then,,, (looking around),,, what else can they charge travelers for?....
~
Don't jinx it! You know what happened last time...
Biometric identification and premium traveller status. If you pay the premium and submit enough information you can skip some of the airport security theater, or at least go through a shorter line and keep you shoes on. If you can't find a market to sell to, make one! :) :)
The companies behind the TSA are making enough money they probably wont mind sharing some.
How dare you criticize our jamming of Wifi signals. Terrorists may use them to hack into the security systems and share information with Al Queda.
This has nothing to do with our profits.
Fight Spammers!
... blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments ...
apparently the FCC found out that so long as you know a good plumber you can have more than one series of tubes in one location
And the issue of whether a property owner can dictate that you must use their WiFi system is not the slam-dunk you think it is. If you rent an apartment, your landlord has certain rights on how you can use it (e.g. you can't run a restaurant in it) but can't tell you you have to buy mobile phones from him. To use your Starbucks example, you can't go into Starbucks and order a pizza from Dominos, but Starbucks also cannot tell you you can only read magazines purchased from them.
What was once true, is no longer so
Haven't these guys learned anything since 9/11? If they'd only raised bogus security arguments, they would've sailed through. Heck, the feds probably would've authorized them to shoot anybody with a BlackBerry.
"I mean the FCC is perfectly willing to accept bogous legal and technical arguments for deregulation of the airwaves"
It's the arguments for regulation of the airwaves that are entirely bogus. By relaxing them, the FCC took one little stemp toward doing the right thing.
Where were you when the voynix came?
air? tanstaafl...
There's plenty of times to bitch about the FCC's involvement, but this isn't one of them. The OTARD (over the air reception device) rules were passed years ago, and that was the basis for the airline's claim they could have access points. These rules allow anyone to install an antenna within certain guidelines in order to receive commercial non-broadcast data communications and they supersede HOAs, CC&Rs, nasty leases, etc. It had *zero* to do with the FCC's "sticky fingers", media, private property, censorship, terrorists, liberity, freedom....etc...
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Free WiFi in Logan? WTF??? Why have I been paying $8 every time I through that airport?
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Logan is particularly poorly run, I'm sure they could find lots of ways to reduce their costs without lowering the level of their service. On a whole though I can't stand that airport and I try to avoid flying out of there whenever possible, typically I'll try to fly out of Manchester NH whenever I can.
Collector's Edition
The airport is not being prohibited from offering this service. They're just not allowed to prevent individual airlines from offering competitive services. In general, individual airlines are only going to offer their own internet service from within their own lounges. These lounges are usually reserved for their elite passengers and passengers that have paid for access. They tend to charge for internet access in these lounges. Granted, the passengers most likely to pay for internet access in an airport are going to be the same guys in the lounge, so this group does represent most of the market. However, the airport is still in control of most of the airport in terms of offering wireless internet access, so they do have an opportunity to make money. If they really wanted to stick it to business travelers, the airports would charge for access to power outlets. I often see passengers with their laptops clustered around the few available outlets near the gates.
I, too, am surprised these days when I hear about an government agency doing something that in the public's interest. For the last six years I had become accustomed to learning that another administration agency was overturning years of defending the public's interest in things like roadless areas, endangered species, air quality, consumer protection, and so much more. My faith in our governmental/political system is at an all time low, but it's so good to hear news like this.
Kudos to the FCC.
Best regards.
A landlord could include almost any provision they want in the lease, as long as it wasn't, for instance, something illegal like selling yourself into slavery. But from my limited understanding of the law, it seems that if the landlord put "No Free Wireless" in the lease, then "No Free Wireless" it would be. But it sounds like they didn't do that, tried some legal shenanigans, and got shot down. They could attempt to negotiate it into any new lease, but then they are just bargaining, and not from a very strong position. Thus the attempt to get the government on their side.
As far as I know, Starbucks, like every other business, retains the right to refuse business for any reason, including bringing unapproved magazines onto their premesis. What they can't do is (for instance) require you to sell your firstborn child into slavery or make you vote for a certain party. There are certain rights you can't actually sign away, but I don't think the right to free wireless or outside magazines is included.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But look at what they saved over that period by getting rid of indoor ashtrays, elevator and washroom attendants, and any semblence of customer service.
Anyway, Continental provides Wi-Fi to their Presidents Club lounge, not the cattle-car tourists sitting in the regular terminal. This is not going to affect Logan's bottom line that much.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Maybe not. But airlines probably won't keep offering free wireless forever, either.
As for your suggestion of charging $5 for the restroom -- pay toilets went out with 80s. Laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act and sometimes even local ordinances often prevent a public venue like an airport from charging to use the restroom.
There's no easy solution to the problem. Some airports charge (sometimes exorbitant) rates for parking. Some airports get a cut of all the restaurant and gift shop revenues. Maybe there's some revenue to be had in these areas. Thing is that our local airport, DTW, is owned and operated by Wayne County and is therefore supported -- in part-- by property and other taxes.
My blog
They cannot prevent you from running a business from your home (even an apartment) so long as you do not violate zoning or other laws, they cannot prevent you from having any guests you like unless there are legal grounds for a restraining order... I doubt they could prevent you from selling wifi to their other tenants. You're not using their resources (you're leasing the copper coming into your apartment which they are required to provide by law, so it's effectively yours) and you're not interfering with a licensed device, so I don't see just how they could stop you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hey, don't give them any ideas. Charging for restrooms is pretty common in Europe, especially in Bus stations, even in bars and clubs.
Coffee? I for one welcome overpriced Starbucks, with an extra "Airport Maintenance Fee"!
just an analog boy living in a digital age.
... to hear that businesses are espousing "bogus legal and technological arguments" in an effort to stifle competition, and increase profits!
What is the world coming to?!
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I don't know the full story but this reminds me of looking for WiFi in the Geneva airport. There were a couple of premium pay-to-connect WiFi networks as well as an open wireless network named "hidden." I assume that just like in Boston, the pay WiFi folks were none too pleased with a free alternative, so they asked the owner of the open one to make it hidden, and thus there is an open wireless broadcasting its ID -- "hidden." Not only did it work fine, it gave me a nice smile!
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
Another poster touched on it, but what they need to do is put a few banks of power outlets in the waiting area of every terminal, then charge $0.25 to activate an outlet for two hours.
I do appreciate free power outlets (when I can find them), but guaranteed access to an outlet (i.e. there will be one at all, and there will be enough of them so that the only one isn't next to a seat with a bunch of wild kids) is worth paying for.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
They should offer it free themselves. Add a captive web page for login and offer quick links to reserve a car, get a taxi, maybe order food at a restaurant for pick up. Charge for the quick links and make your money that way.
What I don't get is when do people have time to use WiFi at an airport?
Most of the time when I have been in airports I was running from plane to plane, grabbing something to eat, and maybe calling my office quickly.
It is pretty rare when I have had more than a hour lay over on a flight. But then I didn't do a lot of international travel.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Someone is selling wifi access for $10/month to anyone that wants it in my apartment building and it's openly advertised throughout the building. There is a clear notice that this has nothing to do with the management company nor the ownership and it's a private enterprise. It's gone through without a hitch -- the notices have not been taken down and niether management nor ownership has said anything.
Boycott Sony
"It is pretty rare when I have had more than a hour lay"
Joined the mile high club, eh?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Well, I'm no lawyer, and neither are you, so this is all speculation. It sounds as if you believe that there is a much larger list of things that landlords can't legally put into a lease than I do. Perhaps you are right, but I personally have signed leases that have stated that I could not run a home business even though the neighborhood was zoned for it. But maybe that wasn't a legal restriction and I could have run a business, maybe it varies from state to state what can and can't be in a lease, I really don't know.
:(
I know of neighborhood associations that prevent homeowners from running businesses out of their home, so I am assuming that a landlord could fairly easily prevent a tennant from doing so through the conditions of a lease. They couldn't stop you if it wasn't part of a contract you signed, but if the contract you signed said, "no home businesses," then you couldn't run a home business.
Commercial real estate leases are quite often month to month, and the landlord can kick you out or raise your rent with only a month's notice. I know several people who started their own businesses, got successful, and had the landlord raise the rent. If a landlord didn't want you running wifi from your commercially leased space, he could simply kick you out when the lease was up. I imagine that airlines leasing space from an airport is different, though, as no business would invest that much money into a leased space if the owners could that easily kick them out. The leases are more than likely very long term, and thus the owners had to cry to the government for protection rather than just make unilateral demands.
It would certainly be nice if things were as fair as you imagine them to be, though.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No. The landlord cannot regulate Wifi.
Actually (if you RTFFCC'sD) the FCC asserts that only the FCC has the authority regulate unlicensed spectrum (such as 802.11). The landlord cannot put any terms in their lease that will 'regulate' the use of those airwaves. That's why Massport can't require Continental to give up free access. (Actual decision here)
BTW, I think that your landlord cannot prevent you from using a satellite dish. They may however be able to restrict you from mounting the dish on their physical property.
With all the security in place these days, only paying customers are going to be at the gates. If the fucking airports can't figure out how to pay their staff out of the 300-600$ per person per flight, that is not my problem.
After putting out that kind of money, I'm not going to pay 8$ to use wireless either.
Yup, free. For everyone.
Seems the City has this crazy notion that it is good for its citizens.
Some of you are no-doubt thinking - what crazy socialist liberal drivel is this?
All I know is that it lets me be more productive as I wait for a plane.
Anyway, you corporate free-market guys go ahead and flame me on why it is better to live in an everything-for-profit part of the country.
I'll be happy here where Government still tries to help its people be more productive - you know, that American dream thing.
Cheerios,
Mr. Smug
I think, therefore I thought.
Wait ... you mean the FCC? The Federal Communications Commission? And not the "Farm Credit Corporation," the "Florida Christian College," or "Families with Children from China"?
... that would be more believable.
Or perhaps this was some sort of rogue action by the "Foreign Correspondents Club"
Someone call the President, quickly. It's obvious that some form of extraterrestrial brain parasite has taken over portions of our government. If we don't launch a nuclear strike soon, this outbreak of rationality could spread beyond the ability of the lobbyists to contain it. It would be the end of the world as we know it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Massport's argument that free wireless internet could impede emergency communications and the like, if true, would also preclude their pay wireless Internet, or did they have some bullshit argument on that one too? If the FCC wanted to be a real bunch of assholes they should have come back and said, "Oh, you're right. WIFI services could interfere with airport communications. Better shut all those services down, including your $8 a day wireless. Better safe than sorry, right?"
Massport's blatant cash grab is so pathetic and transparent as to be comical.
Okay, FCC. You got this one right. Now how about municipal broadband networks to compete with the telecoms and cablecos, especially in underserved areas?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yes, they can. So long as the apartment is private property and none of the lease provisions are illegal, they can place any restrictions they'd like onto them. Take university dorms, for example. They often have limitations on the number of guests, the length of stay, the use of wireless routers. An apartment complex may stipulate any terms into its contract--including whether or not you can run ANY kind of business and what limitations, if any, they place on your entertaining guests.
This applies to homeowner's associations, dormitories, and apartment complexes. For example, they're not required to let the cable guy come in and drill holes in your wall. They can ban satellite dishes, dirty balconies, running businesses of any sort, parking your car on the grass, above ground pools, detached storage sheds, putting your car up on blocks. Note that none of these covenant conditions covers anything that is patently illegal--only special conditions placed on your residence at that location. By signing the covenant or the lease agreement, you are contractually obligated to comply with the terms. You've not broken any laws by ignoring the lease, but you are liable civilly and can be enjoined from the behavior and punished financially.
Ya, I love PDX (I'm live in the Beaver state too!), but I have one complaint. After 9/11, no one without a boarding pass could go past the security check points (just like every other airport). While I don't enjoy not being able to see my loved ones off when they fly, that isn't my complaint. The true annoyance is that the only Starbucks in the airport is on the other side of a checkpoint! I'm a total Starbucks whore, so only being able to see them and not get some coffee is just cruel!
Space for rent, inquire within
I meant retail, not commercial. You're supposed to know what I meant, not what I said... ;-) My friend who had his rent raised because his business was doing well ran a bookstore in Hayes Valley in San Francisco during the dot-com boom. Stupid landlord, the place sat empty for four months, then had a tennant who went bankrupt in six, then the dot-com boom was over and no one would pay the outrageous price he wanted.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You mean like every other airport in the US. Every commercial airport in the world (other than the US) requires a boarding pass or an escort pass to make it into the security area. Only the US has allowed anyone into the secure zone. Imagine my shock the first time I flew into a US airport and saw a crowd of people waiting at the gate!!. Some airports will provide an escort pass. You have to ask the ticket agent when your loved ones get thier boarding passes. My mother requires wheel chair access, and I get an escort pass so that I can take her right to the gate when she flies. You also have to have photo id to use the escort pass at security.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
If it's in writing, you signed it, and it's not illegal, then yes, it does hold water. That is the nature of contracts. Wireless routers can be prohibited where broadband is provided as a central service--that is, if your landlord provides a free T1 connection to the building, he has every right to prohibit sharing of that connection over wireless. On the other hand, if you're paying for the broadband, you are generally free to do as you wish. A contract is valid unless signed under fraud, duress, or incapacity and is upheld unless provisions are illegal.
Speaking as a university employee...
We cannot tell you not to use a wireless router - we just can tell you you cannot plug it into our network.
How do they prevent people from just pissing on the floors?
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Right. That was the implication--providing comprehensive examples would be far too wordy for anyone on Slashdot to read.
"satellite dishes"
Actualy, they can't ban them. There was a ruling by the FCC that basically said that agreements banning satellite dishes are null and void, except to the extent that one can be prohibited from placing them on "common areas". Sincce most of the time the roof is a common area, one hasn't seen the muchroom sprouting like wildfire, but planting a pipe in a bucket of concrete and putting it on your balcony is aceptable.
If you want the cite, ask Google - my wife, the communications law expert, isn't here now.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
But if you're not buying internet access from the apartment complex, then that example is utterly irrelevant. They are required by law to provide you with a working phone line and jack, and what you do with it is up to you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"But from my limited understanding of the law, it seems that if the landlord put "No Free Wireless" in the lease, then "No Free Wireless" it would be.." Yes you do have a limited understanding. Landlords have all sorts of rules and regs so this is a poor example. For example; A condo can not prohibit you from having a Satellite dish. The FCC prohibits interference with signals and stopping someone with legal jargon, even in a lease, is just that prohibiting signals. It falls outside of the scope of authority for landlords and associations alike. Just wait until you see that as a landlord you cant hold the security deposit for rent, then you will be in a real tizzy (in MA anyway). Keep in mind this is MA we are talking about. On top of that you are talking about Massport. For anyone in the NE area that's all you need to hear for you to know a scam is afoot.
It is pertinent to universities, apartment complexes supplying free wired broadband, and to leased spaces where tenants hope to install a non-DSL form of broadband (which may not be permitted if it involves modification of the structure).
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
The FCC doesn't get to decide what private property owners are allowed to do with that physical property. They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants to modify the structure of the building or detract from the "aesthetic standards" of the community. For example, antennae above certain sizes may be prohibited, as may the installation of "unsightly" dishes on street-facing sides of a home. Covenants are a bitch, but that's life--it's amazing the sorts of things that are sometimes prohibited in certain communities. The FCC can step in when your landlord tells you that you must use Comcast if you want TV, or that you have to use AT&T for phone service, but short of that, it's not within their authority.
If you can install that dish so that it has a clear south line of sight to the satellite and you can do it in a way that doesn't involved modifying the building or violating community standards (if they exist--most apartment complexes don't have aesthetic standards like housing covenants), have at it.
First of all, it has nothing to do with anyone unless you are plugging into their network which is not an explicit feature of the situation we are actually discussing here. Please confine yourself to the conversation at hand - you are offtopic.
Second of all, no one said anything about modification of the structure. That's a red herring.
Third, pretty much every apartment complex has cable; that's non-DSL broadband. If you're going to try to pick nits, then be specific or else you are just talking nonsense.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wrong
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I'm not sure I agree that this is good. I'd like to know more details of the case. For example, if the airline signed a contract prohibiting free wifi in the terminal, I don't think the FCC should overrule that. Not that I'm against free wifi in general. Personally, I'd like it if everything I wanted was free :-)
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
Nice troll! I'll bite. I'm glad ashtrays are long gone from the social consiousness. Screw you, smokers, the rest of us don't want to watch you guys take a hit of niccotine just to keep from going crazy. Suck it up and deal with the fact that society is finally cracking down on unproductive drug addicts.
moox. for a new generation.
No, it's not off topic. I'm not picking nits, I'm responding to inaccurate nitpicking. I never said that routers were banned in universities. I said there were LIMITATIONS on their use, and that doing so was within the rights of the owner. I then responded to your (speaking of off topic) comment denying pertinence to the parent of my original comment.
Perhaps if you'd been paying closer attention, you would see the thread as it evolved. I choose to give a more comprehensive response to the original "as a university employee" response to prevent any further miscommunication--a response which includes the need for modification of structure.
As one last hurrah against your substance-free tirade, DSL broadband is the only form of broadband that does not normally require any modification, as all apartments have a telephone jack. As such, non-DSL broadband may involve structural modification, which may be expressly forbidden by lease terms. Have a nice day.
Read more carefully:
Modification of structure: "The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable."
Aesthetic standards: "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."
The law says that the only ones allowed to regulate radio traffic are the FCC.. it makes no difference who has a contract with whom..
FRA: STFU GTFO
Perhaps not. If the FTC says this frequency is accessible by all, it might very well be, in that other people cannot add legal restrictions on access to it as a condition for something.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Neither preservation nor safety are an aesthetic standard, though in the long run they may be just as arbitrary.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Preservation of historic sites is completely aesthetic. There's no functional reason for it.
Well, up until 9/11 the people in the USA were not as paranoid as we are now. I really wish we could go back to those days. What we have put into place really doesn't stop anyone who really wants to cause some problems, only the really really really stupid ones.
Space for rent, inquire within
OK, from the top.
...Note that none of these covenant conditions covers anything that is patently illegal--only special conditions placed on your residence at that location. By signing the covenant or the lease agreement, you are contractually obligated to comply with the terms. You've not broken any laws by ignoring the lease, but you are liable civilly and can be enjoined from the behavior and punished financially.
..., as may the installation of "unsightly" dishes on street-facing sides of a home. Covenants are a bitch, but that's life--... The FCC can step in when your landlord tells you that you must use Comcast if you want TV, or that you have to use AT&T for phone service, but short of that, it's not within their authority."
... detract from the "aesthetic standards" of the community.", , you are hanging your defense on exceptions for "legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties". Let's see what the FCC says later in the document (which you either skipped or are artfully neglecting to mention).
...
... "
You said:
"This applies to homeowner's associations, dormitories, and apartment complexes. For example, they're not required to let the cable guy come in and drill holes in your wall. They can ban satellite dishes,
I said:
"There was a ruling by the FCC that basically said that agreements banning satellite dishes are null and void, except to the extent that one can be prohibited from placing them on "common areas". Sincce most of the time the roof is a common area, one hasn't seen the muchroom sprouting like wildfire, but planting a pipe in a bucket of concrete and putting it on your balcony is aceptable."
You responded with:
"They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants to modify the structure of the building or detract from the "aesthetic standards" of the community. For example,
The bit about "modifying the physical structure" is a straw man - I specifically said that "one can be prohibited from placing them on "common areas"". The FCC link I used amplifies this. So no, the FCC "doesn't get to decide what private property owners are allowed to do with that physical property. They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants to modify the structure of the building" - but then, no one was arguing that but you.
For your second point, about how "They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants
"Q: Are all restrictions prohibited?
A: No. Clearly-defined, legitimate safety restrictions are permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use provided they are necessary to protect public safety and are no more burdensome than necessary to ensure safety. Examples of valid safety restrictions include fire codes preventing people from installing antennas on fire escapes; restrictions requiring that a person not place an antenna within a certain distance from a power line; and installation requirements that describe the proper method to secure an antenna.
Restrictions necessary for historic preservation also may be permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use of the antenna. To qualify for this exemption, the property may be any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, restrictions necessary for historic preservation must be no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the historic preservation goal.
Not exactly a wide open exception, eh? I don't see a lot of "historic" condos.
So having defeated your assertion about "aesthetic restrictions" in the specific, lets go to the general. In your first response, you state "For example, antennae above certain sizes may be prohibited, as may the installation of "unsightly" dishes on street-facing sides of a home."
But the
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
How can Massport claim that Wifi networks interfere with communications if they themselves operate a Wifi network? That's the baseline argument. I don't care if they can turn it off in a second, it either interferes with communication or it doesn't. If it does then why install it in the first place? It's a bullshit argument and the FCC called them on it. End of story and no guessing involved.
The examples included are not all going to match up one to one. In some communities, banning dishes on the street-side is perfectly valid, if the street does not place houses in obstruction of a line of sight to the satellite dish. Obviously, that ban is not always legally valid, as you've pointed out. I never meant to imply that each example was universally applicable to each permutation of combinations--and as I mentioned, aesthetic standards in apartment complexes are rare. There are a number of historic condos in this country, however, where such restrictions may apply (and may not interfere with the use of dishes.
The overall point, which you've obviously decided to ignore in favor of a narrow reading, is that private property owners may control their property as they see fit and that contracts entered into are valid until they create illegal terms. Moreover, it is important to note that what is considered an illegal condition in some circumstances is not so in others. If you willingly agree to restrict your own rights by signing a covenant, that's the way it goes. Satellite dishes may not be the best example of that case, but it's the one you've gravitated toward.
I love PDX too. I've never seen a used book store in any other airport in the US.
Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.
When the zombies rise from the dead, and start looking for delicious brains, I'll be sure to let them know where you're hiding.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Here in australia you can go past the security points and up to the gate at domestic airports (at least last time I was at Perth airport) without even ID.
"Yes, they can. So long as the apartment is private property and none of the lease provisions are illegal, they can place any restrictions they'd like onto them."
This is simply not true.
"They can ban satellite dishes"
Umn.. no, they can't.
Specifically:
"The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and 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.
Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.
On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001.
The rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes."
ie: a landlord *cannot* simply ban satellite dishes outright. Period.
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
"But look at what they saved over that period by getting rid of indoor ashtrays"
Why on earth would anyone need to set fires inside the airport???
Where were you when the voynix came?