# Dish Network and DirecTV: Satellite dishes could be banned



## espnjason

Apparently, the shallow people that say "Dishes are ugly" still exist.



> Not only are the current dishes an eyesore, but a lot of owners move and leave their dish behind. Evidently this is not regulated by anyone. Because of these problems some cities are considering a ban on the dish. Boston was the first large metro area to ban them, and other cities may be following their lead:
> 
> _Boston may be one of the first cities in the nation to ban satellite dishes. The problem is that many think they look awful. "A satellite dish is a dish-shaped type of parabolic antenna designed to receive microwaves from communications satellites, which transmit data transmissions or broadcasts, such as satellite television."_


The blog posting is here


----------



## machavez00

> One thing that has come up in some of the discussions about the dish situation (on different web sites) is the fact that there are other types of satellite antennas. For instance, the antenna used on automobiles for Sirius XM (SIRI) Backseat TV is not a dish antenna. I realize that it only receives three channels, but can't this technology be used to redesign the "ugly dish" shape? The new satellite radio antennas keep getting smaller and smaller. And considering how much the dish has changed over the years, someone should be able to shrink it smaller. This picture shows the two Sirius XM Backseat TV satellite antennas (top right) for a car:












There are multiple satellites involved, so a small receiver such as the the one used for Sirius/XM most likely won't work. XM also uses local ground base repeaters to aid reception in urban areas.


----------



## shedberg

I think federal law (OTARD) will trump any banning of satellite antennas.


----------



## Jimmy 440

Certain people need to get a life


----------



## SayWhat?

Search works wonders:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2968135


----------



## Nick

> Boston may be one of the first cities in the nation to ban satellite dishes. The problem is that many think they look awful.


Oh, the humanity! 

The solution is simple: make the parabolic antenna out of reflective red bricks, the arm to look like a vine or branch, and cover the dish with emr-transparent ivy. Change the name to 'sconce' so's your old lady likes it and tells you to get another one "for esthetic balance".


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm always interested by what topics get people up in arms to enact bans (especially ones that will not stand due to the law) vs things that actually matter.

Wouldn't it be nice if these same people got this motivated to change something that is really wrong in our society?


----------



## SayWhat?

Huh??


----------



## Draconis

I do not see this flying at all, mostly because of OTARD and that the dish is the only way to get Dish / DIRECTV signal.

So, unless someone invents a way to get satellite via an antenna array, those dishes are going to stay.

lol: that rymes.)

Meh, maybe some entrepreneur will start a recycling business in Boston and take old dishes from prior Dish / DIRECTV customers down and sell them for scrap.

Of course, we can only hope he does not take down the dishes from active subscribers.


----------



## Davenlr

machavez00 said:


> There are multiple satellites involved, so a small receiver such as the the one used for Sirius/XM most likely won't work. XM also uses local ground base repeaters to aid reception in urban areas.


Not to mention the frequency used for XM is MUCH lower, and is not near as likely to be attenuated by weather and foilage as the bands used by satellite tv.


----------



## Drucifer

Nick said:


> Oh, the humanity!
> 
> The solution is simple: make the parabolic antenna out of reflective red bricks, the arm to look like a vine or branch, and cover the dish with emr-transparent ivy. Change the name to 'sconce' so's your old lady likes it and tells you to get another one "for esthetic balance".


Fine. How about Cell Towers or Windmills then? Or the really old one telephone poles.

Those been ugly for decades and the telephone poles almost a century. Where are the Ugly Police for those eye sores.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm always interested by what topics get people up in arms to enact bans (especially ones that will not stand due to the law) vs things that actually matter.
> 
> *Wouldn't it be nice if these same people got this motivated to change something that is really wrong in our society*?


Yeah.....like cell phone use or texting while driving....

Ba Dah Bing.


----------



## Nick

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yeah.....like cell phone use or texting while driving....
> 
> Ba Dah Bing.


...or changing topic, mid-thread.

Ba Dah Bong.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Nick said:


> ...or changing topic, mid-thread.
> 
> Ba Dah Bong.


Like yours?

Only a quote....ba dah boom.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Yeah.....like cell phone use or texting while driving....
> 
> Ba Dah Bing.


Ah... but if you are driving near a home that has a distracting satellite dish on it... and you have an accident... wouldn't that be motivation to ban the dishes?

Checkmate.


----------



## MysteryMan

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Like yours?
> 
> Only a quote....ba dah boom.


:lol:


----------



## SamC

This is the biggest much ado about nothing article I have seen. The FCC specifically prohibits the "banning" of dishes. End of discussion.


----------



## trh

SamC said:


> This is the biggest much ado about nothing article I have seen. The FCC specifically prohibits the "banning" of dishes. End of discussion.


Philadelphia passed their ordinance last fall. The SBCA filed a petition with the FCC to block the Philly law. But no answer yet. So until they do, it isn't the 'end of discussion.'


----------



## Lord Vader

I should move to Boston and fight this. These battles are kind of fun.


----------



## harsh

Stewart Vernon said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if these same people got this motivated to change something that is really wrong in our society?


It is far too hard to deal with things that really matter; especially if they might, heaven forbid, involve personal sacrifice.

The other issue is that we usually find somebody like the NCTA or NAB lurking in the background of these anti-dish "campaigns".


----------



## trh

I didn't pay much attention to the Philly law, but the Boston law states dishes can't go on the front of a house unless the installer certifies it has to because of LOS. I think the FCC would say that is OK. But the Boston law requires the dish companies to remove unused dishes -- and both DISH and DirecTV have basically said (through the SBCA) they don't own the dish and have no authority to remove unused dishes.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> Ah... but if you are driving near a home that has a distracting satellite dish on it... and you have an accident... wouldn't that be motivation to ban the dishes?
> 
> Checkmate.


I was calling you at the time on my cell phone per your request...

Point-Set-Match.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think power lines are 10x uglier than dishes, yet no one is talking about banning those.

East Boston needs to investigate why their cable company is doing such a poor job of serving the public. That's the reason dishes are so popular.


----------



## trh

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think power lines are 10x uglier than dishes, yet no one is talking about banning those.


Yes, in one of the pictures there were so many wires you could barely see the dishes that were "an eyesore".

I also think that the local power companies donate money to their politicians -- DirecTV and Dish probably don't help those same elected officials. And with the Philly ban, I wonder if COMCAST had anything to do with that law?


----------



## SamC

trh said:


> So until they do, it isn't the 'end of discussion.'


With respect, the discussion is in fact ended.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes

The OTARD rules prohibit restrictions on a property owner or tenant's right to install, maintain or use an antenna to receive video programming from direct broadcast satellites (DBS), broadband radio services (formerly referred to as multichannel multipoint distribution services or MMDS) and television broadcast stations (TVBS).


----------



## txtommy

Drucifer said:


> Fine. How about Cell Towers or Windmills then? Or the really old one telephone poles.
> 
> Those been ugly for decades and the telephone poles almost a century. Where are the Ugly Police for those eye sores.


Around here they just hide all those eyesores with big billboards. :grin:


----------



## harsh

No discussion is truly over until it has been diligently interpreted by the judiciary. The law may seem very clear but there are cases where OTARD has not been the final word.


----------



## Laxguy

SamC said:


> With respect, the discussion is in fact ended.
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes
> 
> The OTARD rules prohibit restrictions on a property owner or tenant's right to install, maintain or use an antenna to receive video programming from direct broadcast satellites (DBS), broadband radio services (formerly referred to as multichannel multipoint distribution services or MMDS) and television broadcast stations (TVBS).


Discussions are not over on the 'Net until there are no more posts in the thread. (Heh, and even then they're likely to pop up elsewhere.....):nono2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The problem with "the law" is that it doesn't work automatically.

The HOA forces you to move a Dish, you say no... they fine you, take a lien on your home, or whatever... you then have to go to court and pay for that... and yeah, you probably win eventually... but not without time and money (and maybe you get money back in a counter suit)... but it's a lot of aggravation AND then you win but your HOA is pissed so they start micromanaging you and measuring your lawn with a ruler and try to catch you slipping on something else.

Sometimes people aren't fun.


----------



## joshjr

That would be retarded to have a town or state tell you what you can have on your roof. So do they have a say on other things that are on the roof? Whats next, someone gonna decide what cars look good on someones drive way? Home owners should have the control over a freaking dish for crying out loud. It would be different if it was the old dishes that people had in their yards that were huge and we were putting those up on our roofs. I don't feel like a town has the right to restrict my television subscription. That could severely hurt the satellite companies. I hate the Cable Co in town and do not want to go back to them for any reason.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joshjr said:


> So do they have a say on other things that are on the roof? Whats next, someone gonna decide what cars look good on someones drive way?


Yes... depending on where you live. There are sign ordinances.. and HOAs also will fine people for needing general roof repair or sometimes even for a flagpole to fly even the US flag.

Oh... and a HOA around here has a ban on commercial vehicles... so if you drive a cab or work for AT&T or Dish... you can't bring your vehicle home and park it in your own driveway.

Sucks... and maybe you'd win in a court fight... but you would have to fight it.


----------



## trh

SamC said:


> With respect, the discussion is in fact ended.
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes
> 
> The OTARD rules prohibit restrictions on a property owner or tenant's right to install, maintain or use an antenna to receive video programming from direct broadcast satellites (DBS), broadband radio services (formerly referred to as multichannel multipoint distribution services or MMDS) and television broadcast stations (TVBS).


Also from the *FCC OTARD*


> However, a regulation requiring that antennas be placed where they are not visible from the street would be permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay. For example, if installing an antenna in the rear of the house costs significantly more than installation on the side of the house, then such a requirement would be prohibited. If, however, installation in the rear of the house does not impose unreasonable expense or delay or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal, then the restriction is permissible and the viewer must comply.


----------



## Justin23

"trh" said:


> I didn't pay much attention to the Philly law, but the Boston law states dishes can't go on the front of a house unless the installer certifies it has to because of LOS. I think the FCC would say that is OK. But the Boston law requires the dish companies to remove unused dishes -- and both DISH and DirecTV have basically said (through the SBCA) they don't own the dish and have no authority to remove unused dishes.


I believe D* started a pilot program for satellite dish removal in Boston that started sometime last year...


----------



## APB101

SamC said:


> With respect, the discussion is in fact ended.
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/installing-consumer-owned-antennas-and-satellite-dishes
> 
> The OTARD rules prohibit restrictions on a property owner or tenant's right to install, maintain or use an antenna to receive video programming from direct broadcast satellites (DBS), broadband radio services (formerly referred to as multichannel multipoint distribution services or MMDS) and television broadcast stations (TVBS).


 Thank you!

I suppose it's rather amusing to bring up the topic of a major city considering a ban of satellite dishes. And that's because there are important issues for Boston and other major American cities to, say, _ponder_.

The poster stating that people who are bothered by satellite dishes need to get a life is correct. But I would prefer to expand on that ever further by stating that such shallow people should "go *f* themselves!" (And they just might.)


----------



## kenglish

joshjr said:


> That would be retarded to have a town or state tell you what you can have on your roof. So do they have a say on other things that are on the roof? Whats next, someone gonna decide what cars look good on someones drive way? ...........


I remember hearing Paul Harvey (many years ago) talking about a town in Florida, which banned anything but sedans in your driveway. If you owned a truck or SUV, it had to be hidden away in a garage.

Crazy.


----------



## Drucifer

kenglish said:


> I remember hearing Paul Harvey (many years ago) talking about a town in Florida, which banned anything but sedans in your driveway. If you owned a truck or SUV, it had to be hidden away in a garage.
> 
> Crazy.


Let me know when they are the one that decide boxers or briefs!


----------



## kenglish

There is also a fight going on in some small town in the UK, where a guy wants to put up a Ham Radio antenna, something like 23 feet above the ground. 

The town OK'ed it, but a few neighbors declared war on him, calling it a "Flying Bedstead", and saying it would distract drivers on the nearby road, who would then crash their cars.
He's decided to keep applying for the permit, with different modifications each month, until they let him build it.

(The UK doesn't have the same rules that we do...OTARD and PRB-1.)


----------



## Phil T

I am sorry but I think this is ugly as hell. http://www.vawind.org/

I would take a few satellite dishes over this any day.

Oh, but I guess I am very non PC.


----------



## Redbullsnation

This exceeds stupidity especially for the people in Boston, to those who don't want to get cable or FIOS will be forced to do so by the so-called democratic government 

Fortunately for me, I live in FL...


----------



## goinsleeper

Constitutioin protects our rights to any receiver. Granted they are going about it by saying it should not be visible. Personally when I see a dish on a house, I think to myself, "They've got good TV!". I think it looks more modern and up-to-date with technology. But, of course, there are some people out there who have left a dish sit there and rott over 10 years of no use and that could be taken care of.

Radar detectors were originally banned in almost every state. In states where radar detector manufacturers saw enough consumers to make an investment, they sued the state and the law was removed per our right to own any receiver. Though the law is there does not mean the states will abide by them. They will be unlawful until someone stands up and points it out. Love this country! Break your own laws until the public says something(not bashing America, I really do love this place).


----------



## Lord Vader

goinsleeper said:


> Constitutioin protects our rights to any receiver.


That's silly nonsense. No it doesn't. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about receivers.

Our "rights" to install dishes came about per FCC rulings pursuant to the authority vested in them by Congress.


----------

