# Opposite World HOA Problem Regarding Dish Installations



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

Many people used to complain about overreaching HOAs trying to ban satellite dish installations, but now I see the opposite. Our HOA got so scared of the FCC regulations that they aren't enforcing requirements that the installations be done neatly and in as inconspicuous as spot as is workable.
Now people are getting lazy and cheap and installing dishes over their front door or not even attempting to hide the wiring.

Here is one example of bad wiring:


















The house is actually prewired for satellite with cable runs in the attic that would not have been visible on the exterior walls.
The HOA board thinks that the FCC regs mean they cannot enforce any rules whatsoever regarding aesthetics of installation. Is that true?


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

It doesn't look all that bad to me. On a stucco house or any other smooth wall house for that matter, it's going to be damn near impossible to hide the lines. One way to help hide the lines would be for the homeowner (or anyone other than the tech) to come back by and paint the cable to match the house color.

As for prewire to the attic, thats all fine and dandy, except for the part that the dish needs (should) be grounded. Preferably externally. In the pictures, it looks like the lines are running to the ground source and cable demarc.

As for the HOA enforcing their rules, sure they can enforce them, as long as they fall within the OTARD regs. I don't see anything in those 2 pics that would be an issue though.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Where's the pic of the dish mounted over someone's front door?

Remember, it could always be worse:










Welcome to DBSTalk! :wave:


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

The provided RG6 pre-wire runs from a designated antenna mounting point on the eaves then through the attic down to a central panel in the house that's connected to all the rooms.
Are you saying that that dish could not be grounded without running all new cables taking that path from the rear to the front of the house across the middle of the body of the house? 

To me, it looks like they chose an unnecessarily ugly and obvious cable run and didn't really have to run those cables to the front of the house at all.
It may be hard to see from the photos, but there is a dual run of cables. One is white and the other black. 
The CC&Rs also do have rules stating that any exposed wires must be painted to match the house paint. It seems to me that a less visible path around the door molding and then along the ground would have reached the same point and been pretty well hidden from view and invisible from a distance when painted over.


----------



## miketorse (Jul 30, 2008)

web1b said:


> Are you saying that that dish could not be grounded without running all new cables taking that path from the rear to the front of the house across the middle of the body of the house?


I'm no expert, but I think the dish (via the coax) needs to be grounded to the main ground of the house. Which is at the electrical panel... Someone can correct me if I'm wrong though.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

Even if it was mandatory for the cable to go to that panel, there was a much more hidden route around the door and along the ground to that panel that I mentioned. 
Also, is it possible that the pre-wire cable would be grounded to that panel or else to a dedicated ground point?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The apartment complex I used to live in got "too permissive" as well ... allowing installs that were hazardous and in common areas not protected by OTARD because of pressure from the residents. I believe they have cleaned it up now.

I'd like to see a balance. Reasonable restrictions ARE permitted by OTARD. The installer in this case may not have known where the "prewire" was, where it went or perhaps it did not suit the need. I have a two dish setup with seven cables between the dish and the first switch inside of my house. I doubt the prewire could handle that. (For a basic install two cables would be enough ... but I have four active receivers, two MPEG2 and two MPEG4, so to feed them all I basically need two systems.)

This particular install looks neat and professionally done. I have seen some that could be done better (re: the former apartment complex).


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I'm with James on this - a "balance" between what is necessary to get reception, balanced with a "reasonable" guidelines on making it neat (and certainly safe). 

Normally, the issues we hear on this forum are the case of the HOAs that go overboard and need to be put in their place.

Nick - where is that a picture of ?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

scooper said:


> ...Nick - where is that a picture of ?


A Dutch artist "pimped" the satellite dishes of residents of the "satellite city" area in Amsterdam. In case you wondered, the hooks on the roof are used to hoist furniture because the stairways are too narrow.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Actually based on the picture it looks like a pretty clean and neat job to me. Unless it's your own house and it gets under your skin it's hard to imagine from the street it stands out enough for much of anyone to care too much. If it is something that's bothering the owner because he/she doesn't like how it looks from close range then obviously the he/she should've directed the installer to do something different if it clashes with his/her sense of aesthetics. The cables are no more ugly or stand out any more than the rain gutter pipe going down the side of the house, the vents sticking out on the side of the house or for that matter the utility meter. Heck if the owner paints them the same color as the house you'd probably hardly even notice they were there at all unless you are especially anal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

web1b said:


> The provided RG6 pre-wire runs from a designated antenna mounting point on the eaves then through the attic down to a central panel in the house that's connected to all the rooms.
> Are you saying that that dish could not be grounded without running all new cables taking that path from the rear to the front of the house across the middle of the body of the house?
> 
> To me, it looks like they chose an unnecessarily ugly and obvious cable run and didn't really have to run those cables to the front of the house at all.
> It may be hard to see from the photos, but there is a dual run of cables. One is white and the other black.


Besides not seeing how this is a "bad" looking install... Something you might not know about satellite, especially DBS...

Typically a single run of coax from the satellite dish to the receiver is needed for every receiver. It isn't like cable where you can just split the signal and run to another room.

So, as you describe the pre-wire... it quite possibly would not have even worked to use the pre-wire... especially since you note a dual run of coax, which seems to imply 2 rooms are being fed... which is something that could not have been done with the pre-wire you described.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Besides not seeing how this is a "bad" looking install... Something you might not know about satellite, especially DBS...
> 
> Typically a single run of coax from the satellite dish to the receiver is needed for every receiver. It isn't like cable where you can just split the signal and run to another room.
> 
> So, as you describe the pre-wire... it quite possibly would not have even worked to use the pre-wire... especially since you note a dual run of coax, which seems to imply 2 rooms are being fed... which is something that could not have been done with the pre-wire you described.


The prewire would have worked. I used the pre-wire for both DirecTV and DishnNetwork at my house (at different times) in the same development and the installer used the multiplexer or diplexer or whatever it was called at the time with additional cable runs for each receiver at my house. It worked fine. When I had the dual-tuner DirecTV that required two inputs to each receiver, I had them fish the cable down from the attic and had a new wall jacks with dual coax outlets installed in secondary bedrooms. The master bedroom and living room already had two coax runs to the jacks. Additional runs of cable can be run along with the existing builder-provided wire when you really do need additional coax.

Even if there is a scenario where the pre-wire would be impossible, then they could have run the wire down the door molding to the ground and then along the ground so it would have been mostly not visible. They chose to run it at the most visible location possible winding two different colored cables around the house at about eye level.
At the very least, they can be required to paint over the cables, but I believe they should have put more effort into not making the new cable run so blatantly in your face or else used the pre-wire conduits though the attic and not stapled coax runs to the stucco at all.

Alot of laziness and cheapness. They have 2 different colors of cable stapled to the stucco because that made it more convenient for the installer to tell them apart. They ran the cable that way because it was the cheapest, shortest routing. It may have taken minutes extra to run the coax using the less visible routing of coax that will there for years. 
By the way the residents are renters with an out of town landlord, so no one living in the house really cares if it looks good or not since it's someone else's property. Generally, the owner-occupied houses have dish installations done with more thought about how the final installation looks. They also probably didn't know that the prewiring was available because they didn't read the documents that list this and they put the dish up without notifying the property management company in advance.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

Nick said:


> Where's the pic of the dish mounted over someone's front door?
> 
> Remember, it could always be worse:
> 
> ...


I don't like the way that looks, but obviously everyone there got together and agreed that's what they all wanted, so I think that's fine and quirky for them.


----------



## brant (Jul 6, 2008)

Nick said:


> In case you wondered, the hooks on the roof are used to hoist furniture because the stairways are too narrow.


well i just learned something new; thanks!


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

web1b said:


> The provided RG6 pre-wire runs from a designated antenna mounting point on the eaves then through the attic down to a central panel in the house that's connected to all the rooms.
> Are you saying that that dish could not be grounded without running all new cables taking that path from the rear to the front of the house across the middle of the body of the house?


Let me start by saying that you MAY be completely right - it may have been possible to do an up-to-code installation as you say.

But there is an excellent chance that it would NOT be possible to do an up-to-code install that way.

Let me go over some possible issues:

*Dish Mounting*

I can't see the "intended" mounting location, but I've seen a number of homes where the builder tried to put a "satellite mount location" on a house, but you can't get Line-Of-Site from that location for one reason or another. Even if the builder knew what was going on with satellites when the house was built, things change. A mounting point designed to see 110/119 will often not have LOS to see Eastern Arc sats (61.5/72.7/77).

And it may also be a QC violation to mount the dish there. DirecTV, for example, won't allow Slimline dishes to be mounted on eave/fascia boards anymore, and both Dish and DirecTV require support arms to be installed on some dishes, among other things. If the installer breaks a QC rule, he could be (and often is) charged back for the entire job.

*Grounding*

It's VERY likely that the structured wiring cabinet (the cable junction box) does not have a ground source available - most don't, because they locate the ground at the service entrance (where the cable company's drop enters the house, usually very near the power meter). No ground when a valid ground was available: no pay.

*Wiring*

I can't see what dish is being used, but builders often run only 1 or 2 lines of coax to the "satellite location" when more are needed.

*Custom Work*

Attic work, and possible wall fishing extra cables into the structured wiring box, is custom work. OTARD does not allow HOAs to force the customer to pay extra to comply with the HOA's wishes.

And since any of these issues empowers the home owner to bypass the HOA's restrictions per OTARD, your HOA is wisely not making an issue out of installs that are like the one you pictured, because they would lose, and could be fined or worse.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

BattleZone said:


> Let me start by saying that you MAY be completely right - it may have been possible to do an up-to-code installation as you say.
> 
> But there is an excellent chance that it would NOT be possible to do an up-to-code install that way.
> 
> ...


Even if the builders exact designated point didn't have line of site for some reason, they can just move that point left or right until they reached a point with line of site. Even if it needed to moved to the opposite side of the house, the coax could either be moved within the attic or simply extended and run under the eaves where it would not be visible.
Most of these people didn't know that the designated point was available because they didn't read the papers given to them. That's why they installed this way, not because the builders installation pointed didn't have line of site.
If the designated point is workable, it should be used and alternate points found only if there is something preventing the designated point from being unusable. 
Their failure to familiarize themselves with the house and read the provided papers notifying them that prewire is available is their fault.

*Regardless of all that, they could have still just run the cable in a less visible route down those same walls and over to the same location at the electrical box (as I have described 3 times above already) and then painted the coax to match the house body. There is no way it needed to be installed with that specific routing path for the coax as pictured*.

Another thing is who says they must be allowed to have an "unlimited" number connections installed? Technically, a dish can be installed with one cable run. It's just that the residents may "prefer" to have a fancier dual-tuner setup with DVRs in every room . Suppose these people wanted 5 receivers from a 2-dish setup each requiring two runs of cable to each receiver and the most convenient place to run the cable was right over their front windows on the street-facing side of the house and they didn't feel like paying for multiplexers and diplexers? The house pictured doesn't have this, but there has to be some line drawn of what's reasonable.
I don't believe the OTARD says anywhere they must be allowed to have an unlimited number of satellite dishes or receivers.
OTARD does allow HOA to require the customer to pay for certain things to mitigate the appearance or else do it themselves. The example they listed on the main web page is allowing a requirement of painting to match the house.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

web1b said:


> Even if the builders exact designated point didn't have line of site for some reason, they can just move that point left or right until they reached a point with line of site. Even if it needed to moved to the opposite side of the house, the coax could either be moved within the attic or simply extended and run under the eaves where it would not be visible.
> Regardless of all that, they could have still just run the cable in a less visible route (as I have described 3 times above already) and then painted the coax to match the house body. There is no way it needed to be installed with that specific routing path for the coax as pictured.
> 
> Another thing is who says they must be allowed to have an "unlimited" number connections installed? Technically, a dish can be installed with one cable run. It's just that the residents may "prefer" to have a fancier dual-tuner setup with DVRs in every room. Suppose these people wanted 5 receivers from a 2-dish setup each requiring two runs of cable to each receiver and the most convenient place to run the cable was right over their front windows on the street-facing side of the house? The house pictured doesn't have this, but there has to be some line drawn of what's reasonable.
> ...


I don't believe you have read OTARD very thoroughly, then.

The ONLY dish restriction in OTARD is that any dish used must be less than 1 meter in diameter - there is no restriction as to the number of said dishes. If a homeowner wanted 6 1 meter dishes to pickup 6 different slots - he can put them there as long as they are on his controlled property - not in common space.

There is no restriction AT ALL as to the size of any over the air antenna - simply that it must be less than 12 feet above the highest point of the roof/other structures. This means they could put a 15 foot long monster up there and there is didly squat you can do about it (assuming it is mounted safely).

If you want to jump on the tennants about not painting the coax to match the house color - you can - but is it really worth it ?

More and more - you sound like one of those busybody HOA board members who are utterly despised by most of us (for good reason).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

web1b said:


> I don't believe the OTARD says anywhere they must be allowed to have an unlimited number of satellite dishes or receivers.
> OTARD does allow HOA to require the customer to pay for certain things to mitigate the appearance or else do it themselves. The example they listed on the main web page is allowing a requirement of painting to match the house.


Perhaps a little research is in order?

OTARD "prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming." "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."

"The Commission's rule covers the antennas necessary to receive service. Therefore, a local rule may not, for example, allow only one antenna if more than one antenna is necessary to receive the desired service."

If the requirement to use the HOA prewire impaired the installation of antennas it is not a permitted restriction. The other "unreasonable" delays and cost increases apply.

If the customer desires service that requires more than one dish they are still protected by OTARD. There is nothing preventing a single customer from having multiple services. There is nothing limiting the customer to a certain number of receivers.

Yes, there are limits in OTARD on the restrictions it doesn't allow. But OTARD is more about restricting restrictions not restricting customers from getting the service the desire ... even if that service may be excessive in other people's eyes.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

scooper said:


> I don't believe you have read OTARD very thoroughly, then.
> 
> The ONLY dish restriction in OTARD is that any dish used must be less than 1 meter in diameter - there is no restriction as to the number of said dishes. If a homeowner wanted 6 1 meter dishes to pickup 6 different slots - he can put them there as long as they are on his controlled property - not in common space.
> 
> ...


I despise people who move don't care how their home looks because they are renters with absentee landlords. Luckily the HOA pays for landscaping service or many of these people wouldn't mow or weed their front lawns either.

Notice the keyword *AN*



> (2) *An* antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.
> 
> (3) *An* antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.


Check this:

http://www.imakenews.com/ortenhindman/e_article000171760.cfm



> Associations may, in advance, adopt location preferences that do not impair the installation, maintenance or use of the antenna. This will assist associations in maintaining a uniform appearance rather than having antennas installed in all kinds of locations. However, if installation in a preferred location will impair the installation, maintenance or use of the antenna, the owner or tenant has the right to install it in another location he owns or has exclusive use or control.


So, they should check the prewire location first and find that it will impair the installation, maintenance or use of the antenna before choosing some other random location. 
That doesn't mean they _have to_ use the provided wiring that goes through the attic when they mount the dish at the preferred location, but they would then need to run any new wires they have chosen to use en lieu of the pre-wire as inconspicuously as would be practical to do and paint it to match the house if it's visible.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

web1b said:


> Another thing is who says they must be allowed to have an "unlimited" number connections installed? Technically, a dish can be installed with one cable run. It's just that the residents may "prefer" to have a fancier dual-tuner setup with DVRs in every room . Suppose these people wanted 5 receivers from a 2-dish setup each requiring two runs of cable to each receiver and the most convenient place to run the cable was right over their front windows on the street-facing side of the house and they didn't feel like paying for multiplexers and diplexers? The house pictured doesn't have this, but there has to be some line drawn of what's reasonable.
> I don't believe the OTARD says anywhere they must be allowed to have an unlimited number of satellite dishes or receivers.
> OTARD does allow HOA to require the customer to pay for certain things to mitigate the appearance or else do it themselves. The example they listed on the main web page is allowing a requirement of painting to match the house.


OTARD in fact sets NO limit to the number of antennas you can install nor the number of connections you can have. As long as your dishes are less than 1 meter in diameter, you can install 30 of them on your home if you like, and each one is equally protected under OTARD.

And, again, you can choose to run your own cable along any path you like when you are paying for it, but a STANDARD (read: free) installation means that the shortest reasonable cable path is used and must be under the max cable length in the spec. And you can't run the cable across/under doorways, for example, and pass a QC.

I suggest you read the actual rules here on the FCC's website. They are very clear:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Among them:



> Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?
> 
> A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. 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.
> 
> ...





> Q: Can a restriction limit the number of antennas that may be installed at a particular location?
> 
> The Commission's rule covers the antennas necessary to receive service. Therefore, a local rule may not, for example, allow only one antenna if more than one antenna is necessary to receive the desired service.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

If you wanted DirecTV with Internationals, Dish Network with a wing dish for Locals, several FTA dishes pointed to different satellites, and an OTA antenna, you would be fully protected by OTARD.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

web1b said:


> Notice the keyword *AN*
> 
> Check this:
> 
> ...


From Otard - QUOTE
Q: Can a restriction limit the number of antennas that may be installed at a particular location?

The Commission's rule covers the antennas necessary to receive service. Therefore, a local rule may not, for example, allow only one antenna if more than one antenna is necessary to receive the desired service. 
End Quote

Do you REALLY want to play tit-for tat ? I've done this so many times I have the link in my signature as a ready reference...


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

scooper said:


> I don't believe you have read OTARD very thoroughly, then.
> 
> The ONLY dish restriction in OTARD is that any dish used must be less than 1 meter in diameter - there is no restriction as to the number of said dishes. If a homeowner wanted 6 1 meter dishes to pickup 6 different slots - he can put them there as long as they are on his controlled property - not in common space.
> 
> ...





scooper said:


> From Otard - QUOTE
> Q: Can a restriction limit the number of antennas that may be installed at a particular location?
> 
> The Commission's rule covers the antennas necessary to receive service. Therefore, a local rule may not, for example, allow only one antenna if more than one antenna is necessary to receive the desired service.
> ...


None of that excuses the simple requirement of running the cable in a less visible manner (such as down the side door molding in the house pictured and then along the wall near the ground and then up to the electrical box) and then painting the coax that was visible from the street to match the house.

None of that excuses the people who ignorantly installed the dishes at a poor location and ran new wiring outside when the preferred location would have worked in their case only because they didn't read their paperwork and therefore didn't know the preferred location was there.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Seems his goal to force that tenant make rework job to please his personal aesthetic rules.
Really nosy position. :down:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

web1b said:


> None of that excuses the simple requirement of running the cable in a less visible manner (such as down the side door molding in the house pictured and then along the wall near the ground and then up to the electrical box) and then painting the coax that was visible from the street to match the house.
> 
> None of that excuses the people who ignorantly installed the dishes at a poor location and ran new wiring outside when the preferred location would have worked in their case only because they didn't read their paperwork and therefore didn't know the preferred location was there.


It's their house, not yours. They can put wires a dishes wherever they want. Don't like it? Look away.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

P Smith said:


> Seems his goal to force that tenant make rework job to please his personal aesthetic rules.
> Really nosy position. :down:


It is not my personal aesthetic rules. It is the rules set by the association and the reason most people choose to move into HOA associations. They didn't have to move there.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> It's their house, not yours. They can put wires a dishes wherever they want. Don't like it? Look away.


They cannot put wires or dishes wherever they want. It can be restricted if it doesn't prevent them from using their service or add unreasonable cost. A less visible routing job and painting over what cannot be easily hidden can be enforced by the HOA and that doesn't deny them ability to use the antenna nor greatly increase the cost.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

You don't have to be such a _ _ _ _ _ either.

Why don't you try talking to them in a civil manner and see what that gets you first ? attract more flies with honey rather than vinegar and all that ?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

web1b said:


> They cannot put wires or dishes wherever they want. It can be restricted if it doesn't prevent them from using their service or add unreasonable cost. A less visible routing job and painting over what cannot be easily hidden can be enforced by the HOA and that doesn't deny them ability to use the antenna nor greatly increase the cost.


If I'd have done the install, if I'd have known about the pre-wire, and if the pre-wire would have worked, I'd have probably used it (there may be other factors at work, though).

But assuming I didn't, I'd have run the cable just like your picture, and I'd have charged extra to do otherwise. That "extra" would start at $40 and go up from there, depending on what was being done. And that doesn't include painting anything (satellite installers are not painters).

I don't know what it would cost to comply with what YOUR interpretation of the HOA's rules would be, but the burden of proof rests on the HOA, not the homeowner/tenant, to prove that the cost is not unreasonable. HOAs that push the issue routinely lose in court, and not only can the HOA be fined, but the individual members of the board can be and are often held liable. Given that, few HOAs with any experience with OTARD are going to push the issue unless they have a clear, obvious winning case. I promise you, the house you pictured is not one of those.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> Don't like it? Look away.


That is my neighborhood's motto


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

BattleZone said:


> If I'd have done the install, if I'd have known about the pre-wire, and if the pre-wire would have worked, I'd have probably used it (there may be other factors at work, though).
> 
> But assuming I didn't, I'd have run the cable just like your picture, and I'd have charged extra to do otherwise. That "extra" would start at $40 and go up from there, depending on what was being done. And that doesn't include painting anything (satellite installers are not painters).
> 
> I don't know what it would cost to comply with what YOUR interpretation of the HOA's rules would be, but the burden of proof rests on the HOA, not the homeowner/tenant, to prove that the cost is not unreasonable. HOAs that push the issue routinely lose in court, and not only can the HOA be fined, but the individual members of the board can be and are often held liable. Given that, few HOAs with any experience with OTARD are going to push the issue unless they have a clear, obvious winning case. I promise you, the house you pictured is not one of those.


There are worse installations in the community, but I'm more concerned with that one since it's the one in my view. People who live by the other houses can complain about those if they want.
The satellite installer is not responsible for painting, the homeowner is. They can do it themselves, get a friend or relative, hire a handyman or hire a professional painter if the wish. They are free to choose the cheapest option as long as it gets done.
If they use the prewire, there will be no coax to paint and the installation might be easier and cheaper unless they have a special situation, but they won't know if they never even look at it. 
Even then, they could be required to paint the dish itself, but few places choose to require that. Being ignorant that the prewire was there was the reason most of the people who didn't use it didn't use it, but that's their own fault unless they were not given the homeowners handbook or the CC&Rs that listed this.
I'm sure *some* of the pre-designated locations might not work for some installations due to line of sight issues or some other technical issue, but most were not used only because the resident didn't read their packet of information and instead gave the installer carte blanche to do whatever was the cheapest way to throw the dish up.
It's so tacky when people care so little about how their house looks. This is why HOA exists and why we need to pay a service to mow people's lawns for them.
It amazes me that no one posting here would even make an attempt on their own to install the dish in the best looking way practical to and instead want to only do the bare minimum they can get by with.
Black and white coax cables at right at eye level winding around the building on the front of your house? No one thinks that looks bad?
They can afford to get satellite service with ongoing monthly fees instead of an OTA antenna with free service or economy basic cable for less money, but using a few extra feet of coax to do a less visible cable run is somehow unaffordable??
There is a house down the street where they didn't even staple the wires down, so they are just dangling and blowing in the wind. I suppose they will say the staples would be a hardship and unreasonable expense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

web1b said:


> None of that excuses the simple requirement of running the cable in a less visible manner (such as down the side door molding in the house pictured and then along the wall near the ground and then up to the electrical box) and then painting the coax that was visible from the street to match the house.
> 
> None of that excuses the people who ignorantly installed the dishes at a poor location and ran new wiring outside when the preferred location would have worked in their case only because they didn't read their paperwork and therefore didn't know the preferred location was there.


STOP.

Three questions.

1) Is there a REQUIREMENT in a HOA agreement, subdivision rules, zoning or any other authority governing that property that requires the cables to be hidden, painted, or routed in a specific manner? Or is this just something that you object to but there is no local rule preventing it?

2) Is using the "preferred location" a requirement in a HOA agreement, etc or is it just a place where the building designer suggested a satellite dish be installed?

3) Are these installs actually breaking the rules of the community?

It sounds like you are trying to apply OTARD as a restriction on satellite dishes. That isn't the point of the rule. OTARD is a restriction on restrictions. If you want to restrict dish installations you MUST write local rules that restrict dish installations. You MUST write those rules within the limits that OTARD allows the rules to be written. And you must have the authority to write the rules for the property involved.

If there are written rules that have been broken (not suggestions that have not been followed, but broken rules) take it up with your HOA. If there are no rules and you want some take it up with your HOA. But be prepared to lose. If there are as many "ugly installs" as you suggest the community as a whole are likely going to be against you.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

You sir - need to get a life, besides looking at your neighbor's houses for alleged "HOA rule violations".


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

James Long said:


> STOP.
> 
> Three questions.
> 
> ...


Yes it is a written requirement in the CC&Rs, not a suggestion or an opinion and they can choose another location if it isn't workable (view to satellites blocked etc.), but they are supposed try it first and notify the HOA if they can't use it. This has not been happening.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

web1b said:


> Yes it is a written requirement in the CC&Rs, not a suggestion or an opinion and they can choose another location if it isn't workable (view to satellites blocked etc.), but they are supposed try it first and notify the HOA if they can't use it. This has not been happening.


Well then, the path is clear ...


James Long said:


> If there are written rules that have been broken (not suggestions that have not been followed, but broken rules) take it up with your HOA. If there are no rules and you want some take it up with your HOA. But be prepared to lose. If there are as many "ugly installs" as you suggest the community as a whole are likely going to be against you.


With rules as "ignored" as you portray I wouldn't expect much, but contacting your HOA will do a lot more good than complaining here!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I know I'm going to hate myself for asking... but since it has been repeated a couple of times...

Who are "most of these people"?

I thought you were talking about a specific installation on one home... but you've talked about "most of these people" more than once.

Also...

How do you know they have not read the documents and that they do not know about the pre-wire?


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

James Long said:


> Well then, the path is clear ...
> 
> With rules as "ignored" as you portray I wouldn't expect much, but contacting your HOA will do a lot more good than complaining here!


Well, I wanted to see what people here would say and it's clear that people will do the very least they can get away with.
I am surprised that not even one person said they would have lifted a finger to make the coax run look any better or less visible from the street than what was shown in the photo, not just to comply with homeowners association rules, but not even for their own personal pride of ownership.
People should not need to be told to do these things, just like people should not have to be told to repaint their house when the paint wears and fades.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

web1b said:


> Well, I wanted to see what people here would say and it's clear that people will do the very least they can get away with.
> I am surprised that not even one person said they would have lifted a finger to make the coax run look any better or less visible from the street than what was shown in the photo, not just to comply with homeowners association rules, but not even for their own personal pride of ownership.
> People should not need to be told to do these things, just like people should not have to be told to repaint their house when the paint wears and fades.


Insults aside, I'm sure the professionals here perform their work as neatly as possible within the required code for their state and the budget of their customers. The satellite installer's responsibility has limits. Their job is to do a lasting install that they won't have to come back to in a few months to repair. There is nothing wrong with that install - other than you think it is ugly.

The responsibility comes back to the homeowner. If there are HOA rules to follow they need to tell the installer. That is who it sounds like your problem is with.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

BattleZone said:


> If I'd have done the install, if I'd have known about the pre-wire, and if the pre-wire would have worked, I'd have probably used it (there may be other factors at work, though).
> 
> But assuming I didn't, I'd have run the cable just like your picture, and I'd have charged extra to do otherwise. That "extra" would start at $40 and go up from there, depending on what was being done. And that doesn't include painting anything (satellite installers are not painters).


The cost excuses in this case seem bogus when they have cheaper TV alternatives already available to them. They can afford to pay for satellite service when the house is in range of free OTA and economy basic service is available from the local cable service for less than even the lowest-price monthly satellite package.
They have the desire to pay a subscription to view premium programming not available free over the air and not available on the lowest tier cable. That's a luxury that not everyone can afford right there. That's fine, but they should not then also claim the 15 or even 30 minutes extra labor to add probably less than 10 feet of extra cable length it would have taken to run the coax down from the overhang in the breezeway, down that adjacent side door and near the ground and ending at the same spot instead of up high where it can be seen from several houses away is an unreasonable unaffordable expense. 
If they want to or need to pinch pennies, free and cheaper TV is available without installing a dish. It's not as if a satellite dish is required to receive a TV signal at that location. It doesn't seem reasonable for them to have it both ways.

Most houses people imagine are far offset from the street and in that case this would have been pretty difficult to see, but these houses are almost sitting on the sidewalk and have very shallow front landscaping, so everything on the front is in plain sight even from down the street.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Again - not to belabor the point - coming here will not help this situation one little bit. Take it up your HOA if you think there is a rules violation.

I can tell you one thing - if you came up to my house, homeowner on homeowner, with this beligerent attitude - I would give 1 warning to get the hell off my property.

As far as people not seeming to care - it costs time money and material to do things like that. If nobody is saying anything , and I didn't know any better (i.e. about any HOA rules), I wouldn't do anything either.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

web1b said:


> The cost excuses in this case seem bogus when they have cheaper TV alternatives already available to them. They can afford to pay for satellite service when the house is in range of free OTA and economy basic service is available from the local cable service for less than even the lowest-price monthly satellite package.
> They have the desire to pay a subscription to view premium programming not available free over the air and not available on the lowest tier cable. That's a luxury that not everyone can afford right there. That's fine, but they should not then also claim the 15 or even 30 minutes extra labor to add probably less than 10 feet of extra cable length it would have taken to run the coax down from the overhang in the breezeway, down that adjacent side door and near the ground and ending at the same spot instead of up high where it can be seen from several houses away is an unreasonable unaffordable expense.


If this concerns you so much, why don't you walk across the street, introduce yourself to your neighbor, and offer to pay out of your own pocket for an installer to re-run the cables to your liking? I mean, it won't be much extra labor or cable cost, so it should be affordable for you.

I would be happy to re-do that install to your specs. My bill would be $200-250, would be up to code, and would hide the cables as you suggest.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

It appears to me from the picture that the cables go into a box that is designated for such cables. The box is right next to the meter, which is where the dish is grounded. In other words, it appears to be a proper installation. If you want to complain, make them move the electric meter also. It's really pretty ugly. It's people like this that give condo complexes a bad name. I have a house on the market here and get people coming by all the time saying they would never move into a deed restricted area because of all the busy bodies wanting to have a say on how other people live. It's good for me, not for people trying to sell their condos/townhouses. Wanna buy a house?  Obviously a busy body with way too much time on his hands.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Richard King said:


> It appears to me from the picture that the cables go into a box that is designated for such cables. The box is right next to the meter, which is where the dish is grounded. In other words, it appears to be a proper installation. If you want to complain, make them move the electric meter also. It's really pretty ugly. It's people like this that give condo complexes a bad name. I have a house on the market here and get people coming by all the time saying they would never move into a deed restricted area because of all the busy bodies wanting to have a say on how other people live. It's good for me, not for people trying to sell their condos/townhouses. Wanna buy a house?  Obviously a busy body with way too much time on his hands.


Yeah actually I was thinking that meter was a whole lot uglier and distracting than those wires. I personally don't see how those wires are any worse than the vents or for that matter the downspout pipe running down the side of the house. I just keep thinking: "Reaallly?! I mean come on Reeaaallly?! those wires really get under your skin that much?! You've got to be kidding me!" This person sounds like the woman my sister used to describe in her old neighborhood who'd go an evening "walk" with a notepad and a ruler and measure everyone's grass to see if it was above the HOA's approved level, no this isn't a joke, she really did this. And guess what? That neighborhood wasn't very satellite dish friendly either, imagine that.


----------



## web1b (May 12, 2010)

BattleZone said:


> If this concerns you so much, why don't you walk across the street, introduce yourself to your neighbor, and offer to pay out of your own pocket for an installer to re-run the cables to your liking? I mean, it won't be much extra labor or cable cost, so it should be affordable for you.
> 
> I would be happy to re-do that install to your specs. My bill would be $200-250, would be up to code, and would hide the cables as you suggest.


That makes no sense. Obviously ripping it out and redoing it would cost many times more in time and money than the additional time of doing it during the original installation.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

web1b said:


> That makes no sense. Obviously ripping it out and redoing it would cost many times more in time and money than the additional time of doing it during the original installation.


Makes perfect sense actually. YOU are the one who appears distressed by the install, so why not pay to have it re-done so it no longer bothers YOU?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

BattleZone took the words out of my mouth. (Or is it off my fingers?)

If the cable across the street burns your eyes (hey, it happens), then be a friendly neighbor and offer to pay to make it look great. Since everything else is already installed, we're just talking about running a new line and making a couple of new connections, so BZ's quote sounds right to me.

Curse the view or make the world a little bit better. Your choice.


web1b said:


> That makes no sense. Obviously ripping it out and redoing it would cost many times more in time and money than the additional time of doing it during the original installation.





BattleZone said:


> If this concerns you so much, why don't you walk across the street, introduce yourself to your neighbor, and offer to pay out of your own pocket for an installer to re-run the cables to your liking? I mean, it won't be much extra labor or cable cost, so it should be affordable for you.
> 
> I would be happy to re-do that install to your specs. My bill would be $200-250, would be up to code, and would hide the cables as you suggest.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

web1b said:


> That makes no sense. Obviously ripping it out and redoing it would cost many times more in time and money than the additional time of doing it during the original installation.


Right, but you weren't there during the original installation to make the offer, so now it's going to cost more. But this is obviously important to you, so...


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

elaclair said:


> Makes perfect sense actually. YOU are the one who appears distressed by the install, so why not pay to have it re-done so it no longer bothers YOU?


+1

Reminds me of my neighbor who hates that I have a pile of brush in my back yard. I can't see it so it does'nt bother me at all. They keep complaining and I keep telling them, if you want it gone you have my full permission to remove it yourself or pay someone to come get it. 3 years and counting, it's still there!!!!


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

web1b said:


> Many people used to complain about overreaching HOAs trying to ban satellite dish installations, but now I see the opposite. Our HOA got so scared of the FCC regulations that they aren't enforcing requirements that the installations be done neatly and in as inconspicuous as spot as is workable.
> Now people are getting lazy and cheap and installing dishes over their front door or not even attempting to hide the wiring.
> 
> Here is one example of bad wiring:
> ...


Here's what bothers me.

1.) That electrical meter and panel. Are you kidding me, what were they thinking?
2.) Are those dryer vents? Dam, that's ugly.
3.) Is that a downspout going right down the middle of the house??? Who thought that was a good idea?
4.) Do I see an address plaque just stuck randomly somewhere on that house instead of under the light in front where it would be more visible and look better?
5.) Knowing I have a neighbor that thinks my house is ugly because of 2 little cables when everything else looks like crap.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

-Draino- said:


> 4.) Do I see an address plaque just stuck randomly somewhere on that house instead of under the light in front where it would be more visible and look better?


The address plaque is back lit ... but yes, the other problems exist.

Perhaps those other problems are acceptable because they are uniformly ugly? Add the same problem to every house and it becomes the norm.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Well, the least they could do is slap a coat of paint on the cables so they match the house. After that, I agree, the cables certainly don't stand out more than that bastardized meter setup right in the front.


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

James Long said:


> The address plaque is back lit ... but yes, the other problems exist.
> 
> Perhaps those other problems are acceptable because they are uniformly ugly? Add the same problem to every house and it becomes the norm.


Ok I'll give you the back lit, but it still doesn't belong there!!!

But you make another good point, and that is that all the houses there are probably the same and are all UNIFORMLY ugly. Some people just get fixated on one thing and ignore what really are the multitude of problems with appearance.

I can tell you this much, if my contrator put a meter in front of my house like the one pictured, I would have made them move it. And the rain gutter.....please, if that don't stand out as the 2nd most ugly mistake of all those houses then I don't know what does!!! And by the way the gutter stands out way more than those little wires, after the meter, that's the next thing I saw and all I can say is RUFKM


----------

