# 1999 FCC Rule?



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

It has been years since I have had to deal with a HOA saying dishes are not allowed. Is this rule still in effect? I am in a RV resort that has individual deeded lots that a small house can be built on. The owner's of the resort are now saying no new homes can have dishes installed. From what I remember the HOA or orwner can try to tell where you can or cannot install a dish, but ultimately they cannot stop you from installing a dish. I have a dish on my house, but a few of my neighbors are getting theirs built, so I told them I would check into this.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Still in effect - ok on your owned or controlled property

Search Results


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The "exclusive control" is the key. Read the results Nick linked or search for "OTARD".


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

Thanks - the resort has a new over-zealous real estate agent that wants to change the rules.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

reubenray said:


> Thanks - the resort has a new over-zealous real estate agent that wants to change the rules.


What he wants and what he has to allow are two different things.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If you own the lot, they can't stop you from putting up a dish or antenna that is less than 36" wide, so a Directv dish is fine. The overzealous agent probably knows the law but also knows most people either don't know the law or aren't willing to put up a fight over it.

Hard to believe anyone would try put rules like that in an RV resort? Are they only allowing the super RVs that cost half a million and up or something? Because when I think "RV resort" I certainly don't think high class place where a satellite dish is making it look bad


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

There are certainly some RV parks that lay claim to the "resort" name that shouldn't, and there are others that have very much earned the name, and charge accordingly for staying there. Some parks with deeded or leased sites that cater only to high end Class A motorhomes less than 10 years old that can easily cost northwards of $1 million may have buy-in prices that rival property prices in the best neighborhoods. Check out Bella Terra in Foley, AL. The lots currently available for resale range from about $65K up to $230K.

That said, I wonder what the park management in question thinks about the Winegard Trav'ler and similar automatic aiming full sized dishes that many high end and other motorhome owners have installed on the roof. Or the similar, slightly larger, automatic aiming satellite Internet dishes some have installed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What is the park in question seeing that is prompting them to change the rules? I can see where a slew of junky looking dishes could lead ownership to say enough is enough and want to make moves to improve the property for the benefit of all of their clients. I can also see where a new agent may have never set foot on the property and is making rules based on experiences elsewhere.

A dish installed on a motorhome would certainly be protected by OTARD. From the description of the resort, allowing people to build their own "small house" leads me to believe that the lot owner has exclusive control over the lot and could install a dish under 36" (or multiple dishes under 36", if needed to receive the package they subscribe to).

What people normally forget is the exceptions to OTARD ... dishes can be restricted on historically significant properties and can be limited as long as the limits to not significantly increase the cost of installing a dish. So a "back yards only" rule could be considered valid as long as a working dish could be installed without significant additional costs. Properties can also install common antenna systems to avoid having a multitude of dishes for the same company. But they can't install a common antenna that works for DIRECTV and force DISH subscribers to change to DIRECTV to get service.

The biggest exception to OTARD is non-controlled property. Places where the roof and outside walls of a home are defined as common property and are not under the exclusive control of the homeowner/renter. Grass areas that are shared among neighbors ... the patio or balcony may be under exclusive control, but not the yard. And even if you can put a dish on a balcony/patio, one may have trouble getting the cable to the receiver when wall penetrations are forbidden (and that rule is allowed under OTARD).

It does not sound like the resort in question fits any of the exceptions and a "no dishes" rule would not be valid. But OTARD does not guarantee any dish desired in any location desired.


----------



## reubenray (Jun 27, 2002)

The change is a new real estate agent. He is trying to rewrite the HOA's for his advantage. I would be very much surprised if he know anything about the FCC rule of 1999. It is still in the development/building stage and it has not been turned over the owner's yet. One of my neighbors is having a house being built and he commented that they could not have a dish. I have been the go to guy for wifi and satellite questions and they asked me. I have a dish as well as several other's on their houses.

This RV resort is not one that caters only to multi-million dollar coaches. It is right down the street from Bella Terra. It does have restrictions on age (not over 10 years old), lenght and it accepts only fifth wheel RV's, Class C and Class A motorhomes.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

HOA: A dictatorship that tells people what they can or cannot do with their property.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

There was loooong thread by Dart Vader dedicated to similar battle ...


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Rueben - check the link in my signature. You might want to print it out and give it to said real estate agent.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Make sure you put up a huge OTA antenna just for spite.


----------



## Claude A Greiner (Dec 8, 2018)

MysteryMan said:


> HOA: A dictatorship that tells people what they can or cannot do with their property.


That's why I'll never move to one

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrWindows (Oct 12, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> HOA: A dictatorship that tells people what they can or cannot do with their property.


No, the HOA is You! If you choose not to participate, then you deserve what you get. HOA's can be useful in maintaining property values and preventing your neighborhood from becoming a ghetto.
In this case, it sounds like the builder hasn't yet turned over control of the HOA to the homeowners, which usually happens at 75% buildout or whatever is called out in the HOA organizational docs. The homeowners, or in this case lot owners, would be justified in pushing back against the property manager if they are not adhering to the CC&R's filed with the county. Get them and read them.
Yes, I am on an HOA board, and I am one of the biggest advocates for homeowners, as I too have been on the receiving end of 'Nasty Grams' and violation fines. Engaging and participating in the governance of your HOA can go a long way to eliminating conflict and misunderstanding of the what and the why.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

MrWindows said:


> No, the HOA is You! If you choose not to participate, then you deserve what you get. HOA's can be useful in maintaining property values and preventing your neighborhood from becoming a ghetto.
> In this case, it sounds like the builder hasn't yet turned over control of the HOA to the homeowners, which usually happens at 75% buildout or whatever is called out in the HOA organizational docs. The homeowners, or in this case lot owners, would be justified in pushing back against the property manager if they are not adhering to the CC&R's filed with the county. Get them and read them.
> Yes, I am on an HOA board, and I am one of the biggest advocates for homeowners, as I too have been on the receiving end of 'Nasty Grams' and violation fines. Engaging and participating in the governance of your HOA can go a long way to eliminating conflict and misunderstanding of the what and the why.


Where I live we don't need a HOA to prevent undesirables from turning our neighborhoods into ghettos. Local government and local law enforcement takes care of that. It's been that way where I live since the early part of the last century. Hence no need for a HOA because the residents are all on the same sheet of music when it comes to maintaining our property values.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MrWindows said:


> No, the HOA is You! If you choose not to participate, then you deserve what you get.


On a good day the HOA is a consensus of the owners. If your opinion does not agree with the consensus then you lose, regardless of your level of participation.

I live in a subdivision with deed restrictions instead of an active HOA so I have the benefit of the written rules that protect my property from a neighbor that wants to violate the deed restriction. But I don't have the benefit of a process to change those rules or to enforce the rules without personal lawsuits. We are now in the third generation of owners and many don't know of the deed restrictions (I didn't for several years after my purchase) and don't feel bound by them. Fortunately no one has made changes that made the neighborhood "junky".

I could call code enforcement if there is a violation of zoning or other laws. But they are more likely to enforce zoning that applies to ALL properties in that category than respect deed restrictions. In one area (outside my subdivision) where neighbors tried to use deed restrictions to prevent a zoning change the zoning board and council clearly stated that they would not enforce deed restrictions.


----------



## MrWindows (Oct 12, 2010)

In some areas you may not have a choice whether to live in an HOA or not, unless you decide to live outside municipal boundaries. Here in Arizona, and in many other places, HOAs have taken over many of the responsibilities that cities used to take care of. Our HOA contracts with the refuse provider and maintains the common area landscaping and park areas. When I was growing up in California, the city had numerous parks scattered around, and then the master-planned communities started building, and they took over that function, providing parks, pools and tennis courts, etc. as amenities to the homeowners. Many also had private streets (ours does not). Municipalities in many areas are requiring developers to submit master-planned community PADs, including planning all of the utility runs, consolidate mailbox locations, etc. That is the case here. Are there areas without HOAs? Sure, but they are becoming fewer and farther between. The bottom line is that HOAs are not the enemy, and they can be a very good thing. Your responsibility as a homeowner and member if an HOA is to not be apathetic and non-participatory in the governance of your community, and then ***** and moan about the HOA Nazis.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

reubenray said:


> deal with a HOA saying dishes are not allowed. Is this rule still in effect?





MrWindows said:


> ***** and moan about the HOA Nazis.


then what you would tell to TS ?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

P Smith said:


> then what you would tell to TS ?


Never purchase property controlled by a HOA.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

too late, he is diving in a battle for sat dish


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MrWindows said:


> In some areas you may not have a choice whether to live in an HOA or not, unless you decide to live outside municipal boundaries.


HOAs are not limited to "within city limits". Any development can have one. HOAs can vary from "full service" organizations that maintain common property (mow shared lawns, paint homes, provide shared recreational areas, maintain private streets, provide cable TV and internet) to no dues no services barely know they exist associations. There is no cookie cutter description that applies to all HOAs, other than the obvious.



MrWindows said:


> The bottom line is that HOAs are not the enemy, and they can be a very good thing. Your responsibility as a homeowner and member if an HOA is to not be apathetic and non-participatory in the governance of your community, and then ***** and moan about the HOA Nazis.


So blame the HOA member for any problems the HOA causes? Probably not the worst idea I have seen. Perhaps the strict rules that are now in conflict were not known when the home was purchased. Perhaps the restrictions were skimmed over instead of read when the contract was signed. A little "personal responsibility" for getting oneself into a mess is warranted. But HOAs should not be breaking the law.

OTARD (the 1999 rules) is not a carte blanc that allows people to put up any dish (under one meter) anyplace at any time. There are restrictions to the dishes and antennas protected by OTARD. The biggest one I see people forget is that the dish has to be on exclusive control property. Antennas on common property (including roofs, outside walls and lawns) are not protected. So the first thing I'd do is pull out the HOA rules and see what restrictions are actually present on antennas and what property is considered exclusive control. The HOA may allow antennas beyond the protection of OTARD ... but assuming all antennas are protected is incorrect. If the HOA is banning antennas in locations protected by OTARD then a lawyer or an FCC complaint might be needed - after talking with the HOA.

Life isn't a sitcom. Not everyone can object to their HOA, get involved to the point of being elected president then use their powers to rewrite the rules to match their whims (as seen on TV).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

and we have long thread, where is LV fought with HOA for his sat dish


----------

