Realty Reality: Federal Law Limits Restrictions On Satellite Dishes
by Bob Hunt


I suppose most Americans would agree on the value of a functioning democratic
society, and they would acknowledge the importance of the free flow of
information and ideas to enable such a society. There's probably less agreement
when we're talking about the right of neighbors in your condominium complex to
install satellite dish antennas on their balconies so that they can watch
boxing matches in Las Vegas. It's all part of the same set of issues, though,
and given the current state of the law, your neighbors will probably prevail.

More than a few homeowner associations (HOAs) and landlords seem to be unaware
of, or unmoved by, federal law governing satellite dishes and other antennas
designed to receive television signals. The rules were enacted as a result of
passage of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, and are found in Title
47, Section 1.4000, of the Code of Federal Regulations. They are sometimes
referred to by the F.C.C. and others simply as The Rule, or the OTARD (Over the
Air Reception Devices) Rule.

The rules are disarmingly simple. Within certain parameters, they prohibit an
ordinance, rule, or regulation that (1) "unreasonably delays or prevents
installation, maintenance, or use" of an antenna, or (2) "unreasonably
increases the cost of installation, maintenance or use" of an antenna, or (3)
"precludes reception or transmission of an acceptable quality signal."

Important qualifications have to do with the size and possible location of the
dish.


The rules apply to dishes that are one meter (39.37 inches) or less in
diameter. Antennas larger than that may be prohibited.

The rules apply to dishes that are installed "on property within the exclusive
use or control of an antenna user where the user has a direct or indirect
ownership or leasehold interest in the property." The reference to "leasehold
interest" means that this applies to tenants as well as owners.
The important part of the location provision is that the antenna must be
installed on property that is within the exclusive use and control of the user.
For example, in condominium complexes it is typical that balconies and patios
are "exclusive use" common area. But the roofs of condominium buildings are not
for the exclusive use of any one owner. Thus, an owner would have a right to
install a dish on his or her balcony, but not on the roof.

It is permitted to restrict the placement of antennas for safety reasons, but
the safety reasons must be clearly articulated in the rules, or the preambles
to the rules. They cannot be vague or overly general. Moreover, prohibitions
based on safety must equally apply to any other sorts of device or appliance. A
landlord could prohibit the installation of satellite dishes on fire escapes
for safety reasons, but he couldn't then allow the installation of an air
conditioner in the same location.

Similarly, antennas can be prohibited if it is "necessary to preserve an
historic district listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places." But other appliances and devices of similar or greater size
would have to be prohibited as well.

It is important to realize that aesthetic considerations are not available as
providing exceptions to the rules. Allegations about the diminishment of
property values will not override the federal regulations.

Restrictions on installation of antennas cannot have the effect of inhibiting
either the quality or quantity of signals received. A regulation cannot limit
installation of antennas to the attic, if that would result in lower quality
reception. Nor could an association prohibit antenna installation on the
grounds that the association provides (even free) cable service, if that would
restrict the number of channels available to the user.

Those who would prohibit the installation of satellite dishes should also know
that in any hearing or complaint that might result, the burden of proof is on
the entity setting the restrictions.

Published: December 28, 2004