Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I must say at the outset that I am hesitant to buy an antenna based on its
form-factor, but I'm forced by the local code to not display bare-element
type antennae on the mast.

As others have mentioned, this is mostly incorrect. The problem is in
the interpretation of the word "unreasonable", which might be
interpreted in a variety of ways. Without details on your situation,
I can't comment on this.

The FCC website has quite a bit of info on interpretation (from various
regulatory and legal actions) of what is and isn't unreasonable. Paint
color: reasonable, restrictions on location: unreasonable, restrictions
on form of antenna: unreasonable.




I do like the panel style for the reason that I can arrange 3 around a common
mast, aimed at remote cities, and join the outputs for increased coverage.

Mast? Welcome to "unreasonable". The FCC 47.1.4000 clause that
limits antenna installation has nothing to say about the supporting
structure. While the HOA may not be able to prevent you from
installing an antenna, they most certainly will have something to say
about the design and construction of the supporting structure. They
may also demand that it be installed by a licensed and insured
installer to protect themselves against subsequent litigation. I know
you don't want to hear about all this, but methinks you should at
least be warned before blundering onward.


Hah.. go look at the case of Stanley and Vera Holliday.. 5 masts 30 ft
high, multiple dishes and antenans...

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Ord...9/da992132.txt

an analysis at
http://dirt.umkc.edu//dd99/DD991025.htm

On Sat, 30 May 2009 17:28:18 -0700, Usual Suspect
wrote:

but I'm forced by the local code to not display bare-element
type antennae on the mast.

Seeing that you are forced into this, you will suffer by the same
degree. In comparisons to others in the field, it is good by
technical standards - for UHF (low VHF is just hopes and dreams). In
comparisons to others in the field, it is mediocre by cost standards.

So you suffer in cost and coverage (if you want VHF); and form factor
is always going to reign.

This should come as no surprise, certainly.

Or can recommend a similar style
antenna?

To suffer equally? As you really lead with your chin ("local code"
and hewing to not arguing that line) and don't offer any technical
specifics (where you live, what stations, what directions, what
distances, what bands, what frequencies, what height mast - in short
nothing) you might fill a 16x16x4 inch box with low denomination
bills, attach a cord and see how that works. If it doesn't, then send
the cash filled box to Winegard and ask that they fill the box with an
antenna in return for what they find inside. It may work equally
well.

Sorry for the lengthy answer that sums up to "maybe," short questions
often require even more elaboration to upgrade to "perhaps."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Usual Suspect" wrote in message
obal.net...
WInegard makes an antenna-in-a-box, the SS-1000 which lists ~4 db gain
over
the UHF TV range:

http://tinyurl.com/nqpzm2

I must say at the outset that I am hesitant to buy an antenna based on its
form-factor, but I'm forced by the local code to not display bare-element
type antennae on the mast.

I do like the panel style for the reason that I can arrange 3 around a
common
mast, aimed at remote cities, and join the outputs for increased coverage.

Has anyone experience with the SS-1000? Or can recommend a similar style
antenna?

Thanks.
--
Al, the usual


Hi Al

The gain of an antenna is related to its radiation pattern shape.
When the signal ois divided between several antennas, the "gain" of the
system is lowered.

For instance, when the "gain" of the antenna is the result of its
directuivity being restricted to 180 degrees azimuth, and the second
(identical) antenna is mounted to cover the other 180 degrees, the "gain of
the both" is 3 dB. lower than the gain of either antenna alone.

If the "remote cities" produce signals that are weak enough that you are
required to have antenna gain to receive them, you may need a switch that
disconnects all but one antenna for channels from that city.

Jerry KD6JDJ

On Sat, 30 May 2009 21:32:58 -0400, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article .net,
Usual Suspect wrote:

I must say at the outset that I am hesitant to buy an antenna based on
its form-factor, but I'm forced by the local code to not display
bare-element type antennae on the mast.

I don't believe the local code has any say in the matter.

But if you want to give up your rights...

I believe what Elmo says is correct.

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

which says, in part:

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.

In this ruling, the FCC pre-empted not only state and local government
regulations but HOA CCR's and landlords' restrictions on renters.

This came about because the broadcasters have a strong lobby, and they
didn't want widespread limitations on receiving their over-the-air or
satellite transmissions.

Rich Griffiths wrote:
Check out: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

...

In this ruling, the FCC pre-empted not only state and local government
regulations but HOA CCR's and landlords' restrictions on renters.

This came about because the broadcasters have a strong lobby, and they
didn't want widespread limitations on receiving their over-the-air or
satellite transmissions.

I would suggest it came about because cable operators have a strong
lobby and wanted to be deregulated. The FCC was reluctant to do so as
long as many apartment- and condo-dwellers had no choice but to
subscribe to cable. By ensuring these people have access to OTA TV you
ensure (at least in theory) that if deregulated cable rates get too
high, one can switch to OTA or satellite.

=========================================

Either way, Elmo is indeed correct.

--

Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article .net,
Usual Suspect wrote:

I must say at the outset that I am hesitant to buy an antenna based on its
form-factor, but I'm forced by the local code to not display bare-element
type antennae on the mast.

I don't believe the local code has any say in the matter.

But if you want to give up your rights...

This is true to a point. Local codes no problem, BUT in HOA territory
these rules do not necessarily apply. In most cases the HOAs have
modified their rules. The small direct satellite lobby started the
trend. Allowing these dishes they really had to include other TV antennas.

Radioguy wrote:
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article .net,
Usual Suspect wrote:

I must say at the outset that I am hesitant to buy an antenna based
on its form-factor, but I'm forced by the local code to not display
bare-element type antennae on the mast.

I don't believe the local code has any say in the matter.

But if you want to give up your rights...

This is true to a point. Local codes no problem, BUT in HOA territory
these rules do not necessarily apply. In most cases the HOAs have
modified their rules. The small direct satellite lobby started the
trend. Allowing these dishes they really had to include other TV antennas.
the FCC premption (aka OTARD rules) is the key thing here.. The HOA
can't really do anything if it fits in the FCC guidelines.. dishes 1
meter, OTA TV any size.

On Jun 2, 3:23*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
trend. *Allowing these dishes they really had to include other TV
antennas.

* the FCC premption (aka OTARD rules) is the key thing here.. The
HOA
can't really do anything if it fits in the FCC guidelines.. dishes
1
meter, OTA TV any size.

Nice thing about the Winegard SquareShooter is it resembles a dish
though my neighbors might think I don't have a clue how to aim it.
It's opposite where all the little dishes are aimed. They would have
laughed if they had seen the spectrum analyzer on the driveway next to
the car. I was on the roof with binoculars to see the screen.

G²

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote:
In article m,
Radioguy wrote:

I don't believe the local code has any say in the matter.

But if you want to give up your rights...

This is true to a point. Local codes no problem, BUT in HOA territory
these rules do not necessarily apply. In most cases the HOAs have
modified their rules.

The FCC is the entity here, not local communities.

And neither HOA nor local communities can override FCC in this matter.

You SHOULD know better, Elmo. There are some restrictions an HOA can
place on a homeowner, but they are few. Here is a link to the FCC site:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article .net,
Usual Suspect wrote:

I must say at the outset that I am hesitant to buy an antenna based on its
form-factor, but I'm forced by the local code to not display bare-element
type antennae on the mast.

I don't believe the local code has any say in the matter.

But if you want to give up your rights...

When I lived in Miami; there was a subdivision in Miami Lakes that had
banned TV antennas (before the FCC ruling). A homeowner had constructed
some form of "artwork" with a TV antenna in front of his house. It was
positioned toward the sky, unusable, but unmistakably a TV antenna!

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Use only Genuine Interocitor Parts" Tom Servo ;-P