Neighbor taking satellite signal??

[srenker]

If a CSR says it's illegal (and is reading official information to determine that) then it probably means it's against D* terms of service. And I imagine it's against National Electrical Code, too, but I am nowhere close to being an electrician or electrical engineer. (Edit: given that it's bridging electrical systems between two different buildings without appropriate isolation equipment)

 

[bmr4242]

A couple people have asked for pictures. It is dark out now but I will see what I can get tomorrow for all of those who are curious.

 

[boavista]

I'd love to see pictures of this one lol..

But Back to topic, IMO you were to nice. No Means NO!! I would have cut what ever wires were going from YOUR DISH to your neighbor and brought them to his door Telling him to call directv if he didn't know what just happened. We dont know if its the installers fault or the Neighbors fault, But if i were you and i found out who's idea it was.. boy would i give them a piece of my mind for First of all Going on MY PROPERTY when im not home and on top of it Messing with something I OWN and I PAID FOR. Simple as that. Call me mean or a jerk, but just like the op said what if he wanted to add another receiver, or what if he wanted to jump ship to another provider? then he'd have this big fiasco with the neighbor for something that shouldn't have happened to begin with.

 

[fanquon]

One thing need to be make sure, if you got the system over two years or so or before the rented deal, thats your property, if not its DTV property. You will not have the full right to use the equipment if the system is being rented or leased.

 

[Aurora]

One thing need to be make sure, if you got the system over two years or so or before the rented deal, thats your property, if not its DTV property. You will not have the full right to use the equipment if the system is being rented or leased.

The OP is required to take the dish with when he moves out per the apartment lease

 

[JosephB]

The dish is not leased like the receivers, either. Directv wants you to leave the dish so that future residents can subscribe easily, but they cannot require you to leave it. The dish is the property of the subscriber.

 

[Stargazer]

If the Dish is the property of the subscriber then I would cut the dang wire and tell them to screw themselves unless they want to pay you a rental fee to use your dish. If it was a friend that I talked to regularly then that would be different, I'd just let him use it but let him know that when you go, so does the dish. What if you wanted an upgrade to the dish to get HD locals? He would have to have receivers that are compatable to the dish and/or have the right dish selected on his receiver.

 

[JosephB]

I think cutting the cable and being a jerk about it is probably the wrong way to go about it. First, I'd find out exactly what happened. We still haven't heard from the OP whether or not the landlord asked the installer to do this or what. I'd sit down and in a mature, adult way tell those involved the issues with sharing a dish (who is responsible when it breaks, who is responsible for costs of a switch if either wants to install additional equipment, who is responsible for removing the dish should one or both tenants move)

 

[spaceghost]

Yes, I do want you to scan and post a copy. In a previous post you used the word legally referring to this. That means to me that there is a specific law.

Im going to backtrack on the grounds simply because we do not know the specifics. I've been making general assumptions.

Two thoughts:

First - Regarding whether its commons area or not is determined by the owners and the establishment of the lease. I usually use the general rule of thumb with condominiums, but while apartments can be very similar, they can also be very different depending on the type of apartments. A multiplex apartment complex is vastly different from a basement apartment. If a neighbor can stand right next to that dish and not get in trouble for trespassing, its highly likely its a commons area.

Second - Who owns the dish? After reading up, its a VERY tricky question. Keep in mind this is akin to driving 66MPH in a 65MPH. Nobody cares until someone has something to lose/gain.

There are four "test" rules, with the first being the major part. Keep in mind this is not specifically for dishes, but anything that gets attached to a piece of propety. (word for word)

1) Intention of the annexor: Did the person who installed the item intend it to remain permanent or to be removed? (The courts look at the objective evidence of the party's intent, not his or her subjective intent. In other words, the courts look at the facts surrounding the situation and determine what a reasonable person would have intended by them.)

2)Relationship of the parties: Is the person making the attachment an owner or a tenant? It is presumed that an owner intends a permant attachment (the item becomes a fixture), while a tenant intends a temporary attachemnt (the item remains personal property). The greater the legal relationshp the annexor has to the real property, the greater the likelihood the item will be declared a fixture.

3) Method of annexation: How permantly was the item attached? Can it be removed without causing damage?

4) Adaption to real estate: Has either the tiem or the peroperty been tailored to facilitate working together? Has it been customized or built in to the property?

Looking at number 1, and it being the primary decider. Keyword being "the person who installed it" makes it very tricky. DirecTV and the tech intend on it being permant.(tripods excluded of course). In this case, the tenant and owner do not. If its in the lease, then there is no debate.

2 - Since were talking about Dish's, and if the person owns the property, then its very indicative that it belongs to the property. As far as a tenant, Dish/DirecTV once again usually intends this to be permant.

3 - Once again debateable. No doubt if you remove a dish that has been bolted to a roof, there will be damage remaining. By concreting something in the ground, you are indicating that you do not want it moved, but on the other hand, its just one pole and it can be removed w/out damage

4 - As far as adaptation, yes since the cables run through out the building.

This post is all about food for though. As we can see, there is no clear cut answer. These same general rules will most likely apply in some form or fashion to other states.

 

[jwgreen68]

Im going to backtrack on the grounds simply because we do not know the specifics. I've been making general assumptions.

Two thoughts:

First - Regarding whether its commons area or not is determined by the owners and the establishment of the lease. I usually use the general rule of thumb with condominiums, but while apartments can be very similar, they can also be very different depending on the type of apartments. A multiplex apartment complex is vastly different from a basement apartment. If a neighbor can stand right next to that dish and not get in trouble for trespassing, its highly likely its a commons area.

Second - Who owns the dish? After reading up, its a VERY tricky question. Keep in mind this is akin to driving 66MPH in a 65MPH. Nobody cares until someone has something to lose/gain.

There are four "test" rules, with the first being the major part. Keep in mind this is not specifically for dishes, but anything that gets attached to a piece of propety. (word for word)


Looking at number 1, and it being the primary decider. Keyword being "the person who installed it" makes it very tricky. DirecTV and the tech intend on it being permant.(tripods excluded of course). In this case, the tenant and owner do not. If its in the lease, then there is no debate.

2 - Since were talking about Dish's, and if the person owns the property, then its very indicative that it belongs to the property. As far as a tenant, Dish/DirecTV once again usually intends this to be permant.

3 - Once again debateable. No doubt if you remove a dish that has been bolted to a roof, there will be damage remaining. By concreting something in the ground, you are indicating that you do not want it moved, but on the other hand, its just one pole and it can be removed w/out damage

4 - As far as adaptation, yes since the cables run through out the building.

This post is all about food for though. As we can see, there is no clear cut answer. These same general rules will most likely apply in some form or fashion to other states.

:up:up Now, that was well thought out! Good job!:up:up

 

[Sammy033]

In this situation if lightning strikes the dish and blows out the neighbors receiver, who is liable for its repair if it is a purchased unit? Im sure under such circumstances the idea of 'ownership' might become a hot potato.

 

[JosephB]

Im going to backtrack on the grounds simply because we do not know the specifics. I've been making general assumptions.

Two thoughts:

First - Regarding whether its commons area or not is determined by the owners and the establishment of the lease. I usually use the general rule of thumb with condominiums, but while apartments can be very similar, they can also be very different depending on the type of apartments. A multiplex apartment complex is vastly different from a basement apartment. If a neighbor can stand right next to that dish and not get in trouble for trespassing, its highly likely its a commons area.

Second - Who owns the dish? After reading up, its a VERY tricky question. Keep in mind this is akin to driving 66MPH in a 65MPH. Nobody cares until someone has something to lose/gain.

There are four "test" rules, with the first being the major part. Keep in mind this is not specifically for dishes, but anything that gets attached to a piece of propety. (word for word)


Looking at number 1, and it being the primary decider. Keyword being "the person who installed it" makes it very tricky. DirecTV and the tech intend on it being permant.(tripods excluded of course). In this case, the tenant and owner do not. If its in the lease, then there is no debate.

2 - Since were talking about Dish's, and if the person owns the property, then its very indicative that it belongs to the property. As far as a tenant, Dish/DirecTV once again usually intends this to be permant.

3 - Once again debateable. No doubt if you remove a dish that has been bolted to a roof, there will be damage remaining. By concreting something in the ground, you are indicating that you do not want it moved, but on the other hand, its just one pole and it can be removed w/out damage

4 - As far as adaptation, yes since the cables run through out the building.

This post is all about food for though. As we can see, there is no clear cut answer. These same general rules will most likely apply in some form or fashion to other states.

Since the OP has stated multiple times that he has to take the dish with him when he leaves, I think it's very clear. From DirecTV's perspective it's the property of the subscriber. If something happened to it and they had to come out and work on it, the subscriber would have to pay for it. The landlord wants him to take it with him, so obviously the landlord does not presume any ownership.

The problem comes from when more than one tenant is using it. First there is the safety issue of bridging two electrical systems with what is likely not a properly grounded system. Second, in a MDU environment where the landlord provides a common antenna for EVERYONE, the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repair of the dish. In this case, the original subscriber (the OP) is responsible for it when he's the only one connected. But, who's responsible now that there are two people connected? Who's to prevent the OP from taking the dish with him? Legally it is his property. Is the neighbor responsible if he breaks it somehow? All of these issues should have been worked out before it was setup. In practice if there was any problems with the dish DirecTV would probably charge whoever called in the trouble call. Would the two neighbors split the cost? Should one of them subscribe to the protection plan and the other reimburse? There's no rule set in stone for this, so really it would have to be an agreement between the parties.

 

[Andrewwski]

I prefer to see apartments with one common dish and feeds to each apartment...it kills me to see millions of dishes scattered across balconies.

If, however, the dish is in your exclusive area, then I agree, they shouldn't use it to feed someone else.

Pictures would definitely indicate whether or not it's a common area.

 

[JAG72]

The one thing that I have learned from this thread is to not p@#$ off the members around here.

 

[Aurora]

Since the OP has stated multiple times that he has to take the dish with him when he leaves, I think it's very clear. From DirecTV's perspective it's the property of the subscriber. If something happened to it and they had to come out and work on it, the subscriber would have to pay for it. The landlord wants him to take it with him, so obviously the landlord does not presume any ownership.

The problem comes from when more than one tenant is using it. First there is the safety issue of bridging two electrical systems with what is likely not a properly grounded system. Second, in a MDU environment where the landlord provides a common antenna for EVERYONE, the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repair of the dish. In this case, the original subscriber (the OP) is responsible for it when he's the only one connected. But, who's responsible now that there are two people connected? Who's to prevent the OP from taking the dish with him? Legally it is his property. Is the neighbor responsible if he breaks it somehow? All of these issues should have been worked out before it was setup. In practice if there was any problems with the dish DirecTV would probably charge whoever called in the trouble call. Would the two neighbors split the cost? Should one of them subscribe to the protection plan and the other reimburse? There's no rule set in stone for this, so really it would have to be an agreement between the parties.

I couldn't agree more

 

[spaceghost]

The problem comes from when more than one tenant is using it. First there is the safety issue of bridging two electrical systems with what is likely not a properly grounded system. Second, in a MDU environment where the landlord provides a common antenna for EVERYONE, the landlord is responsible for maintenance and repair of the dish. In this case, the original subscriber (the OP) is responsible for it when he's the only one connected. But, who's responsible now that there are two people connected? Who's to prevent the OP from taking the dish with him? Legally it is his property. Is the neighbor responsible if he breaks it somehow? All of these issues should have been worked out before it was setup. In practice if there was any problems with the dish DirecTV would probably charge whoever called in the trouble call. Would the two neighbors split the cost? Should one of them subscribe to the protection plan and the other reimburse? There's no rule set in stone for this, so really it would have to be an agreement between the parties.

As far as safety issues, you're telling me its unsafe to use cable TV? Or if an MDU uses a headend? Grounding is more about protecting the equipment. There are lots of threads on this issue.

Sharing a dish does not automatically constitute responsibility to the apartment complex. There are pro's and cons to this practice.

If a dish is in a commons area, then it belongs to everyone, hence the word "commons area". In multiplex buildings, the commons areas are usually everywhere but whats inside your apartment and your immediate porch/balcony, ect ...

A dish legally belongs to the real estate its attached to. If the owner chooses to forgo ownership to the leasee, then so be it. If I go live with mom and dad and I have the dish bolted to their porch, then mom and dad legally own it. Ownership of the dish is not necessarily determined by the subscriber.

 

[JosephB]

As far as safety issues, you're telling me its unsafe to use cable TV? Or if an MDU uses a headend? Grounding is more about protecting the equipment. There are lots of threads on this issue.

Sharing a dish does not automatically constitute responsibility to the apartment complex. There are pro's and cons to this practice.

If a dish is in a commons area, then it belongs to everyone, hence the word "commons area". In multiplex buildings, the commons areas are usually everywhere but whats inside your apartment and your immediate porch/balcony, ect ...

A dish legally belongs to the real estate its attached to. If the owner chooses to forgo ownership to the leasee, then so be it. If I go live with mom and dad and I have the dish bolted to their porch, then mom and dad legally own it. Ownership of the dish is not necessarily determined by the subscriber.

The location of an item does not decide ownership. Ownership is determined by who paid for it. If I put my bike in the common area (breezeway), does that make the bike the property of everyone in the complex? No.

 

[Andrewwski]

But you're not permanently attaching the bike. The way I always understood it, if something is attached to the building or structure, then it essentially becomes part of it, unless specifically excluded by the contract.

Thus, if you hang a ceiling fan in your apartment, that fan stays when you leave.

Or if you're selling a house with a wall-mounted TV, that TV stays when you leave. Unless you write it off as an exclusion.

 

[NotMe546]

A good rule is if someone steals from you and you know who that person is you break him in two, end of problem. If you can't do it that's why I have friends!!!

 

[jwgreen68]

A good rule is if someone steals from you and you know who that person is you break him in two, end of problem. If you can't do it that's why I have friends!!!

That's the kind of thinking that gets people killed over petty things. You should rethink the way you handle problems and enter anger management classes.