Subject: Re: And The Loser Is...
Full headers:
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: And The Loser Is...
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:25:56 -0500
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
<> <p5ac9e$7fi$>
<> <p5asj3$ti0$>
<> <070220181632253766%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <>
<> <080220181457410991%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<> <080220181548414614%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <080220181548414614%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Bytes: 2626
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2395267323
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2/8/2018 3:48 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<>, PeterN
> <"peter,newdelete"> wrote:
>>>> OTA would not work for me. Indoor reception is terrible, and use of an
>>>> outdoor antenna is not permitted.
>>> yes it is.
>>> <
>>> and-satellite-dishes>
>>>     Under the OTARD rules, an owner or a tenant has the right to install
>>>     an antenna on property that he owns or over which he has exclusive
>>>     use or control. This includes single family homes, condominiums,
>>>     cooperatives, townhomes and manufactured homes.
>> What is written is one thing. Practicality is something else. I am not
>> about to spend time in litigation, creating a brouhaha with my
>> neighbors, to save a few bucks. There is much more to life. e.g. It cost
>> us about $50,000 in damages, plus legal fees, because our board would
>> not permit a companion dog, which is expressly permitted under the ADA.
>> The US attorney handled the litigation for the woman.
> put an antenna *inside* your apartment, in window. done.

I did say that would give bad reception.