Hey, there! Log in / Register
City Council cracks down on satellite dishes
By adamg on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 12:46pm
The City Council today approved an ordinance that will ban the installation of satellite dishes on the fronts of houses, on historic buildings and on fire escapes or other areas that could pose a public-safety risk.
Existing owners won't have to remove any offending dishes - unless they cancel their satellite-TV service.
City Councilors Sal LaMattina (East Boston, North End), who sponsored the measure, and Matt O'Malley (Jamaica Plain, West Roxbury) said the measure will improve neighborhood esthetics by reducing the number of mushroom-like dishes visible from the street and improve public safety by reducing the number of fire escapes and windows blocked by the devices.
The measure requires dish installers to file installation applications with the city Inspectional Services Department. Would-be dish owners petition ISD for permission to install a dish within public sight if they can prove that's the only location where their dishes would work.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 The new ordinance | 0 bytes |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
FCC anyone?
Methinks the city lawyer who ok'd this proposal should have called the FCC first.
Or perhaps they did and their rules only go up to, but do not cross, the line that the FCC set regarding placement of dishes. They reference the relevant FCC reg (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000), but permitting a satellite dish prior to installation does in fact sound like unreasonable delay to me.
Litigation history?
I don't believe this has yet been litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, whether or not the unelected FCC has the Constitutional authority to tell a state or municipality what it can or cannot regulate on the exterior of buildings.
The FCC works for the
The FCC works for the President. The President is elected.
Ok, strike "non-elected"
and you still have the Constitutional question of where the Federal government gets the power to override state and local law in this case. And if you cite the commerce clause, I'll puke.
Well, they get their power
Well, they get their power from Congress, actually. It's well established that the branches of the federal government can delegate their powers to subordinates, if and how they choose. Congress has delegated it's power under the commerce clause (sorry) to regulate telecommunications to the FCC. Mainly because it's too much work, and too technical for Cngress to want to do itself. They can step in and override the FCC whenever they like, however, and they could disband it too.
However, the reason that FCC rules — which are federal law — override state law (municipal law is a subset of state law) is the supremacy clause of the federal constitution, which puts itself at the top, federal law and treaties on an equal footing next, and states at the bottom. Complain to the framers of the Constitution if you like, but they knew what they were doing; the previous national government was underpowered compared to the states, and it just didn't work.
Are you suggesting that
Are you suggesting that Congress doesn't have the power under the commerce clause to regulate satellite television? Is there any better example of an activity that inherently involves interstate commerce than satellite TV transmission?
Of course they have the right to regulate satellite television
What they don't have is the right to regulate the exterior appearance of buildings.
What if the FCC said, "No state can charge sales tax on the sale of a television, or a radio, or an antenna, because that puts restrictions on people's access to the airwaves?" That would clearly be out of line, no?
Just because it pertains in some way to the radio spectrum, doesn't give the FCC carte blanche to override unrelated regulation.
Commerce clause, supremacy clause, etc.
It's well-established that the FCC has jurisdiction over the transmission and reception of all radio signals.
FCC has long had the power to regulate satellite dishes at their discretion. However, since the 1996 Telecom Act they have had a congressional mandate to do so.
Is it any wonder
Is is any wonder that cable is so stinking expensive in this town? This ordinance will only further consolidate the monopoly that already exists.
Typical Boston
City council knows better than the plebes!
God forbid you do something with your property, or you know - let low income demographics have alternatives to extremely expensive telecom duopolies.
Stupid.
Oh, right.
Because TV is a necessity.
It's not food, no
But go ahead and try to do a job search without the internet and phone of some sort these days.
Or...
try to give most households access to the Emergency Broadcast System without it. TV isn't a necessity, but access to locally televised signals is a right. Denying access to FCC-approved means of reception infringes upon that right, and doing so for dubious aesthetic purposes sets the city up for a court fight with satellite television providers and customers that it's going to lose.
The city's standing on principle here, but that principle is both wrongheaded and classist.
Eh....
I wouldn't worry about the folks from "Dish" - they'll sell just as they always have, only now, maybe (slight chance) they'll pay attention to where they put their dishes. On the other hand (the truth is somewhere in between), this sounds like a publicity stunt more than anything. Currently installed dishes are exempt? So, the dumpy looking street in East Boston with the houses sporting 6 or so of 'em right in the front will remain until somebody decides to terminate their service? And the city will know this happened HOW? Right, the city won't know, and the dishes will remain until the end of time. Still, it will sound good in a speech some day. "I care about the appearance of our neighborhoods, that's why I fought big industry to keep their hideous dishes out of sight!"
I don't have a TV. But I
I don't have a TV. But I think people who live in apartment buildings, and other buildings without a hidden place for a dish, should have the right to subscribe to satellite TV.
And while I strongly support historic preservation, I don't think dishes should be banned from historic buildings. They're not museums -- they're people's homes. Urban buildings have always had externally-visible technology.
(By the way, remember when city rooftops looked like this? http://www.digitaltv-weblog.com/wp-content/uploads... )
How much more effort, time, and taxpayer money
is going be wasted in the pursuit of somebody's pre-defined idea of what is considered asthetically acceptable? And just in case you forgot, asthetics is a completely subjective concept.
Unless these people who are so offended by the sight of - gasp - a satelite dish on the side of a person's private dwelling can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that throngs of tourists are choosing not to visit Boston because the mere sight of such devices on private dwellings so greatly offends them, then they have no right forcing such an idiotic and illogical regulaton on the taxpayers.
I usually don't like lawsuits, but in this case, I hope both the FCC and the satelite companies file massive ones against the City for this unnecessary bit of snobbish government attack on property rights.
Sparkling windows theory?
I don't know where there's actually been research on this with regards to something like satellite dishes, but plenty of behavioral research shows that enforcement of one regulation around caring how a place looks leads to people voluntarily starting to care about other similar issues.
Maybe if people are forced to realize that there are actual guidelines that you can't just have shit stuck to your house any old way you please, including shit that's not being used any longer, people will get the message that others DO care if the neighborhood looks shitty, and they'll start taking other steps to not have their houses look like shitholes.
Perhaps. But until there's conclusive research that
proves this theory beyond a reasonable doubt, then let's save everybody's time and the taxpayer's money and NOT create another unnecessary bureauracy that the average person is forced to wade through so - gasp - they can be allowed to watch TV in the privacy of their private dwelling.
And, as we're talking about neighborhood asthetics here (remember - highly subjective issue) this is exactly the type of matter that should be decided through an initative petition, and not a dictatorial edict from a government body like the City Council.
Dictatorial?
They're elected. If you don't like how your councilor voted, organize against him.
So exactly where did the
So exactly where did the notion that something "highly subjective" is immune from regulation by elected reps come from? One of the reasons for political organizations is to be able to deal, in a peaceful manner, with differences among citizens over what conduct should be regulated.
You're kidding, right?
Boston is horrendously ugly. It's filled with crappy housing that was never very nice even when it was new (triple deckers? revolting), not to mention thousands of burned out lots that the city owns but won't sell or develop. And this is what people are worried about? Insanity. If anyone in the city council was thinking clearly they could solve the housing problems, unemployment, and urban blight in one shot by fixing the city's zoning code to allow building on the thousands of vacant lots that are currently unbuildable for no clear reason.
Historic empty parcels
Paul Revere's horse took a dump in those empty parcels, or something. And that horse ate a lot of fiber!
Then George Washington slept there. Or retreated there.
Huh?
Horrendously ugly? Are you blind? Or is your standard of urban beauty limited to, I don't know--St. Germain, or Mayfair? I'd be really curious to hear your notion of a beautiful city--oh, and please let's include their improved version of the "crappy housing" that's usually needed to house...oh, I don't know--working class people? And while you're at it, please tell me where all these "burned out vacant lots" are. Unless you're writing from a time capsule from 1971, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I've got a plan
I'm going to install a 15' by 20' flat panel on the front of my house, run a wire from it to my TV set, call it an "antenna" to bypass any regulations, and sell billboard advertising space on it.
Much ado
Maybe I''m just a slob, but I never really saw the big deal about satellite dishes on the sides of houses. It doesn't bother me. And I live in East Boston, where they are said to be everywhere. It really is much ado about nothing.
A step back from uglification
Satellite dishes are houses look like architectural polyps.
Perspective
And I could just as easily say said houses themselves are architectural detritus and should all be mowed down in favor of brutalist and modernist concrete cubes because I find those look nicer. (and if I had the power I would do so because I do believe that)
There should be no rules and regulations regarding what one builds or tacks onto their property provided it passes inspections for structural soundness, etc.
Apples and Oranges
While many houses are not architectural wonders they do serve the purpose of providing shelter which by most definitions is a need. Satellite dishes serve the purpose of providing access to television; while some might consider television a need--when compared to housing it doesn't quite match up. Therefore even if the house with the satellite polyp is ugly it as least serves a good purpose. Further the luxury provided by satellite polyps is just as easily serve by cable television.
Is the front of a building subject to some standard set by a community or does an owner have 100% discretion of how the property appears? Does a community, whether through a commission or governing body, have the authority to set limits to what an owner may do with a property?
I believe that a community has a qualified obligation and responsibility to set standards that are both functional and aesthetic. If an architectural element qualifies as ugly, and it propagates like a malignant tumor, then a city council has a responsibility to at least try to step in and control if not end the malignancy.
OK then, as soon as the cable
OK then, as soon as the cable duopoly sets more reasonable rates and actually offers everything I want, then I'll lose my dish. Until then, shut your pie hole.
No no
This is not new. Backbay has been preventing this for years now. The local neighborhood commission already complains when people do this. Which is why no where in the BackBay or South End will you see dishes mounted on the front of people's houses.
I live in Chelsea, which is trying to pass a similar ordinance. While I agree that the city shouldn't dictate where these dishes are located, HOWEVER, there is need for it. Where I live, you have buildings with as many as 5-8 dishes mounted out front. It looks horrible. People are lazy and don't want to spend the money to upgrade to a dual LNB dish OR buy the multisplitter so you can have more than one or two boxes connected to a single dish. I personally think the city should make it so people have to take down existing dishes and move them. It really is an esthetic issue.
As far as the FCC is concerned, Cities are well within a right to do so. The law states that customers have the right to chose, but do not have the right to put the dish anywhere they please. There's guidelines about this. If where they are allowed to put dishes does not allow for them to get service, this is not the city's problem.
HOA and municipalities often
HOA and municipalities often try to place restrictions on where the dishes go but the FCC is crystal clear: if reception is not possible when the dish is placed where the HOA/municipality wants it, the homeowner/tenant may place the dish wherever it will get reception. Federal government trumps any rink dink HOA/city councilor any day.
What's the name of the city's legal counsel? I want to make sure never to hire him/her when they're in private practice.
Federal power
Yeah, Doesn't the Constitution say that all powers not explicitly delegated to the states and the people are reserved to the Federal Government?
Or something like that? Or maybe I have it backwards.
Go look up your Civics teachers from grade school and demand compensation for the time they wasted not teaching you about the American system of government.
Federal law trumps state law.
Federal law trumps state law. That's pretty clear. And in the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Do you think the FCC is unconstitutional?
I'll see your Supremacy
I'll see your Supremacy clause and raise you a tenth amendment.
From your wikipedia cite:
I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to preclude local or state regulation of the appearance of buildings, or of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, or any of the other shit the FCC has been pulling since the Reagan administration.
I don't think the FCC is unconstitutional, but on the other hand,
do you think the FCC would be within its constitutional powers if it were to start regulating the closing hours of bars in Boston, or, (more realistically) to prevent Massachusetts enforcing its ban on texting while driving, on the basis that radio is involved? I don't.
The FCC's attempt to preclude local or state law is an unconstitutional power grab against the public and in favor of corporate interests, and needs to be overturned.
They do regulate alcohol - effectively
Age 21 limit is technically at the state level but the Federal government holds the Federal highway funding hostage if they don't do it.
They could easily make the same kind of arrangement for just about anything else.
Not the same thing
I didn't ask about the Federal government in general regulating closing times, I asked about the FCC regulating closing times. After all, bars have TVs in them, so under the theory behind the 1996 communications act, that should give the FCC rights to overrule any local attempts to regulate bars in any way.
I know JCK has already
I know JCK has already replied but I suggest you go back to school before you vent on topics that you are clearly unschooled on. This is a clear cut case of the city overstepping their bounds. It's been upheld in courts time and time again that these FCC regulations trump anything a local group tries to impose on a renter/homeowner.
Since you didn't get the message the first time:
The HOA/municipality may place reasonable restrictions on where the dish can be placed. If you can get reception where they 'suggest/demand' then you are required to place the dish there. *HOWEVER*, if you can't get reception there, then you are completely within your rights to put the dish ANYWHERE on your property to get reception.
Next time, understand the topic before you mouth off.
I'm not an idiot
I understand what the FCC regs say, and I know that a bunch of courts have sided with the FCC and their broadcast industry masters against the people, but that does not mean the issue is resolved until the supreme court hears it.
It's a huge stretch, IMO, to say that because a dish receives radio waves, it's exempt from any regulation the state or municipality wants to place on what you can put on the outside of the house.
How do you feel about the FCC ruling that states have no right to set public safety standards for the amount of electromagnetic radiation to which people can be exposed?
How would you feel if the FCC stepped in and said "No state can prohibit texting while driving?"
Plenty of mainstream legal experts who are a lot better versed in constitutional law than either of us are, believe that this is a huge overreach by the FCC. Mine is not some crank, fringe, or idiot position.
Not an idiot, just an ass
You must've really been a treat to live next to during the advent of television. Shaking your fist at antennas, yelling things like "What, a Victrola's not good enough?" into the ether.
The FCC, for once, does something that promotes a competitive market and you're against it because it somehow makes old cookie-cutter Sears & Roebuck housing stock look aesthetically unpleasant or, at the very least, not up to the Village Green Preservation Society's standard?
Nope. That ruling sides with the people against aesthetes and cranks who would force consumers into a $120-a-month Comcast monopoly just so their poor, sensitive eyes aren't offended by a satellite dish.
Well, YO is wrong again. The airwaves are a public trust paid for with public tax dollars. Restriction of public access to those airwaves is not only outside the city's jurisdiction, but runs contrary to the function of representative governance.
multisplitters
I'd think multisplitters would be cheaper than dishes. Is the issue that the dish comes free with your service, but the multisplitter would be the customer's responsibility?
If so, the city should work with the satellite providers, to encourage them to install just one dish per building.
Eh....Part II
The people fretting about taxpayer time and money being "wasted" and about needless regulation miss the whole point. Not a penny will be "wasted" or even spent. It's pure P.R. and pure B.S. I'll admit the amount of time "working" on the bill is probably wasted money, but if it weren't that, there would be some other silly thing. Drive around both neighborhoods and you can see code violations right, left and center. None of 'em are enforced (or rarely so), and all of them, no doubt made nice campaign speeches. "I helped clean up the streets", "I helped to quiet the noise pollution" etc. None of which happened, but a bill was absolutely filed and passed.
Is this also going to target photovoltaics?
They're just as ugly.
Do these people also realize they're going to interfere with my SETI project?
Apparently a big part of the
Apparently a big part of the problem with satellite dishes is that they don't get removed when service is disconnected. The next subscriber just gets another dish and the old one doesn't go away. This is why the dishes are so prevalent in Boston's public housing projects. The installers are subcontractors and don't have any responsibility for old equipment. It makes sense to regulate these in historic districts, but it seems like overkill elsewhere in the city. More regulation of dishes just reinforces Comcast's monopoly status over TV and internet in the city.
Read and reply to the words of Boston City Councilors.
Read the Boston City Councilors' words, quote the words of the Councilors with your replies, feedback, comment, suggestions, questions. The stenographic record of this public meeting of Boston City Council can be requested at
http://www.cityofboston.gov/contact/?id=138
or email
city.council at cityofboston.gov
Folks with hearing loss and all with any interest can track Boston City Council better with the .sgstn stenograph stenonote record of the public meetings.
Notice. City Council Central Staff Research Director.
This is to provide notice of two meetings scheduled for the selection of the [Boston City Council] Central Staff Research Director.
http://www.cityofboston.gov/cityclerk/docs/SKMBT_4...
The [Boston City Council] Committee on Rules and Administration's Personnel SubCommittee will meet on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 1:30PM in the Curley Room on the fifth floor of City Hall. The subject of the meeting will be to interview applicants for the position of Central Staff Research Director and select finalists for the full Committee on Rules and Administration to interview. The applicants are: Michael Couton, Colin Moore, Michael Nichols, Devin Romanul.
The Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 10:30AM in the Atkins Room on the fifth floor of City Hall. The subject of the meeting will be to interview finalists for the position of Central Staff Research Director, and make a recommendation to the full Council for appointment to the position.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Murphy, Chair
Boston City Council
http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil
city.council at cityofboston.gov
1 City Hall Square 5th Floor
Boston MA 02201
Phone 617 635-3040
Fax 617 635-4203
Received
City Clerk's Office
2012 Jun 4P 3:41
Boston MA
Maureen E. Feeney, City Clerk
Boston City Hall Room 601
Boston MA 02201
[city seal] BOSTONIA. CONDITA A.D. 1630.
SICUT PATRIBUS SIT DEUS NOBIS.
CIVITATIS REGIMINE DONATA A.D. 1822.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_Bos...
Boston Founded in the Year of Our Lord 1630.
God Be with Us as He Was with Our Fathers
1 Kings viii 57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_College,_Perth
City Status Granted by the Authority of the State in the Year of Our Lord 1822