Access to a Satellite Dish: EU says every individual must have that opportunity

An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last week,
without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level to be as
unobtrusive as possible.

I have read elsewhere the following:
"Tell them to go away, you are having a dish":
EU statement:
"GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND
49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF SATELLITE DISHES"
"By virtue of the principles of the free movement of goods (Articles 28 to
30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles 49 et seq. EC, as
interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
satellite dish must have that opportunity."
"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite dishes
without infringing the right to satellite reception of the individuals
concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
"ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
having one."

Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.

When we replace our dishes, how can we best impress it upon the management
company that they cannot ban us from having a dish, and who is the best
person or organisation to approach to back us up on the issue?

"Stephen" wrote in message
...
An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last week,
without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level to be as
unobtrusive as possible.

I have read elsewhere the following:
"Tell them to go away, you are having a dish":
EU statement:
"GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28
AND
49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF SATELLITE DISHES"
"By virtue of the principles of the free movement of goods (Articles 28 to
30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles 49 et seq. EC, as
interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
satellite dish must have that opportunity."
"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
dishes
without infringing the right to satellite reception of the individuals
concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
"ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
having one."

Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.

When we replace our dishes, how can we best impress it upon the management
company that they cannot ban us from having a dish, and who is the best
person or organisation to approach to back us up on the issue?




I would not replace the dishes but first research that statement a little
and then all of you send letters pointing out the statement and asking how
the management intend replace your lost access to satellite.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

In article , Stephen
wrote:
An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last
week, without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level
to be as unobtrusive as possible.

I have read elsewhere the following: "Tell them to go away, you are
having a dish": EU statement: "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF
SATELLITE DISHES" "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of
goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles
49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to
have access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity."
"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
dishes without infringing the right to satellite reception of the
individuals concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
"ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
having one."

Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.


the EU item is for the benefit of planners. It is is up to the owners of
property to make their own decisions. If they don't want dishes, that's
their decision. Mind you, some 40 years ago, magistrates in Exeter decided
that the local council, as housing providers, could not ban outside
aerials. If only the council had appealed, this would have become case law.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 14/05/2011 09:10, charles wrote:
In , Stephen
wrote:
An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last
week, without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level
to be as unobtrusive as possible.
I have read elsewhere the following: "Tell them to go away, you are
having a dish": EU statement: "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF
SATELLITE DISHES" "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of
goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles
49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to
have access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity."
"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
dishes without infringing the right to satellite reception of the
individuals concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
"ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
having one."
Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.

the EU item is for the benefit of planners. It is is up to the owners of
property to make their own decisions. If they don't want dishes, that's
their decision. Mind you, some 40 years ago, magistrates in Exeter decided
that the local council, as housing providers, could not ban outside
aerials. If only the council had appealed, this would have become case law.

Maybe there was an infringement in having the dish but it is criminal
damage to cut them down without notice. I suggest a visit to the police
or a solicitor is in order.

On Sat, 14 May 2011 09:34:42 +0100, Gary put finger to keyboard and typed:

On 14/05/2011 09:10, charles wrote:
In , Stephen
wrote:
An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last
week, without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level
to be as unobtrusive as possible.
I have read elsewhere the following: "Tell them to go away, you are
having a dish": EU statement: "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF
SATELLITE DISHES" "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of
goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles
49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to
have access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity."
"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
dishes without infringing the right to satellite reception of the
individuals concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
"ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
having one."
Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.

the EU item is for the benefit of planners. It is is up to the owners of
property to make their own decisions. If they don't want dishes, that's
their decision. Mind you, some 40 years ago, magistrates in Exeter decided
that the local council, as housing providers, could not ban outside
aerials. If only the council had appealed, this would have become case law.

Maybe there was an infringement in having the dish but it is criminal
damage to cut them down without notice. I suggest a visit to the police
or a solicitor is in order.

Agreed. Issuing a notice to leasholders to remove the dishes, with the
threat that the management company will take action themselves if they
aren't gone by a certain time, would be legal. But simply removing them is
criminal damage and, if the dishes haven't been returned to the owners,
theft. I would go to the police immediately.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Stephen wrote:

Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
satellite dish must have that opportunity."

Having access to, is not the same as owning, or having the right to
install. To the extent that this even applies to landlords, or has been
ratified in the UK (the fact that it is not mentioned on the digitaluk
site, at the same time as warning against restrictions, suggests it may
not apply) this would be satisfied by a communal dish and IRS.

"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite dishes
without infringing the right to satellite reception of the individuals
concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."

At the planning level, this is already satisfied by making the
installation of up to two aerials per low rise block, subject to size
limits, a permitted development (four for higher rise). I don't know
how many blocks the 10 aerials, in this case, were spread over, and how
many terrestrial aerials already existed.


When we replace our dishes, how can we best impress it upon the management
company that they cannot ban us from having a dish, and who is the best
person or organisation to approach to back us up on the issue?

Firstly, one important consideration. The purpose of this ruling is to
give all broadcasters full access to the market - EEC legislation is
about level playing fields for businesses - its about giving consumers
the right to be a market for businesses, not directly about benefits to
consumers. As such, when Sky bundles installation as a loss leader,
they are actually trying to defeat the aims of the EEC, because they are
trying to ensure that the consumer only uses Sky. (I wonder if the EEC
is considering outlawing this.)

The right way to go about this is to propose to fund an integrated
reception system that will serve all current and future leaseholders,
and probably cover as many satellite positions as reasonably possible
with current technology (about 4). Consider planning, maintenance, and
decommissioning costs.

Sky's advertising to landlords tends to be on the basis of give us a
ring and we will do the hard sell on the phone (i.e. you cannot find
proper Ts and Cs on their web site), so I'm not sure how far they can
bend their own rules, but officially, their blocks of flats service is
designed as only for Sky subscribers and tries to lock people into Sky.
It is possible that they would subsidise their proportion of a
comprehensive system, but that would probably be a local, commercial
decision.

As such, expect to have to pay the real, up front, cost of the
installation, and also to have to pay to give access to those people who
don't want to make use of that access in the short term. Also expect
rather few people to actually put their money where their mouth is.
We've had zero response to a consultation on DSO options, from those who
would have to pay.

It is worth noting that private landlords, including residents' managing
companies, generally have no authority to go beyond like for like when
funding from the service charges, and whilst social landlords often have
leases that allow service charges to pay for improvements, a lot of
resentment has been created by charging people would don't want an IRS
or its installation.

The only UK legislation that I am aware of that gives universal access
rights to telecoms services only applies to internal wiring, and has a
minimum lease requirement (2 years?).

Mark Goodge wrote:


Agreed. Issuing a notice to leasholders to remove the dishes, with the
threat that the management company will take action themselves if they
aren't gone by a certain time, would be legal. But simply removing them is
criminal damage and, if the dishes haven't been returned to the owners,
theft. I would go to the police immediately.

Although expect the landlord to counter claim for criminal damage to the
building structure and for the costs of removal. In practice, the
damage to the satellite system is unlikely to exceed the single figures,
for a cut cable or removing self almalgamating tape. That to the wall
may not even be economically repairable.

In practice, though, I suspect that there was a warning. If 10 dishes
have accumulate, I suspect there have been many warnings.

Also, theft requires an element of dishonesty. As I understand it,
failing to return the dishes would be Conversion, a civil wrong.

IANAL

In article , charles
scribeth thus
In article , Stephen
wrote:
An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last
week, without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level
to be as unobtrusive as possible.

I have read elsewhere the following: "Tell them to go away, you are
having a dish": EU statement: "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF
GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF
SATELLITE DISHES" "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of
goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles
49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to
have access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity."
"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
dishes without infringing the right to satellite reception of the
individuals concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
"ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
having one."

Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.


the EU item is for the benefit of planners. It is is up to the owners of
property to make their own decisions. If they don't want dishes, that's
their decision. Mind you, some 40 years ago, magistrates in Exeter decided
that the local council, as housing providers, could not ban outside
aerials. If only the council had appealed, this would have become case law.


Ho Humm!... dear olde UK again and crap UK stylee management.

Why should a satellite dish be considered any less worthy than a Thelves
"bling" aerial?. Course over sur le continent it's just another way of
receiving TV..

And why didn't the "management" tell and consult with the flat dwellers
before they did this?.

After having a bit of experience with these outfits they IMHO are in the
same league as Car Parking Clampers;!.........

--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
David Woolley wrote:

its about giving consumers
the right to be a market for businesses, not directly about benefits to
consumers.

And for the business of selling advertising, viewers are not even
the market - they're the product.

-- Richard

David Woolley wrote:
Stephen wrote:

Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
satellite dish must have that opportunity."

Having access to, is not the same as owning, or having the right to
install. To the extent that this even applies to landlords, or has been
ratified in the UK (the fact that it is not mentioned on the digitaluk
site, at the same time as warning against restrictions, suggests it may
not apply) this would be satisfied by a communal dish and IRS.
The issue arises that normal communal TV systems don't give access to
the foreign channels many immigrants want.

The right way to go about this is to propose to fund an integrated
reception system that will serve all current and future leaseholders,
and probably cover as many satellite positions as reasonably possible
with current technology (about 4). Consider planning, maintenance, and
decommissioning costs.
The money isn't there to put a multisatellite system into a block with
only a minority of immigrants. The other residents won't hear of it.
So most management agents attempt to ban 28E dishes on the grounds that
the system provides the service (but often with only one feed) whilst
allowing the immigrant dishes to remain. Result: civil strife!


Sky's advertising to landlords tends to be on the basis of give us a
ring and we will do the hard sell on the phone (i.e. you cannot find
proper Ts and Cs on their web site), so I'm not sure how far they can
bend their own rules, but officially, their blocks of flats service is
designed as only for Sky subscribers and tries to lock people into Sky.
It is possible that they would subsidise their proportion of a
comprehensive system, but that would probably be a local, commercial
decision.
I've never encountered this. It would go against their monopolistic ideals.
Sky installs tend to have downleads to Sky subscribers only. There is
then often an excessive charge for connection if the person wants
Freesat. Locked wallboxes, warning notices, the lot!


As such, expect to have to pay the real, up front, cost of the
installation, and also to have to pay to give access to those people who
don't want to make use of that access in the short term. Also expect
rather few people to actually put their money where their mouth is.
We've had zero response to a consultation on DSO options, from those who
would have to pay.
Yes. Heads firmly in sand.

Bill