> In Florida some new subdivision developers have sold the
> phone/cable/internet rights to a provider. They run fiber to each house
> and then have the uplink to provider which isn't a traditional telco.
> You can't get another provider as satellite dishes are limited in
> covenants and restrictions (CCR).
Those CC&Rs may very well be legally void and unenforceable.
Some years ago, Congress passed legislation which affirms the right
of individuals to install over-the-air television antennas,
satellite-TV antennas, and "fixed wireless" antennas, in areas of
their property which (1) they own, or (2) they lease or rent, and
which are part of their "exclusive use" areas. The "exclusive
use"
phrasing covers areas like private patios, private walkways, balconies,
and some roofs and exterior walls - the latter depends on the actual
business arrangement).
The wording which explicitly permits antennas for "fixed wireless
signals" says specifically that it includes wireless signals for
telephone service or high-speed Internet service.
Local and state zoning regulations, rental agreements, and CC&Rs
which forbid the installation of antennas under these conditions
are null and void. They cannot be legally enforced. These sorts
of rules cannot even be used to require installation in ways which
substantially increase the cost of an installation.
There are *some* situations under which such CC&Rs can be
enforced. For example, they can prohibit installation of antennas
in "shared" areas of a building structure (e.g. the roof of a
townhome complex, if the roof is considered common property of
the townhome membership association). This is sometimes a problem
in practice - e.g. an apartment dweller located on the north side of
a building may not have any spot in her apartment which has a clear
view of the satellites in the south sky. Same problem with wireless
internet service - if you don't have a clear path to the provider's
antenna site you may not be able to get a usable signal.
As I understand it, the whole idea behind this legislation was to
prevent landlords from signing "sweetheart deals" with specific
telco and cable providers, and thus locking their tenants into a
specific provider. Congress apparently felt that competition, and
consumer freedom of choice, was in the better public interest.
See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html for details.
