2. Do you have a wireless network within your apartment in order to connect your computer(s) to your Internet connection?

3. Does the apartment complex prohibit you from using the local cable television utility company or does that company not serve your neighborhood?

4. Aside from the apartment complex and DirecTV, is there anyone else involved, especially anyone else you are required to pay or a company that may be known as “Consolidated Smart Systems”, “Consolidated Lauco Systems”, or various other things?

I am preparing the paperwork to request that the FCC rule on whether prohibiting tenants from selecting their own service provider violates 47CFR1.4000. I am confident that they will rule that what I have described in a is illegal, based on their rulings in cases involving homeowners’ associations, etc. Although 47CFR1.4000 does not apply to situation b, they did recently overturn a restriction on a wireless network, so there is a remote possibility that they may rule that it is illegal to prohibit you from using the cable television utility company to connect a wireless network to the Internet, but only if the case is presented as a restriction that prevents you from using the antenna that is part of the wireless network to (without connecting it to the Internet through the telephone lines), and even then only if you had a valid reason (such as cost or speed) to want to use cable instead of DSL for your Internet access. If your situation is a (or you have a wireless network that you would connect to the cable television utility company if you could do so), please send me a signed and notarized affidavit as to:

1. what service you desire and cannot receive,
2. that you cannot receive the service you desire without using an individual antenna, and why not
3. the building, rule, lease provision, or other regulation that prevents you from using an individual antenna (of the type that would be needed to receive the service that you desire)
4. that the property to which it applies is within your exclusive use or control and that you have a direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property
5. either that the antenna would be used to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed
wireless signals via satellite, and is one meter or less in diameter or is located in Alaska; or that the antenna would be used to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite, and is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; or that the antenna would be used to receive television broadcast signals;
5. How the restriction, etc., described in #2 above unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance, or use of the antenna; unreasonably increases the cost of installation, maintenance, or use; precludes reception or transmission of an acceptable quality signal; or otherwise impairs the installation, maintenance, or use of the antenna;
6. anything else you feel should be included

If I use your affidavit, I will be sending the FCC either the original or a photocopy; I will not be editing it. However, you only need to include factual information, and do not need to include legal analysis, which will be in a separate document called a “petition for declaratory ruling”. The FCC website says “You may simply describe the facts, including the specific restriction(s) that you wish to challenge. If possible, include contact information such as telephone numbers for all parties involved, if available, and attach a copy of the restriction(s) and any relevant correspondence. If this is not possible, be sure to include the exact language of the restriction in question with the petition.”

The most important thing is that I must have a mailing address for the party that you claim is imposing the restriction that prevents you from using your own antenna to obtain the service you desire (probably your landlord). When I file, if I include that restriction in what is being challenged, then I am required to send that party copies of the “petition for declaratory ruling” (this is the formal name for the request to the FCC) and all attachments (which will include your affidavit, so do not include anything that you do not wish your landlord to know), so if I do not have an address, then I cannot include that restriction in those that I ask the FCC to overturn.

I am not a lawyer and cannot officially represent you; my offer is only to include your affidavit as an attachment to a petition either that I file on my own behalf or that we file jointly.

I do not want to post my address here because my landlord threatened to evict me. (Once I file the petition, certain laws prohibiting retaliation should protect me, but not now.) I have clicked the “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail” button. Please followup and include some information that will allow me to contact you more privately (either your address, your e-mail address, or your telephone number) or followup and request that I post a temporary an e-mail address that my landlord would not recognize, so that you can then e-mail me privately.

The thing is that IF it ever does change, it’s a LONG freakin’ ways off. The cable companies KNOW you only watch the same 3 channels and surf through the other 200 to see if there’s anything remotely good to watch (no pun intended). They know you’ll pay $85 for the package with ESPN and Comedy Central —> that’s how they make their money. If they only charged on a channel by channel basis, they’d never make the kind of dough they’re screwin’ us for now. Think about it (math lesson!)…say they charge $10 per channel and you watch ESPN and Comedy Central $10 + $10 = $20. If they’re currently making $85 off of you for the same thing: $85 – $20 = $65 loss of profit. Yeah……. Like I said, if and when it happens it’s gonna be a while.