Banning of Satellite Dishes in Apartment Complexes

JHet

Apartment complexes often contain provisions for the banning of satellite dishes on aesthetic grounds. Its a common occurrence that the same apartments complexes often only make provision for pay only cable tv services with no provision for free services such as communal dish/aerial system.

The TCA has outlined some guidelines for management companies in relation to this topic here. There is also ruling by the ECHR stating that the right to satellite is human right. There is also the "Television without Frontiers" (TVWF) Directive which can be found here. There are likely other legal precedents I'm not aware of.

In the absence of a communal dish/aerial system being provided for many people the following problems can be presented.

- The restriction of the free movement of good and services
- The promotion of monopolies
- The restriction of ones human rights (as per ECHR)

Does the banning of satellite dishes in house rules of apartment complexes have any legal basis if a suitable alternative is not providied?

I fully understand the logic of such provisions but are they justifiable in light of the above. I'd be interested in opinions on how a court might view this and what forms of redress could be sought.

2rkehij30qtza5

JHet wrote: »

Apartment complexes often contain provisions for the banning of satellite dishes on aesthetic grounds. Its a common occurrence that the same apartments complexes often only make provision for pay only cable tv services with no provision for free services such as communal dish/aerial system.

The TCA has outlined some guidelines for management companies in relation to this topic here. There is also ruling by the ECHR stating that the right to satellite is human right. There are likely other legal precedents I'm not aware of.

In the absence of a communal dish being provided for many people the following problems can be presented.

- The restriction of the free movement of good and services
- The promotion of monopolies
- The restriction of ones human rights (as per ECHR)

Does the banning of satellite dishes in house rules of apartment complexes have any legal basis if a suitable alternative is not providied?

I fully understand the logic of such provisions but are they justifiable in light of the above. I'd be interested in opinions on how a court might view this and what forms of redress could be sought.

Intertesting post and one I will be watching with interest. Unfortunately I don't have an answer for you but I have wondered this too.

Tom Young

I don't agree that the ECtHR actually says what you say it does in the way it is said.

The issue can be best dealt with by looking at your lease, wherein you'll see what you can and can not do. Common areas, balconies and exterior walls are not tenants to modify.

The TCA guide deals well enough with the viable alternative issues, including unfair contractual terms.

JHet

Sure but I'm definitely not making any conclusions on the European courts ruling or indeed the merit of its findings. This is how many in the media and indeed public figures have interpreted the ruling.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023359/Having-satellite-dish-human-right-says-European-court.html

What I'm interested in is the legality of such a provision when no suitable alternative is provided which I imagine is the case for many many apartment owners and residents.

Paulw

The management company (and even planning law) can stop the external mounting of a satellite dish, however, to receive a satellite signal, the dish does not have to be mounted outside. You can have the dish inside a window, as long as it is pointed in the correct direction.

So, the management company is not prohibiting you from receiving a satellite broadcast, only the mounting of a dish to something you have no ownership of (the building).

I see no legal issue there.

JHet

You don't see the restriction of the free movement of goods and services imposed by another entity as a legal issue? the right to consumer choice etc?

Should ownsership supercede the right to consumer choice or vice versa. Its definitely a grey area that hasn't been addressed adequately by law makers as of yet. The TCA document infers this is a significant problem with regard to consumer dissatisfaction. I would speculate many more have accepted your position on the matter.

With all due respect pointing dishes out windows is not practical in the real the world and I'd rather not see the debate descend to that level. Assuming everyone has a window that faces south east is one just big down fall of that argument.

The discussion should also be directed toward the apartment owners/residents of Ireland rather than anyone specific as per forum rules.

Paulw

JHet wrote: »

You don't see the restriction of the free movement of goods and services imposed by another entity as a legal issue? the right to consumer choice etc?

The service is not being restricted, nor is your consumer choice being restricted. You are free to use a satellite dish, and choose any provider you like.

You are simply restricted from damaging a property you do not own, by drilling holes and mounting a dish.

JHet wrote: »

Should ownsership supercede the right to consumer choice or vice versa.

Yes. Of course it should. If you use your logic on it, if I don't have any south east facing portion of my dwelling, should I then be allowed mount my dish on the nearest property, no matter who owns it, and then run a cable back?

JHet wrote: »

With all due respect pointing dishes out windows is not practical in the real the world and I'd rather not see the debate descend to that level.

But yet, while you say it's impractical, you have no problem with damaging someone else's property? It is possible to use the dish without damaging property, by using it through a window.

Of course, you also have the freedom of choice - don't buy/rent a property where the rules forbid the mounting of satellite dishes. That is practical.

JHet

Paulw wrote: »

The service is not being restricted, nor is your consumer choice being restricted. You are free to use a satellite dish, and choose any provider you like.

You are simply restricted from damaging a property you do not own, by drilling holes and mounting a dish.

Paulw wrote: »

But yet, while you say it's impractical, you have no problem with damaging someone else's property? It is possible to use the dish without damaging property, by using it through a window.

Of course, you also have the freedom of choice - don't buy/rent a property where the rules forbid the mounting of satellite dishes. That is practical

Installation of a dish does not have to damage a property in any way shape or form. There are mounting solutions for this, flat cables that can run under doors etc.

Peregrinus

Installation of the dish can damage the visual amenity. A landlord can prevent you fixing a satellite dish to the exterior wall of the property in the same way that he can prevent you hanging your washing out the window to dry, or fixing an advertising hoarding. These are things that can be, and often are, dealt with in the terms of the lease, and this is generally valid.

The ECHR case is not much help here. In that case, the court points out that there was no alternative method available to the tenants of receiving television signals (or, at least, that no evidence was presented that there was such a method). In an apartment building which offers a cable system - even a pay-only cable system - that's clearly not the case. Simlarly, if there had been broadband available in the ECHR case, the court indicated that the decision would have gone the other way. Art 10 of the European Convention may guarantee the right to receive information and ideas, but it doesn't guarantee the right to receive them for free.

JHet

Still represents a restriction on the free movement of goods and services where a suitable alternative is not provided.

They TCA made a ruling on this 3 years ago with regard to Pay-TV Exclusivity in apartment complexes. However many developments have not provided a suitable alternative in that time. Where a complex simply refuses to play ball what is the point in such a ruling if there is no legal basis in it and the consumer is still left with little of no choice?

kippy

JHet wrote: »

Still represents a restriction on the free movement of goods and services where a suitable alternative is not provided.

They TCA made a ruling on this 3 years ago with regard to Pay-TV Exclusivity in apartment complexes. However many developments have not provided a suitable alternative in that time. Where a complex simply refuses to play ball what is the point in such a ruling if there is no legal basis in it and the consumer is still left with little of no choice?

Did you not read the lease agreement before moving in?

"Free movement of goods and services" -
I've never seen this particular issue referred to as blocking the free movement of goods and services to be honest.

You have been restricted from putting a dish up on an external wall. I dont see the problem with this being honest.

JHet

Don't address me. Address the apartment owners/residents of Ireland as per forum rules.

Its pretty clear to me that this is a clear restriction on the consumers right to choose what provider they go with and therefore the free movement of goods and services. The TCA would agree. Surely you can see the logic where such provisions exist then it is incumbent on the development/management company to provide adequate alternatives such as a communal dish/arial. Just because a person lives in an apartment shouldn't mean that their consumer rights are restricted. This is the TCA's ruling not mine.

234

Free movement of goods and services is really more of an EU (rather than an ECHR) issue and usually concerns the actions of states in limiting the movements of goods into or withing their borders. It does not have any application to the actions of a landlord where you consensual entered into a lease with that particular restriction.

Also, there is no such thing as the consumer's right to choose.

Paulw

JHet wrote: »

Its pretty clear to me that this is a clear restriction on the consumers right to choose what provider they go with and therefore the free movement of goods and services.

If you believe it is so clear, why not take a case to court to force the issue?

While it may be clear to you, it is not clear in law, and from the posts here, you can see that not everyone agrees with your reading of the situation.

Peregrinus

TCA's agreement is not quite as unqualified as you suggest. Their guidelines indicate that exclusivity agreements are not necessarily in breach of the legislation, and that bans on individual satellite dishes are common, and may arise either out of the building management's wishes, or out of planning restrictions. TCA's emphasis seems to be on facilitating and encouraging communal dishes in apartment blocks, not individual dishes, but even communal dishes are not possible if there is a (legally valid) exclusivity agreement in place.

As regards remedies, if the problem is an exclusivity agreement, you need to show that it's illegal (or get TCA to show that). If the problem is not an exclusivity agrement but lazy building management, then get to work on the building management. Most residents would probably favour a free communal dish system over a paid cable system, so you should have no difficulty building support for your proposal.

JHet

The TCA do indeed indicate that a period of up to 2 years exclusivity can be granted. Mind you I don't know any apartment complexes that have been built in the last two year.

I am aware of such 'closed shop' type arangements, and do believe they are anti-competitive. The allowance of 2yrs to recoup setup costs surprises me. If it was a housing estate and they wanted to gain market share they would just have to absorb this cost. It goes against concept of an efficient open market for me but you are right there is provision for it in their guidelines.

For me this area just seems hugely unregulated and should have been legislated for properly years ago. The regulation of management companies is another area that needs to be looked at. They seem to have carte blanche to add whatever contractual terms they like. That does not mean these are fair contractual terms and if deemed so by a court they would indeed be unlawful.

I know most people are against me here but I know for a fact there are many more who agree with me. Other countries have provided some forethought in this regard but as always in the country another huge grey. I do appreciate everyones input though.

JHet

Thanks to Peregrinus, Tom Young and 234 for your objective opinions of the matter. This is helpful. For those who have an agenda please stop directing your ire on the matter toward me. This is not helpful. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legality of this provision as it affects the owners/residents of apartment complexes in Ireland. Its also to serve as a body of knowledge for anyone who might read this thread in the future.

Another EU Directive that relates to the topic

"Television without Frontiers" (TVWF)
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/audiovisual_and_media/l24101_en.htm

DIRECTIVE 89/552/EEC - "TELEVISION WITHOUT FRONTIERS"

The Directive aims to ensure the free movement of broadcasting services within the internal market and at the same time to preserve certain public interest objectives, such as cultural diversity, the right of reply, consumer protection and the protection of minors. It is also intended to promote the distribution and production of European audiovisual programmes, for example by ensuring that they are given a majority position in television channels' programme schedules.

Procrastastudy

I realise that practicality seems not to be the point of this thread but Sky have a Shared Dish system and I'm sure other systems such as Freesat and Freeview could have shared systems installed. It's just a case of the management company (the owners) getting together and getting them installed - as we did.

I for one don't want to live in a complex that looks like some sort of science fiction communications array with 150 satellite dishes sticking out of the building.

Paulw

JHet wrote: »

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legality of this provision as it affects the owners/residents of apartment complexes in Ireland.

A search on boards would have already shown a good number of threads on this topic from the past.

The provisions in law are very different for unit owners and for tenants. Unit owners, as part of the management company, have the ability to change the rules on a development. A good number have done that, and have put in shared dish solutions.

Tenants have no right to erect a satellite dish, because they are do not own the property and to mount a dish would be causing damage to property. They are also bound by their tenancy agreement and the rules of the development.

There are many good reasons not to permit dishes in a complex, especially because they look ugly, but again, if your issue is purely to receive transmissions, then there are many options, which while they may be awkward (such as putting a dish behind a window) will work, and therefore do not need a change to the law.

Those directives are simply directives. They are not law. Unless Ireland enacts those directives in to law, then they have no direct impact here.

JHet

Services: Commission sets out right to use a satellite dish in the Internal Market

The European Commission has adopted a Communication in which it states that private individuals should be free to use satellite dishes without undue technical, administrative, urban planning or tax obstacles. The right to do so flows from the free movement of goods and services, which are both fundamental Internal Market freedoms. The Commission's intention is that the Communication will respond to the numerous requests for information and clarification which it has received on the subject in recent months from private individuals and the European Parliament. This Communication is the first initiative under the new Strategy for Services, launched in January 2001 (see IP/01/31).

JHet

More Legal Precedents from the European Parliament.

Petition 0450 by N. Sarlui (Dutch), on satellite dishes and the free movement of services

Petition 0356/2005 by Klaus and Elfi Schneider (German), concerning satellite TV access

JHet

COMMISSION COMMUNICATION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28
AND 49 EC – CONCERNING THE USE OF SATELLITE DISHES

Strawberry Fields

RE SARLUI

In the light of the foregoing, the information received is not sufficient to reach a conclusion as
to whether and to what extent the petitioner's right to install a satellite dish has been
infringed.’

that's a precedent which states the right to put up a satellite dish is not absolute and whilst canot be overly onerous must still depend on any agreement with the building owner. It is to be assesed on a case by case basis by the national court.

RE KLAUS REJECTED

JHet

Read the Commissions Document on this.

Re aesthetics and Old Buildings:
"Moreover, for aesthetic reasons, it is not uncommon for particularly strict conditions to be set for any changes or additions to be made to listed buildings because of their monumental, architectural or historical value.
In sum, these circumstances are highly unusual and may justify special rules precisely because they are so different from ordinary situations which have no such restrictions and constraints."
Very rare set of circumstances that I definitely don't think can be applied to the developments that has been thrown up over the last number of years.

More References Regarding Aesthetics

"Thus an attempt must be made to reconcile aesthetic considerations with the fundamental right of any interested individual to have access to information and services by installing a satellite dish.
Such an assessment can only be done by looking at the individual circumstances in each case.
Nonetheless, such restrictions must be duly substantiated, and the aesthetic considerations must be real and not merely a pretext. In addition, given the principle of proportionality, these restrictions cannot be applied in general. Each individual case must be looked at, and, where specific restrictions are necessary, measures which impinge as little as possible on the fundamental freedom in question must be preferred."

The commissions publication I listed earlier basically says that the right to receive satellite broadcasts of your choosing are protected under the Freedom of Goods and Services which does backup my argument.

"Given that Community law takes precedence over national law, Articles 28 and 49 lay down rights for the interested parties that the national authorities are required to respect and protect.
Moreover, they not only render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law, but also preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measures to the extent to which they would be incompatible with community provisions 20."

"The bodies of every Member State are under an obligation to ensure the primacy of Community law. This holds not only for the national courts, but for all administrative bodies,"

"any national measure which limits the ability to receive transmissions and
services via satellite dishes is also required to be compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedomswhich specifically enshrines “the freedom to receive ... information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers, ”.

Strawberry Fields

yeah but the whole thing says you have no absolute right to put up a dish, and there are guidelines for aesthetics such as if the dish cannot be seen. None of this says you can put a dish up wherever you want. It also there is no absolute rule that you can't. It should always be assesed on a case by case basis. There is no general principle here that applies other than the right is to be balanced with a number of other factors including aesthetics.

Re the bit in bold it's EU law but it is up to each national government to implement it as they see fit.

Solair

In a properly run country, the planning laws would require the provision of a couple of satellite-grade coax cables running from each apartment to a box on the roof and a space where residents could connect to a communal dish pointing at Sky/Freesat (Astra/Eutelsat 28°E), mount their own dish (out of view) should they wish to access another satellite or use a communal UHF antenna for Saorview.

Such a setup would also allow the local cable company to put a tap near by where they could just connect up residents to the cable service without any disruption.

Thus, everyone would have complete choice.

However, in Ireland we managed to allow developers / management cos to lock customers into pay tv systems!

Practicalities of living in apartments never entered the heads of most of our developers / designers when it came to stuff like this.

JHet

@Strawberry fields: In thats your genuine conclusion sir then I suggest you read and reread the commissions document. Its clearly there in black and white, it couldn't be any clearer.

Strawberry Fields

Have you a statute or stare decisis which backs up your opinion. I would like you to read this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055383761

JHet

I think that thread reinforces the need for clearer direction on the matter at a local level. Their discussion was just as divisive as our one. That is human nature.

"Given that Community law takes precedence over national law, Articles 28 and 49 lay down rights for the interested parties that the national authorities are required to respect and protect.
Moreover, they not only render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law, but also preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measures to the extent to which they would be incompatible with community provisions 20."

To me European law is pretty clear on this and would overrule any local authorities. The enforcement order by SDCC does not surprise me and I would imagine they are completely ignorant with regard to European Law. The final piece of the jigsaw is a local test case. That's all that is missing here.

Paulw

But again, your "right" to receive a satellite transmission does not give you the right to mount a dish on a structure you do not own.

If a management company decides not to permit satellite dishes, then only the management company can change that decision, and no individual member of the management company has a right to breach the rules as laid out in their Lease Contracts, and it especially doesn't give a renting tenant the right to mount a dish.

If a person decides they want to live in a specific development, they have the right to review the rules and clauses of living in the development before they take up residence, be it by buying or renting. They cannot buy and then decide that they just don't like specific clauses.

And again, your ability to receive transmission can be achieved by means other than externally mounting a dish.

Until there is actual case law or new legislation in Ireland to give each individual the right to mount a dish, you are stuck where we are now.

JHet

In response to your ownership argument I'm going to quote a post made by will 5 years.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53647322&postcount=43
I really could never put it any better than he has. One of the posts I've ever seen on the topic.

Tom Young

Tv Sans Frontier or tvwf has nothing directly connected with this really. It was more about EU Member State compliance with free to air and spectrum liberalisation.

Paulw

JHet wrote: »

In response to your ownership argument I'm going to quote a post made by will 5 years..

While the post is somewhat interesting, it lacks substance in many instances.

At our 2nd management company AGM, it was voted that satellite dishes were to be removed and the clauses enforced by the management agent by the vast majority. So, the management company, in this instance, acted in the interest of the members of the management company by enforcing the rule not to permit satellite dishes.

Secondly, a balcony is owned by the management company, but the unit owner (or tenant) has exclusive use of it. So, they can use it in any way they want, within the clauses of the Lease Contract.

A management company is not at all unregulated. Far from it. They are governed by the Companies Act 1963, plus the Multi-Units Development Act 2011. Management agents though, are unregulated, but they simply follow instructions from the management company, and at any company AGM, the elected directors of the management company can change agents, depending on the contract in place with the agent. We are on our 2nd agent since the formation of our management company.

And again, until there is clear case law or new legislation, then the situation remains. You still have the ability to rent/buy a property where there is no rule forbidding a satellite dish. By your choice of buying/renting in a development forbids a dish, you cannot subsequently claim that your right of choice if being infringed. :rolleyes:

micosoft

JHet wrote: »

In response to your ownership argument I'm going to quote a post made by will 5 years.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53647322&postcount=43
I really could never put it any better than he has. One of the posts I've ever seen on the topic.

I think you should try - his interpretation of the law is nonsensical and most of the post is hysterical nonsense.

Instead of attempting (badly) to interpret European Law, why don't you just:

1. Raise the issue with the Directors and ask them to bring it to the AGM.
2. At the AGM raise a motion to put in alternatives and/or communal Dish Aerial (have a costed proposal as any costs go on the management fee).
3. Have a vote on it.
4. Have the management company carry out the instruction.

Ultimately the owners of the properties can make this call. I've done it as a director of a management company and had Sky communal replace a developer run TV company. (Single Dish). They did it for free.

As a tenant you have no right to alter the owners property regardless. If you are a tenant you need to talk to the owner, or find an owner who is interested in the topic. Or move.

As for the rest - you are incorrect on your various interpretations but I do love the fact people in Ireland go from (insert minor issue here) ====> European Court of Human Rights. There is a straight forward solution which is set out in your lease and the memo of the management company but if you insist I suggest you retain a barrister.

K.Flyer

The main concern that comes from Management Companies looking after the developments is severalfold and the main one is Asthetics. Who wants to live in a complex that resembles Jodrell Bank??
This is followed closely by the the concern for the lack of control over how installations are carried out and the potential problems caused, e.g. holes that are being drilled into / through external walls amd damp membranes, during installation or removal, not being weather proofed properly and water being able to ingress in through the walls and causing damp, sometimes to other peoples apartments and or compromising the stability of the exterior rendering, the list goes on. Who is going to pay for these problems that ARE being created by these ad-hoc installations? The property owners through their management fees as usual.
Certainly not the transient tenant who is gone at the end of his lease and certainly not the keyboard warriors shouting about someones right to put up a dish on an exterior wall that does Not belong to them.

JHet

micosoft wrote: »

As for the rest - you are incorrect on your various interpretations

Next you'll be telling me my opinion is wrong aswell. :rolleyes:

234

JHet, what you need to appreciate here is the difference between public and private. All the European legislation you mention refers to the actions of member states and restrictions imposed by states. They never refer to private arrangements between individuals or individuals and companies. While you may have a right as agains the state there is no reason why you cannot contract out of this right in a purely private situation such a lease agreement.

JHet

I was always under the impression that one can't sign away ones rights. I'd expect this is especially the case when the right is a human right, or a right that relates to the free movement of goods and service both of which are enshrined in the European Union Law signed by the treaties.

kippy

JHet wrote: »

I was always under the impression that one can't sign away ones rights. I'd expect this is especially the case when the right is a human right, or a right that relates to the free movement of goods and service both of which are enshrined in the European Union Law signed by the treaties.

How exactly is putting up a satellite dish a "human right"?
The mind really boggles here.
Are you THAT pissed off that you didnt read the terms and conditions of your letting agreement?

It has already been established that not being allowed to put up a dish on someone elses' property is not against the free movement of goods and services........

JHet

As I understand it the case would have to be fought and rejected at local level first, sighting the relevant EU law and then a petition made to EU parliament effectively against the state.

My interpretation of the situation is as follows: To restrict a right you must enshrine the same right. You must explicitly identify the fair and reasonable conditions with which that right can be satified. This is the main failure I see with many management companies around the country. Blanket ban does not a fair and reasonable condition make.

As an earlier poster pointed out such civil disputes could be easily mitigated if we had proper planning laws in this country, it would stipulate the provision of additional resources for such services, spare ducting provided and additional cabling piped into each apartment. Indeed the TCA makes recommendations in this regard but not local law.

JHet

kippy wrote: »

How exactly is putting up a satellite dish a "human right"?
The mind really boggles here.
Are you THAT pissed off that you didnt read the terms and conditions of your letting agreement?

It has already been established that not being allowed to put up a dish on someone elses' property is not against the free movement of goods and services........

Don't direct your ire toward me sir. We are trying to have an objective conversation on the matter and you are clearly showing your bias.

flutered

here are many decoy dishes now advailable, one of which looks like the white plastic chair which sees being used all over the country.

Paulw

JHet wrote: »

As an earlier poster pointed out such civil disputes could be easily mitigated if we had proper planning laws in this country, it would stipulate the provision of additional resources for such services, spare ducting provided and additional cabling piped into each apartment. Indeed the TCA makes recommendations in this regard but not local law.

However, new planning law is not retroactive and would not impact on currently built developments.

TCA has only made recommendations but none are applicable in law.

kippy

JHet wrote: »

Don't direct your ire toward me sir. We are trying to have an objective conversation on the matter and you are clearly showing your bias.

You're not taking what ANYONE has said, that goes against your own bias, onboard.
That is not the cornerstone of an objective conversation, in my opinion.

JHet

flutered wrote: »

here are many decoy dishes now advailable, one of which looks like the white plastic chair which sees being used all over the country.

Haha this has me intrigued. Could you post a pic? I'd love to see this one. Couldn't find anything on google in relation to this.

A friend of mine bought one of the digiglobe things (looks like a light basically) He went to some considerable expense aswell to buy it. It was sitting as a free standing structure on the balcony with wire neatly hidden and ran under the balcony door using flat cable. One of his neighbours who must of been tuned in on such things took umbrage and reported to the management who duly asked him to take it down.

JHet

kippy wrote: »

You're not taking what ANYONE has said, that goes against your own bias, onboard.
That is not the cornerstone of an objective conversation, in my opinion.

There is no excuse for berating me.

kippy

JHet wrote: »

There is no excuse for berating me.

Who has berated you?

You admit that you have a closed standpoint on this then?
In which case, "discussion" is almost pointless.

JHet

kippy wrote: »

Are you THAT pissed off that you didnt read the terms and conditions of your letting agreement?

How many times in the thread have I asked for posters not to address me personally? At no point in the thread have I asked for legal advice for myself or any situation that relates to me. So why do you keeping addressing me. I raised the conversation as its a subject that affects many people in Ireland. Its an extremely divisive issue as has been clearly demostrated that causes civil disputes because of lack proper planning and legislation. There are many reasons why people live in apartments, work, cost, proximity to town, amenities. Its all well and good saying well go live in a house then, but there are many factors that can make this prohibitive. In fair and just society why shouldn't a person in an apartment complex be able to acquire the same services as anyone else. I don't agree that blanket banning something is the way to go if suitable alternate provision is not provided and its not surprising that people take matters into their own hands when there is no guidance on what conditions allow a satellite signal to be recieved. Its a real issue that affects real people. I have an opinion on matter. I'm entilted to it as are other posters. I respect that. But you are loosing your cool and your going after me personally, getting angry that I choose to take a different view to you on the matter.
If your incapable of addressing the topic and not me personally then I suggest you leave the conversation.

Tom Young

OP: Are you a lawyer?

As a Mod I am unimpressed by the later posts here, including yours OP, and you have not been berated.

If we can't engage in reasoned debate, understanding where our own understanding or interpretations of EU or national law may be wrong ... then the thread may have to close.

JHet

Tom, I don't know what it is that you are not impressed by but I do know I have repeatly asked not to be addressed as I am not looking for advice for myself here. (as per the forum rules I might add).

Tom Young

That makes no sense. You're not looking for advice - fine.

You want a debate - fine.

"Don't direct your comments at me." Yes, ok. Shall we discuss ecumenically the differences between public and private law?