Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Direct TV Sunday Ticket Subscribers


cgarsmoker

Recommended Posts

If you are a Sunday Ticket subscriber, I will pay half of your subscription cost if you grant me access to watch the games online. I live in an development that doesn't allow satellite dishes so getting direct TV isn't an option for me. I used the Madden offer last year but I haven't heard anything about that being offered again this year. If you're interested sent me PM or let me know. I can pay via check or paypal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they won't be offering the Madden deal again this year. Instead, DirecTV is offering a standalone package. Two threads about it in the Panthers forum:

if you are in an area that doesn't allow DirecTV, you should qualify.

Thanks.....I already checked and it's not available for me because I live in a house where Direct TV is available. The problem is the HOA doesn't allow a visible dish on the roof and I don't want a tall pole in the back yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HOA cannot keep you from getting DirecTV, per FCC regulation...

 

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

 

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming.  The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas.

 

The rule allows local governments, community associations and landlords to enforce restrictions that do not impair the installation, maintenance or use of the types of antennas described above, as well as restrictions needed for safety or historic preservation.  Under some circumstances where a central or common antenna is available, a community association or landlord may restrict the installation of individual antennas. 

 

 

.tell the HOA to suck it.... Youre welcome.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also from that link:

 

Q:  What restrictions prevent a viewer from receiving an acceptable quality signal?  Can a homeowners association or other restricting entity establish enforceable preferences for antenna locations?

A:  Enforceable placement preferences must be clearly articulated in writing and made available to all residents of the community in question.  A requirement that an antenna be located where reception would be impossible or substantially degraded is prohibited by the rule.  However, a regulation requiring that antennas be placed in a particular location on a house such as the side or the rear, might be permissible if this placement does not prevent reception of an acceptable quality signal or impose unreasonable expense or delay.  For example, if installing an antenna in the rear of the house costs significantly more than installation on the side of the house, then such a requirement would be prohibited.  If, however, installation in the rear of the house does not impose unreasonable expense or delay or preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal, then the restriction is permissible and the viewer must comply.

For DBS antennas, and digital fixed wireless antennas or other digital antennas to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal, the antenna must be installed where it has an unobstructed, direct view of the satellite or other device from which signals are received or to which signals are to be transmitted.  Unlike analog antennas, digital antennas, even in the presence of sufficient over-the-air signal strength, will at times provide no picture or sound unless they are placed and oriented properly. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so they can try to limit where you put it... The HOA can tell you they dont want to see it, but if it obstructs signal, then the HOA has to live with it. Thats my interpretation anyway...

 

cgar said they wouldnt let him have one... This says otherwise.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so they can try to limit where you put it... The HOA can tell you they dont want to see it, but if it obstructs signal, then the HOA has to live with it. Thats my interpretation anyway...

 

cgar said they wouldnt let him have one... This says otherwise.....

 

I know.  I wasn't disputing the HOA can kiss his ass.  Just thought that particular information was also important to him besides you letting him know the HOA can suck it.

 

He can have a dish on his house, they just might be able to limit where he puts it. If they already had it in writing to the whole community and the limited location area doesn't cost him more money than another area of his house or restrict his reception.  Since they told him no, he couldn't have one.  I'm sure they don't already have it in writing where he can put it on his roof so he is probably free game to put it anywhere on his house.  He might want to reread the HOA agreement to be sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HOA basically says the dish can not be visible from the front street view of the house. That includes the sides of the house that are visible from all angles anywhere on the street passing directly in front of the house. The pitch of my roof only gives me two options....put the dish actually in the middle of my roof or on a pole on my back yard. I don't have much of a backyard because we have a screen covered pool and a pole would just look bad. From Direct TV's stand point I can get service if I wanted it but I don't want to put the dish in the places allowed by the HOA. This is a new neighborhood for me and I just moved here about a month ago.....I don't want to pick a fight with the HOA right after moving in so I'm stuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...