March 3, 2007

Mooching For Free Legal Advice

Hatched by Dafydd

I'm entirely serious here. A bizarre situation has arisen, and I'd like to have some vague idea where we stand. It's nothing as complex as a lawsuit, or anything; and I'm loathe to pay an attorney hundreds of dollars for an opinion, when the total amount involved is so much less.

Here is basic conundrum...

My wife and I own a condo. In that condo, we have cable TV, as do most folks in the building; but some residents have DirectTV satellite TV, complete with small dish antennas on the roof.

The homeowner's association (hereafter HOA) has gotten a bee in its collective bonnet about those antennae on the roof; they forbade any further such, claiming it could "cause damage" to the roof -- though they haven't explained exactly how, or even whether there already has been damage or whether it's entirely hypothetical at this point.

But all of a sudden, they have this plan: they want to put one big dish antenna on the roof, and have everybody tap into that. All well and good, except -- DirectTV won't do that unless every single unit in the building (80 of them) signs up.

So now the HOA is trying to pass a resolution at the next business meeting formally accepting that offer... after which they will rip all the cable access out of the walls, and nobody will be able to have cable anymore; it will be satellite or nothing (we get virtually no reception without cable or satellite).

Now this would hit us very hard, because we have cable internet access: if forced to switch to satellite, several extreme annoyances would ensue:

  • We would have to change our e-mail addresses, which means notifying scores of entities (human and corporate) that communicate with us that way;
  • We would have to make do with much slower internet access: we currently have 5MBps download and 512KB up; for the same price in satellite, we would get about 768KBps down. The best we can get is 1.5, which is a lot more expensive for a third the speed;
  • We currently rent our DVR; under DirectTV, we would have to buy it for about $250 net (and it would only work on DirectTV... so if we moved and got cable, we couldn't use it).
  • And anybody who has taken advantage of our cable system for his phone service -- which the cable company has been pushing lately -- would also have to change his phone number, I suppose. Fortunately, we didn't go with that... but I'm sure others did.

All in all, we really, really don't want to switch from cable to satellite... but I'm very concerned that a bunch of homeowners who only have basic cable will vote for satellite, because it's marginally cheaper for that low level of service.

So my question is, does the HOA really have the authority to make this decision, to cut off cable and tell everybody to switch to satellite instead, no matter what that does to our internet access? Is there anything we can do about it, other than just hope they lose the vote?

I'd love to hear from any lawyers out there who have any experience at all in this. If the advice is "get a lawyer," perhaps you could also indicate the best way to select one... given that I have no experience with getting one.


The Mgt.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 3, 2007, at the time of 4:43 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: Evilned

I'm not sure, but I think there was a federal law passed back in the 90's covering just this sort of situation. If I recall correctly, (And with the jamming waves put out by the DNC I may be wrong), some of these associations were forbidding satellite dishes from being installed.

You might try googling this question:

laws governing satellite dishes on condos

I did that and came up with a slew of stuff.

On the technical side...

I use DirecTV for television, but I also have cable internet. (and I have to pay for basic Cable too!) With satellite Internet not only do you have slower speeds, you also have greater lag time. In addition you will have outages when heavy weather comes in and blocks the signal.

Personally I don't see any reason to rip out the cable. You can have both systems going and offer a choice. (Oh No! A dirty word!! True economic competition!)

If DirectTV is making those demands, then take a look at Dish network. You could also look at DSL. If your building's wiring can handle it, it could be a cheaper alternative.

The above hissed in response by: Evilned [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 5:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: nk

No, the HOA does not, in my opinion [weaseling]. Your unit and, I believe, your utility providers have easements for cable, electricity, telephone etc. to come through the common elements (of which you are a part owner BTW) to your unit. Those easements are real property and cannot be taken away by any number of votes.

Read your condo documents -- The Declaration of Condominium is the most important and next the By-laws -- but from the point of view of property rights and not contract for communal living. If you could also access your state's condominium statutes for other rights you might have outside the common law? Always keep in the forefront that condominium ownership is real estate ownership.

I would also do all I could to enlist the cable provider as an ally. They will not want to lose your business. They might have dealt with the identical situation already in that jurisdiction and know exactly what to do.

The attorney who handled your closing is the first one you should call. If he cannot handle the case, he may be able to refer you to one who does. The cable provider may also be able to provide a referral.

You might not be able to prevent them from installing the dish (and hitting all of you with a special assessment to pay for it) but you should be able to prevent them from ripping out your cable. (I will not malign the dish provider yet for its aggressive marketing tactics but it might not be on solid legal ground, either.)

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 5:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: Cincy

Reading the documents that reflect the rights and obligations of the parties (you and the HOA) is the place to start. I suspect, as noted above, that you cannot avoid subsidizing the purchase of the big dish but you can bar the HOA from ripping out your cable and forcing you to purchase Satellite access. P.S. I'm a first time poster but a long time lurker. I love the blog.

The above hissed in response by: Cincy [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 5:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: Xrlq

Evilned's on the right track. There's a federal law generally prohibiting HOAs from banning satellite dishes, with "reasonableness" exceptions that can be met by offering a group dish. What I don't know is whether the same law, or any other, prohibits them from banning cable for the same reason.

NK: attorneys don't handle closings in CA.

The above hissed in response by: Xrlq [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 5:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Here you go. A website with statutes and cases. Not a bad jump-off point. I liked the provisions regarding ownership rights of the common areas and about restrictions to ingress and egress.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 7:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Thanks, this is great stuff -- keep it coming!

I'm going to try to find our condo documents, which we haven't looked at for about twelve years now. And I had already decided to contact the cable company and see if their legal department can help us.

Thanks again!


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 7:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: Norman Rogers


As in most disputatious matters, diplomacy ought to be your first and best tactic. And you should try to keep at least your initial efforts away from any discussion of your rights (sure to raise the hackles of condo boards). You can always escalate.

Specifically, I'd seek out the individual board members and mention the issue of broadband internet access (if you pull out the CATV cabling, we'll lose our internet connections). I'd bet that no one considered that (most folks who have the time and inclination to serve on these kinds of boards tend not to be up-to-date on technology). I think it highly likely that if you approach them in a non-confrontational manner, you'll get good results.

If you don't get positive results from this gentle approach, my first escalation would be to slip a letter under the doors of all residents explaining the internet situation. If this doesn't provoke a groundswell of opposition, at least you'll find some like minded souls who will join you when you take it to the next level.

The above hissed in response by: Norman Rogers [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 8:20 AM

The following hissed in response by: PC14

I live in a very large gated community, approximately 4500 homes and we have a POA. I've heard many folks say that some property owners have been fined by the POA, then appealed and lost. Then they have taken the issue to Small Claims Court. I have no idea of the individual outcomes but the first time I heard this, I was surprised that we had this recourse. Perhaps you might also and if a bunch of members threaten small claims lawsuits, maybe the association will reconsider.

The above hissed in response by: PC14 [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 8:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I was a realtor and I think they just might have this right if the resolution passes. Ask a realtor or a lawyer that knows something about real estate law.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 10:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

Is Direct TV really requiring that the cable be pulled out? You said they want everyone to sign up, which is different from pulling out the cable. They should not have a problem with every unit paying the basic minimum, regardless of whether you want to pay your own cable.

I am with Norman on this, you should be able to take care of this through negotiation. Are these rentals or owners? If they are owners they should be concerned about future resale in that you will lose some potential buyers who would not buy in a building that has slow internet access. Plus, all phone service will be over IP pretty soon, so lousy internet access really hurts. That might hurt resale value.

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 11:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: boffo

Everyone I've ever known who has had DirecTV has hated it. They're well known for terrible customer service. I myself had a horrible experience trying to get DirecTV installed, and eventually concluded that if they treat their customers this poorly when they're trying to sign up, it could only get worse for people locked into a long term contract. (Judging by stories from my friends, this appears to be a correct assessment.)

Also, I've never heard anything remotely positive about satellite internet.

You might try googling around for customer satisfaction ratings, and then use that as a piece of your initial friendly negotiation.

Your brother Steve

The above hissed in response by: boffo [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 12:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

I live in a single family home that is part of an HOA. I am willing to bet that in your case the HOA DOES have the ability to make this decision. You should read your HOA contract. It sounds to me like your biggest issue is the internet. I would try to arrive at a compromise allowing you to keep cable internet service, but subscribe to the cable service. It seems to me that it would be more of a hassle for the HOA to RIP OUT existing infrastructure that is already there, so that should be an easy diplomatic concession. As to the DirecTV, you can get free DVR's with DTV now as part of installation, and I would make sure that you can take advantage of that. I have DTV with a High Def DVR and I have Cable internet. I am happy with both.

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 12:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

"I would try to arrive at a compromise allowing you to keep cable internet service, but subscribe to the cable service." Sorry, I meant subscribe to Direct TV television service and keep cable internet.

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 12:07 PM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

One more thing, I think DirecTV's customer service is fantastic. I have always had very fast service and they will easily send someone out to fix any problem in a short time frame. I don't know anyone that has had BAD service myself. They have to fight and scrap with cable companies who basically have a big leg up on them, customer service is one area where they do shine... at least that has been my experience and the 20 or so friends I have that are ex patriot Football fans!

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 12:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: kymar

Directv has been terrific for me at three different locations over the course of fifteen years, and for other subscribers I know as well.

Like at least one other contributor above, I also have Directv for TV and cable (Time-Warner, formerly Adelphia) for internet access. I find it hard to believe that your HOA or Directv would be very concerned about your keeping your current ISP, so long as you sign up for the dish for TV, and I'm guessing that someone read something wrong.

I think that even Directv realizes that Directway or whatever they're calling it now is, all things considered, an inferior service. It used to be that you need a special antenna and receiver to get it. I wonder if it's even available through whatever they're offering your building.

The above hissed in response by: kymar [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 12:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: Xrlq

I agree that DirecTV's programming is good, and generally a better deal than anything you'd get from cable. However, satellite internet sucks by comparison. If you live in a DSL area, no big whoop. If you don't, satellite "broadband" beats dial-up, but it can't touch cable. It's a real problem with secure web sites due to light traveling so slow, resulting in a half second delay in every transmission. You barely notice it while viewing a non-secure site, but secure sites involve so much back-and-forth that a half second here and a half second there soon translates into a real drag.

The above hissed in response by: Xrlq [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 12:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

I believe Section 1361(a) of the Davis-Stirling Act (owner ingress-egress, see the link in my previous comment) is "whar the ducks are".

If I can find a case for you ... but you know .. I only have the Internet to search California law ... and usually it's a lot cheaper to go along with the anal orifices than to fight the issue all the way so there might not be any. Seriously, get your cable provider involved as soon and as much as you can. They have a vested interest in both creating and avoiding a precedent.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 1:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

I'm pretty sure the legal offices of the cable company won't be open until Monday, and I want to talk to them before doing anything else. Before even talking to the HOA board members, I want to know how strong or weak my case actually is.

Everyone here is right: I'm less concerned about the actual television channels; I watch very little TV, and what I watch is all on channels that I'm sure would be offered by every provider: Discovery, TLC, the Bio channel, Fox News, USA Network, TVLand, and the big-three networks. Also, lag time doesn't factor into ordinary TV broadcasts like it does in an internet connection.

On the internet, I guess, if you're bouncing off a geosynchronous satellite, that the route would be about 20,000 miles up from my computer and 20,000 miles down to the server, then 20,000 miles up from the server and 20,000 miles back down to my server, for a total of 80,000 miles of travel between sending a command and seeing the response.

Xrlq is right: that's about .43 seconds of lag time each cycle, or about half a second; and if it's handshaking back and forth in a secure system, that can be very laggy indeed.

But the slow speed is an even worse impediment. If I wanted to pay a little more, I could even get 10Mbps downloading here, which is 8 times the max I can get via satellite; and for what I'm paying now, what I would get from DirecTv is less than a meg.

The other oddity -- which I will definitely bring up to the board members -- is how seriously the overestimated the price of the cable here. I calculated what I'm "paying" by using the figures supplied by the HOA board in their mailing explaining the two options: they claim I should be paying $131/month for everything I have.

Needless to say, I am not paying anywhere near that much; they've overestimated the actual price by about 1/3... I'm actually paying just about $100.

But their own estimate of the DirecTV offer is -- surprisingly -- $131 per month, when I amortize the purchase of the DVR box over 12 months.

It's still about $110/month if I got the DVR for free from DirecTV; but it was they, themselves who said we would, in fact, have to buy them.

So under either circumstance, we would be paying more for inferior service.

In fact, now that I really look at it, the board members have systematically overestimated the cable cost at every tier of service. Nice way to stack the deck before a vote, guys.

Plus, it's more of a hassle than many folks realize for us to change our e-mail addresses; I've had the same one for many years now, and we have reduced a lot of our junk mail by getting most everything via e-mail.

I'm sure the cable company would be willing to set up forwarding, but for how long? At some point, I'm going to start losing e-mail as folks who haven't gotten the word yet have their e-mail to me bounced. And I'd probably have to pay for forwarding... yet another cost.

Even the offer sucks. I certainly intend to bring all this up at the meeting (March 21st)... assuming they don't forbid any discussion and just demand an immediate vote, a la the loyal majority in the Capitol Dome.

Thanks, I'll let everyone know what the cable company legal department says on Monday!


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 3:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin

I'm not a lawyer and i don't play one on TV but common sense tells me that you own the condo, you have the contract with the cable company so they can't pull the plug.

But common sense also tells me that common sense and the law and common sense and HOA's are often not on speaking terms.

The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 3:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Navyvet

Considering the HOA wants to vote to change the rules is an indication they cannot force the DTV change under the current provisions. Therefore, the key is to either block the vote (not very democratic) or have the measure defeated.

If the residents who depend on a high-speed internet connection are alerted to the proposal, I suspect you will have a rather large group of very upset homeowners who will make their displeasure over this measure known to the HOA board in short order.

The above hissed in response by: Navyvet [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 5:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Now don't get mad, Dafydd, but I'm going to question your understanding of the situation, as it exists on the ground. Or, as it were, in the walls.

First: The actual coaxial cable. I'm assuming that the entire Condo complex was wired with cable either originally or added on later throughout the complex and in the walls... and that it all ends up in one central location; a switchbox or something that the Cable Company hooks into. IF, and I capitalize and emphasize IF... that is the case, I'm gonna bet that the Dish installation 'guru' told the HOA board that he'd just unhook the cable source, and hook in his Dish source. He won't actually 'rip out' your cables, he needs them to get his Dish signal to your unit.

If that's the case, then all YOU do is call Mr. Cable Guy to come and run a cable up to your unit. Yeah, you are going to have to pay for the Dish whether you use it or not... HOA decisions on Water, Electricity, etc aren't really appealable... and if they treat TV signal as a Utility, you are out of luck. Majority Rules... the big downside of Condo ownership.

OTOH... if the cable already comes up the outside of the building and then directly into YOUR wall, they may not have the right to remove it. Supplement it, yes... remove it, no.

Your legal case rests largely upon whether the HOA has a 'right' to remove your access to cable. If the coax is actually part of the Condo system, ie, in the walls like the power cords, then yes they can 'change the channel' as it were from cable to Dish. But I can't see them having the right to prevent you from obtaining Cable service at all.

Again, you'll be paying for the Dish service whether you use it or not... that they CAN do through simple majority rule. (Okay, maybe by SUPERmajority Rule, depending on your contract)

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 7:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Mr. Michael:

I don't get mad when I'm trying to get information!

From what I can see, it looks like the coax comes up outside the wall (on the outside of my unit) but inside a white, metal conduit. It comes up through a hole in the outside balcony (where I have my barbecue), and from there I cannot see it anymore... but I'd be willing to bet that it does the same thing on the floors below me.

When it reaches the bottom of the outside wall of my unit, it passes through a coaxial-sized hole drilled through the outer wall and into my unit. It does not run up or down through the walls.

In any case, I suspect that the actual, physical cable itself is still owned by the cable company -- and I doubt they would take kindly to it being hijacked by their bitter competitor, so said competitor can scamp having to pay for the cable itself.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 9:23 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Yup. And unless you're getting "free cable" (paid for by your monthly CAM actually), I don't see how the HOA can disable yours or anybody else's at the switch-box.

But now speaking as a lawyer: You have a right to ingress and egress to your unit which means more than just being able to walk in. You are a co-owner of the common elements but more importantly you own reasonable easements in those common elements for ingress and egress of your utilities. Your cable company, when it wired the building, may have insisted on grant of an easement as a precondition to its investment (my experience with an apartment building) in which case you are home free (free in your own home?).

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 10:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E


I think you’re on the right track. The cable company may have a little different take on the situation than does DirecTV.

If Mr. Michael is right and DirecTV can just use the existing coax cables for their signal, then he’s probably also right that your only downside is that you’ll be paying for something you don’t want or need. But are you sure your condo association will allow, and the cable company will agree to install, cable running directly to your unit?

Would, for example, DirecTV require an exclusive deal preventing anyone from having cable in exchange for their providing a “free” antenna and wiring? Big deal. I took a quick look at their web site, and it looks like everyone gets these things free nowadays -- although I’m sure they’re not quite free if you decide to bail before your minimum contract term is up. Of course, your multi-user antenna would be much costlier than a single-home unit, but it sure wouldn’t be 80 times as expensive. And DirecTV would have 80 locked-in customers for as long as your condo association wants to keep them.

If, on the other hand, your original post is correct, and DirecTV wants the cable removed, you should object strenuously, and your HOA should resist tooth and thumbtack. There’s no technical reason to rip out the cable (unless for some reason they want to run the satellite feed, using a different kind of wiring, over exactly the same exterior route and/or through the same places in the walls your cable now occupies). I suspect DirecTV really wants you to remove the cable because, 1) It will make it very expensive to go back to cable if you discover satellite was a mistake and, 2) It will prevent (or at least discourage) residents from doing what someone else suggested -- paying for basic satellite, while buying premium and/or internet service from cable.

Good luck, and I look forward to updates.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 11:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


If I can get in touch with the cable-company's legal department on Monday, I definitely plan to ask them about easements.

There is something about easements in the Declaration of Establishment of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of our condo building, but I don't quite understand it. I'll ask the cable lawyers if they can explain it. I know it mentions "television cables," but I don't understand what it says about them... and more to the point, what the underlying assumptions are about whether they can be removed or not.

A friend of mine also lent me the 2005 Condominium Bluebook for California, which appears to cite caselaw saying that homeowner associations cannot prevent condo owners from putting up individual satellite dishes, so long as they are smaller than some particular size.

I don't know if that means they can put them up in the commons or only in their individual units; but if the former, that means the original 2006 decision by the board to prevent anyone else from putting up dishes on the roof may have been illegal.

And if so, then that points the way to a reasonable compromise: we keep the cable, and anyone who wants to get satellite instead contracts individually with DirecTV (or anyone else) for one of those small, 18-inch dish antennae.

That way, there is no need for the huge, building-sized antenna: the satellite people get satellite, and the cable people get cable.

I guess the board could even demand a reasonable deposit; if the owner moves out and takes his dish with him, then the board could inspect. If there is no damage to the roof, he gets his deposit back.

That's a lot better than forcing a whole bunch of people with cable to switch to satellite, no matter how inconvenient and expensive that may be.

(I find it a bit peculiar that the board invited a representative from DirecTV to be present at the meeting/vote... but nobody from the cable company was invited. I certainly intend to rectify that oversight.)


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 11:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk


You're on the right track. Just one more little bit of legal pedantry. In the common law, there is the concept of "implied easement". If someone subdivides a piece of land in such a way that access to new Parcel A is possible only through new Parcel B, he is deemed to have reserved an easement in Parcel B for the benefit of Parcel A even though it is nowhere explicit stated in the documents of conveyance. Your case is even stronger since your cable does not run through your neighbors' units but only along the common elements.

(I would need to read your Declaration to understand what it says about easements but "subject to" exceptions in fee simple conveyances are common. It might mean that your neighbors cannot cut off your cable as it comes to your unit through their wall and if they do you have the right to enter their unit to repair it.)

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 6:13 AM

The following hissed in response by: Wave Maker

Lizardman, since I am a ridiculous masochist with nothing better to do on a Sunday, I'll volunteer to read your docs and give you free advice> I've done a ton of condo law here in MA, which may be worlds different tha CA, but the two lefty states frequently follow one another's idiocies. If you have them in pdf and want to send them, say da woid and I'll email you a contact addy.

The above hissed in response by: Wave Maker [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 10:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

Interesting question. I'm a baseball fan and an entreprenuer (ie, not a lawyer!) and MLB is on the verge of moving my games to satellite. Like many fans, the idea of forcing me to satellite that this plan is based on disturbs me, as I don't want to switch. The topic is heavily discussed on sports radio lately, since many fans are in worse shape than I and aren't permitted to swith by rule of their HOA. Todays gist, from the radio, was:

The FCC passed a rule, back in 1996 I believe, that offered consumers the right to choose betwen cable and satellite TV access. Condo associations can restrict your rights if they can show a compelling need related to safety or the like.

It seems to me your HOA has to make a showing to you along these lines.

Your situation has an additional complexity in that you have had cable and they want to take it away. So, why should they be able to do this today if the condo doc's under which you purchased made no mention at the time you bought.

It's almost a "taking" situation, except the condo association is a private entity and not a public one; the association has told you point blank they are doing it for aesthetic reasons, instead of a public purpose; and they have offered you no compensation.

I would hand it over to the cable providers lawyers post haste, or your own lawyer if necessary. But while doing so I would also read your docs carefully to see if you retained a right to sue the association when you bought your unit, or if you agreed to arbitration or some sort of kangaroo court ajudication within the association before going to court. I would also notify them of your intention to resist the taking of your cable access, and I would offer them the chance to modify their proposal to preserve your rights. I would do this in writing, along with a statement you intend to attempt to recover any costs you are forced to incur to defend your property and rights as a result of their actions. Send the letter fedex to whomever is the registered agent of your association, or registered mail, so you get proof of delivery. Ask them to respond in writing within a reasonable period, like fifteen days. If they are proposing to cram this down your throat before this time, add the words "Time is of the essence" in your request for a response and skip the fifteen days.

If your cable co. law department is uninterested in your problem, which would surprise me!, hire a lawyer and have the lawyer do all this for you. But move quickly.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 12:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Wave Maker:

Thank you very much for your offer, but it would probably be more prudent to show them to the cable-company attorneys here, or possible a condo-law lawyer here in California.

Besides, I don't have them in pdf; all I have is a huge sheaf of paper stapled together... and it's already so hard to read, it looks like a printed-out fax!


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 1:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Bien, que paso hoy? Todos somos quieren saber.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2007 5:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh


Le crayon est sur la table. Das is nicht mein bustenhalter.

(That's the sum-total extent of all the Italian I know. I don't even know what that last one means... a Swiss girlfriend said it to me many years ago, just before she inexplicably socked me in the eye.)

I called the cable company, eventually got a number for their legal team, got through, and explained the situation. The man on the other end (he might have been either a lawyer or a legal secretary) took my information and said he would contact a local respresentative to speak to me.

They didn't call back today (I didn't expect them to); we'll see if they return the call tomorrow.

Digits crossed...


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2007 5:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

OK. It's late for me. I'll check in tomorrow morning with coffee and, hopefully, suggestions in case they leave you on your own.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2007 9:13 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved