dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-01-10 18:03:41: The New York Times has a little more detail on Verizon's complaints that New York City landlords aren't letting them gain access to buildings in order to replace copper with fiber (FiOS) post Sandy. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

1 recommendation

ITALIAN926

Member

...

The best time to install FiOS is DURING such renovations, thats a ridiculous excuse.
If tenants want FiOS, let them have it, its quite simple. Anyone in such buildings should start petitions.
jimboe
join:2000-08-14
New York

1 recommendation

jimboe

Member

It's true.

It is all about the kickbacks. I know a few ppl in brooklyn that work for building mgmt co's (landords), and that is the underlying theme. Landlords simply want a "piece" to allow vz axs.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

Bribery of building superintendents and landlords in NYC.

"Gifts" and "Payments for unique services" to landlords and building supers has been SOP for decades in NYC. Pay or bad things happen to you. No different than thugs who demand payment to travel on public sidewalks and roadways years ago. No different than lunchroom bullies.

JimMcCoy
join:2011-08-20
Midlothian, VA

JimMcCoy

Member

Not entirely wrong

While I don't entirely disagree with the "gifts and kickbacks" sentiment; looking at this from the other side for a moment I'd have to ask what is the incentive to let Verizon (or any company) in a particular location? Especially when the telco or cable company will stand to make vastly more money than the building owners?

Remember a for-profit orgainzation does nothing without some increased future gain for their stakeholders. Or rather, it may seem like a nice gesture, but as long as it has a value, what is the incentive to not gain some part of the pie (and emotional or moral viewpoints are irrelevant).

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

They are in the business of collecting RENT, and maintanence fee's . If the tenants want the service, they should be given the access.
quote:
"Especially when the telco or cable company will stand to make vastly more money than the building owners?"
Youre joking right? We're talking about a city where rent averages $4000 a month per apartment? Verizon wants to come in there and offer triple plays for $100 a month or less, and a small % of that is profit. By all means, please explain how building owners arent making an astronomical amount of money in comparison.
eco
Premium Member
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE

eco

Premium Member

+1

My mom sells real estate in NYC. One bedroom apartments in Brooklyn Heights go for $600,000 easily. A decent two bedroom can be $1 million plus. And Manhattan is a whole other level..
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

Yes, the renters want the option for FIOS this is true but if you want to look at it fairly... will the landlord get more rent because an apartment has FIOS available? After all, we are talking about incentive for the landlord. Your mom could answer definitively but I would guess No. Do rents go up after FIOS is installed? So I think Verizon does profit more from the install than the landlord does.

You also have to balance the annoyance of the install... we go in, drill holes, mount terminal boxes, run fiber tape all through the hallways, make noise, mess yadda yadda yadda. Do apartment owners want to be bothered with all that for no additional financial gain?

Personally, I think they should put up with it... it's their job. Even if only 25% of the tenants get FIOS, it is still beneficial to give them the choice. I can't count the number of times apartment dwellers have begged me to get them FIOS. Exclusivity agreements are wrong and should be illegal but ultimately it is the landlord's decision whether or not to let Verizon in.
pittpete1
join:2009-06-12

pittpete1

Member

I'd rather have a choice

»communities.verizon.com/ ··· hure.pdf

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: Not entirely wrong

Not in Massachusetts, state law requires a landlord to give cable providers (FiOS TV) access to the building if one or more tenants requests service. If FiOS ever comes to town, I'll cite that law when having FiOS installed in my townhouse. Also, they cannot install service if a tenant refuses consent. FiOS meets the definition of a cable provider under state law since they provide CATV service.

And Verizon is not rebuilding their copper plant so the tenants will vacate the building when they cannot get Internet or phone or have to charge rock bottom rents when they cannot get any tenants. I think the time has come to sunset pots.

Hopefully Sandy will accelerate the pots sunset and we can eventually get FiOS where I live. Copper phone lines have already exceeded their useful life. Its like flying WWII era equipment in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

FiosDeprived

Anon

TF Cornerstone

Like I've said before...

My understanding is that the "wheels have not been greased enough" to let Verizon in the buildings. If this was about the buildings being empty (which is the best time to do construction!!!) then why is EVERY TF Cornerstone building, including the ones that are occupied, without FIOS?!?!?!

Especially when all the surrounding buildings have had FIOS service for a year or more?!?!
pittpete1
join:2009-06-12

pittpete1

Member

Re: I'd rather have a choice

»stopthecap.com/2013/01/1 ··· repairs/
chgo_man99
join:2010-01-01
Sunnyvale, CA

chgo_man99 to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman

Re: Bribery of building superintendents and landlords in NYC.

and they say Chicago or Illinois most corrupted in the nation. ha!

A&t had in most places no problem with installing u-verse, even in the city of Chicago, though I remember the rollout in the city was slower than in suburbs, not only because it was easier to start in less dense neighborhoods but they also needed permit from neighborhood to neighborhood.

Its not as fast as FIOS, but I am not a heavy big downloader. I have 12mb and I can with no problem stream HD videos, play video games or make voip phone calls.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

1 recommendation

davidhoffman

Premium Member

I grew up in the Chicago area. The worst thing was the mayor closing Meigs Field airport so his wife and her friends could have a flower garden. The city had flower gardens all over. He destroyed an existing Tuskegee Airman and Experimental Aircraft Association partnership that introduced young people to aviation and could have resulted in a unique aviation school and museum. The city council got paid off with cheap trinkets. They did nothing to stop a very short sighted action by an abusive corrupt dictator. If the larger business community and African American education advocacy groups are strongly saying, "Please, do NOT shut down this unique aviation facility.", and it happens anyway, it shows how ridiculously corrupt and stupid the mayor and city council were. You rarely get that kind of broad community agreement on anything. To ignore that consensus, for fear of a deranged mayor, is Chicago.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: Not entirely wrong

There is nothing wrong with exclusivity agreements.

For the past decade, as we've read here the daily whines of those "un[der]served", MDU has been a way to get broadband when you otherwise are destined for dialup forever. Historically, its also meant a much broader pay-tv lineup for about half the rack rate. Its a feature of multifamily dwellings; you make the choice when you move in, or not.

NYC has over two million apartments. If you're unhappy where you live, because it has only copper, why not move to greener pastures?

Eddy120876
join:2009-02-16
Bronx, NY

Eddy120876 to jimboe

Member

to jimboe

Re: It's true.

My building mgmt is one of then
Eddy120876

Eddy120876 to IowaCowboy

Member

to IowaCowboy

Re: Not entirely wrong

Thats why I miss Massachussetts ...GO SOX
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to elray

Premium Member

to elray
There is nothing wrong with exclusivity agreements as long as they are with the affected parties. If a provider wants exclusivity, they should make an agreement with the SUBSCRIBER that they will get a discount if they agree to not sign with a competitor for a certain amount of time.

A contract with a third party to limit availability of service to a group of people should be illegal. Suppose for a second that your employer signs an exclusivity agreement with Bank XYZ that all the employees have to bank there and your employer gets a better rate. You now have to move all your accounts there, savings, checking, mortgage, retirement, etc. Don't want to do it?? Find another job. Does that seem legit to you?

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958

Premium Member

Sounds just like.........

This sounds just like something Verizon would do to anyone else trying to do something inside their buildings, so what's the difference? I could easily see Verizon charging some one to come in a fix an electrical issue or something.

Isn't anybody going to get to do something for free, even if it's just getting inside a building! It's all about that last ungodly dollar!!
EdmundGerber
join:2010-01-04

EdmundGerber to ITALIAN926

Member

to ITALIAN926

Re: ...

said by ITALIAN926:

The best time to install FiOS is DURING such renovations, thats a ridiculous excuse.
If tenants want FiOS, let them have it, its quite simple. Anyone in such buildings should start petitions.

And if they don't - which seems to be the case here....

footballdude
Premium Member
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

footballdude to davidhoffman

Premium Member

to davidhoffman

Re: Bribery of building superintendents and landlords in NYC.

said by davidhoffman:

If the larger business community and African American education advocacy groups are strongly saying, "Please, do NOT shut down this unique aviation facility.", and it happens anyway, it shows how ridiculously corrupt and stupid the mayor and city council were.

And did any of them get voted out of office or did the Chicago faithful just keep on reelecting the same crooks?

michieru
Premium Member
join:2009-07-25
Denver, CO

michieru

Premium Member

LOL

More like Verizon does not want to the current amounts on the books and just pulls a PR stunt to have the public go after the landlords but the kick is if they did get an agreement. Verizon will simply include that nobody else can get service from any other provider and the landlord sets a rule for no dish installs on balconies.

It's all business and your just the little piggie who will foot the bill.
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

NOVA_UAV_Guy to footballdude

Premium Member

to footballdude

Re: Bribery of building superintendents and landlords in NYC.

Probably the latter. The same thing continues to happen with the local "leadership" in Washington, DC. IIRC, Marion Barry is still on the city council there. The idiots keep seeing "D" next to the names and vote them in like there's no tomorrow, with no regard to the person's record, agenda, or intelligence. (Come to think of it, that's kind of like the races for our national elected offices too. How sad.)

mikesterr
join:2008-04-18
Sanford, FL

mikesterr

Member

LEC service

Well even if the tenants don't want Fios service, Verizon should still be permitted to replace the Copper with Fiber. Saying they are putting Fiber in the building does not compel the tenant to purchase fios service. LEC service can still be provisioned over fiber. The difference is that where that fiber gets into the CO, the phone is sent over the PSTN. If they had Fios Voice that call would stay on VOIP as long as it could only going to PSTN where it had to, like to connect with a local number not on VOIP or not a Cellphone.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to EdmundGerber

Member

to EdmundGerber

Re: ...

Then tough luck, install the fiber anyway.

The tenants don't get to decide how Verizon builds out their network nor do they get to impede progress because of technology advancement fears.

How about either they take the fiber or Verizon doesnt provide service to them at all? Then they can get someone else to come in and run new copper lines.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to JimMcCoy

Member

to JimMcCoy

Re: Not entirely wrong

Just out of curiosity how many of those apartments will get rented and get rented for those rates if they are unable to get TV, phone or internet because Verizon or whomever is unwilling to pay the extortion fee?

How about electricity, water, sewage and gas? What if they charged (maybe they do or try now) and those companies refused to pay and thus did not provide the services?

How vacant would that building be if the services that people consider to be vital to their everyday living werent available to them?

You might as well tear it down and make a park out of it at that point.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to elray

Member

to elray
There are many things wrong with exclusivity agreements.

The biggest 3:
1.) It limits consumer choice
2.) It raises the cost to consumers
3.) Removes the incentive for the companies to compete for your business thus lowering quality of service and improvements.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to michieru

Member

to michieru

Re: LOL

said by michieru:

.... and the landlord sets a rule for no dish installs on balconies.

It is not legal anywhere in the US unless the property has been deemed historical and registered as such. And even then, the property owner would have to petition the FCC to make their case and have you take it down.

michieru
Premium Member
join:2009-07-25
Denver, CO

michieru

Premium Member

Have a reference to this information?
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: Not entirely wrong

said by CXM_Splicer:

There is nothing wrong with exclusivity agreements as long as they are with the affected parties. If a provider wants exclusivity, they should make an agreement with the SUBSCRIBER that they will get a discount if they agree to not sign with a competitor for a certain amount of time.

Nope. Exclusivity agreements are bulk purchases - volume discounts. They only work if all tenants are subscribed. Once you sever the exclusivity, the price goes back to retail. Or worse - without the right to exclusivity, the un[der]served have no way to capitalize a group broadband installation.

If you don't like the rental agreement terms, move on to a friendlier address.
Why is that so hard?
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

I explained why in the banking analogy which you must have missed. So if you don't like your employer deciding where you bank, just find a friendlier boss? Sorry, wrong.

The exclusivity contracts being discussed have nothing to do with rental agreements. In this case landlords are being paid to perform the anti-competitive actions of a third party. There is no doubt that they are wrong, I would question why they are legal at all. The agreement you are talking about is when tenants agree to exclusivity which is fine... exactly like I said.
page: 1 · 2 · next