chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| Telecos behind....
I bet this guy is getting $$$ from the telecos to fight their fight for them.
The requirements is actually a added value to the property. Which can be used for marketing. I will be happy buying a house that is ready for such upgrades without me having to deal with it... |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| I'm sure something to that affect is behind it all. I have had several clients that are very, very large general contractors and builders and they certainly wouldn't squak over something like this. They would just lump it in to the cost of the building and make a few extra bucks on it. Every new job would just go up $5,000! 
But this, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's stupid and just doesn't make any sense.
The Internet is a series of _plastic_ tubes......... hmmmmm
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH
| I don't understand...
Perhaps I don't fully understand the builder's responsibility here, but if they're merely being paid to lay pipe, what's the big deal? It isn't like they're on the hook to pay for any amount of on-going maintenance or service. This is a contract dispute, one which could easily add to their profit on the project.
What else is going on here?
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| Is it really the cost
at issue here? Two-fifty a house seems small change. This smacks of collusion. Follow the money: who gains (or suffers lack of gain)? Answer that, end of story.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Whats the problem?
I do not understand the problem either.
That is correct, the contractors actually get to charge to do that, so more money for them.
I have seen things like this and the contractors claim liability and warranty. A friend of mine had a new house build and they wanted wiring through the house for network, there home theater system, and others things to s single point in the basement. The company said they would not do it, and would not allow someone else to come in and do it, because it voided the warranty of the work? If we did it after they were done (which is more difficult once the drywall is up) then that was fine.
It amazes me, you pay someone to build YOUR house and they argue over the dumbest things.
I guess it would be wise for a company to step up and announce they are happy to do this and then take all that work others are not willing to do. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA | reply to chemaupr
Re: Telecos behind....
Are the telcos really behind everything? I get tired of seeing these comments so I had to ask the question.
No, the cable company is not out to get you.
The telcos are not trying to kill you. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| reply to Titus Pullo
Re: Is it really the cost
said by Titus Pullo  :at issue here? Two-fifty a house seems small change. This smacks of collusion. Follow the money: who gains (or suffers lack of gain)? Answer that, end of story. how lack of gain- THE TELCOMS. likley to lose one more cust
How gains- the builder... the builder will be adding value to the property, thus chargin for it. Those $250 can be translated to $1000 more in the price of the new home.
how gains- the buyer future effortless upgrade to a technology
how gains - the county, faster deployment of technology. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to keyboard5684
Re: Whats the problem?
said by keyboard5684 :That is correct, the contractors actually get to charge to do that, so more money for them. From what I read, I think the town in question wants the builder to run the cable, and then give ownership of said cable to the town. Builders already do this when they build roads, sewer lines, sidewalks, water pipes and other such things into new construction.
Technically, the cost of all this infrastructure is passed down to the buyer so the builder isn't really taking too much of a hit here. However, this infrastructure adds value to the property in that you wouldn't buy a house you could not drive to or which did not have plumbing or electric.
I think in the case of this government supplied broadband, the builder probably thinks it cannot pass the costs of running this down to the buyers, because there is nothing forcing them to use it (they could either not buy the service, or go with a different provider) and hence, it does not add value to the property.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| reply to keyboard5684
Re: Telecos behind....
give me a break. no they are not out there to kill you... and not they are not behind everything.
but they are out there trying to protect their market. that is why they sepnt millions in lobbying. that is why the spent millions in litigation with cities to slowdown the deployment of their fiber network. that is why they spent millions in marketing campains trying to educate (or mislead) consumers. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit |  Builders are shortsighted; but city shouldn't mandate it
The builders are wrong in this case, mainly because laying conduit for communications wiring(whether copper, or fiber, or coax) would be expected in any new home. I certainly wouldn't buy a new home without the ability to easily hook up to the telco or cable company connections. It would remove the need to dig up the yard for every vendor with an easement to wire a property.
But I can see the builders association worry that this would be just the 1st of other government mandated add-ons to a new house, driving up the cost.
So, this is something the builder SHOULD do to make a new house worth more. They just don't like being told they MUST do it.
P.S.> the paranoids who see the telcos behind this are probably way off base. The builders association just doesn't want to set a precedent of the state demanding 1 more thing for every new house.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to chemaupr
Re: Telecos behind....
Of course they are out to protect there market, so is every other business.
Lobbying, that probably has to do with the laws put on them to restrict what they can and cannot do.
Millions to slowdown fiber deployments. Has this been effective? In my county, a local ISP is running fiber all over the county. Why? To directly compete with Verizon and cable companies, probably. Verizon is well aware of this since they have to have there lines on the bottom, so they have to be moved on every single pole so the ISP can attach its fiber. They have not sued yet?
Is it educate or mislead? Or is it advertising? Does everyone believe everything they read or heard?
I do not like the telco or other large monopolistic businesses but I do agree with there right to compete.
This particular thread was about contractors building houses and running extra conduit for the city network. It is fine to express your opinion but I completely disagree with the idea the telco is behind the contractors suing. There was nothing indicating they had anything to do with it. Also, go through threads and see how much telcos and cable companies are blamed for everything. |
|
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs:  
2 edits | Change the Law!
Rescind the requirement.
Relabel it as an environmentally friendly requirement and get the support from groups like PETA.
City Ordinance #10104:
Emergency Escape Route for small pets, as mice, hamsters, etc.
Requirement: that a piece of plastic pipe of sufficient size to permit passage of said rodent from residence to safe range from burning/collapsing residence be provided. Use as Rodent Escape Route for other purposes, as providing entry for data transmission lines, is permitted.
===============
While I don't consider myself a Conspiracy Theory buff, I really find it hard to believe that the builders are balking on this issue without prompting from a shadowy 3rd party. It costs them NOTHING out in the long run, and like EVERY DAMNED NAIL, STAPLE, roofing shingle, drop of paint, etc. they are going to tack a price with profit margin on top of it. If there's a "loser" in this, its the buyer who has to pay for it. And as has been noted, it's a value-added item that they should be either glad to have or not give a care about. My goodness, it's probably cheaper than the front door on the home and stands less chance of ever having to be replaced.
--
...then THINK! again!! |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| reply to chemaupr
Re: Telecos behind....
said by chemaupr :give me a break. no they are not out there to kill you... and not they are not behind everything. but they are out there trying to protect their market. that is why they sepnt millions in lobbying. that is why the spent millions in litigation with cities to slowdown the deployment of their fiber network. that is why they spent millions in marketing campains trying to educate (or mislead) consumers. Give me a break. You say they are out there trying to protect their market. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop.
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Builders are full of crap
This is surprising since all the builder does is add it on to the price of the house. I know quite a few people who had add ons done to the house when being built and the builder did it with no questions asked.
Builders are more worried about this than contributing to school over crowding. What ever happened to pleasing and keeping the customers happy? |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to 2kmaro
Re: Change the Law!
said by 2kmaro :Rescind the requirement. Relable it as... Relabel it as "NSA CALEA compliance conduit" or the "Conduit Reform Act of 2006" -- only terrorists would resist such an ordinance -- and we have ways of dealing with them 
--
"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" - and stop the NeoCons |
|
upidstay
@bellsouth.net
| Pipes,Tubes, Conduit....Oh My!
Right on, Tkjunkmail, The builders most likely do not want to be told what they must do in building property. It is not like adding the infrastructure would be overly diffucult or if it was a conspiracy theory, since I think most builders would want to add features that would drive up the asking price, it is just that adding features drives up cost, with the risk of litte or no return on an investment. Add to that having to be mandated to do service infrastructure for a utility that you are not experienced in or not in the industry you specialized in (imagine if General Mills made a video game system, or General Motors for that matter, even G.E.) only adds to that risk when there are private sector companies that can do and handle tasks like that much better. |
|
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
| reply to ropeguru
Re: Telecos behind....
said by ropeguru :said by chemaupr : Give me a break. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop. you probably did not understand my point. when I say "protect their market" I do not mean protect from wrong doing or bad services.... I mean to maintain control and avoid the competition. As far as the rest of your comments, I agree |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Builders are shortsighted; but city shouldn't mandate it
If conduit is needed for the provider, that is the providers responsibiliy not the building contractor. If underground is needed, its not the contractors job to lay the conduit, its the telcos or cable companies job since they are responsible/have ownership from the pole to the demarc box, thats why they are supposed to be at new construction sites so they get all thier needed stuff laid out before the job is done. Have you seen the price of conduit lately? I doubt $250.00 would cover the cost. Besides...the contractor probably already signed a bid with the home owners and then this ordinance was passed after the fact. Now, take that $250.00 and multiply it by the number of homes and there is the real cost to the contractor, lets say 500 homes, thats $125,000, would you want to loose that much money? And since he already has a signed bid with the home owner, he cant go back and ask them for more money. |
|
ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Bridgeport, WV
clubs:
·VOIPo
| reply to chemaupr
Re: Telecos behind....
said by chemaupr :said by ropeguru :said by chemaupr : Give me a break. How can it be their market when they refuse to serve people where buildouts like this are occurring? As far as I am concerened, if they don't want to build because they have deemed it unprofitable, then they have forfeited all rights to fight whoever tries to provide service. This crap of figting everything just because has got to stop. you probably did not understand my point. when I say "protect their market" I do not mean protect from wrong doing or bad services.... I mean to maintain control and avoid the competition. As far as the rest of your comments, I agree I must have misunderstood. It just seems that the telcos keep saying they will not serve lots of areas because they deem it unprofitable. However, when a muni in those areas decide to step up and provide the service to their citizens, the telcos spend miliions in court and advertising trying to stop it. My point was that is they don't want to provide the service because it is unprofitable, then they give up all rights to that area. Even to "maintain control and avoid the competition."
--
FWD#: 223611 |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to chemaupr
Re: Is it really the cost
said by chemaupr :How gains- the builder... the builder will be adding value to the property, thus chargin for it. Those $250 can be translated to $1000 more in the price of the new home. You sure about that? I don't really see "Includes Conduit" as being a real selling point.
The problem I have with this (beyond the issue that they're essentially locking the community into a government run monopoly) is that it has nothing to do with not wanting to tear up someones lawn, it's the government hiding some of the cost of their muni in the price of a new home so the citizen doesn't notice. They don't want to jack up taxes, they don't want to add that to the install fee, they want the enduser to look to the contractor as the bad guy then they can sweep in and say "look how cheap we are".
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
