approval from:
Cabal 
| Pot calles Kettle Black! As far as I know,There are many exclusive FIOS only exclusive mdu contracts! Looks like Verizon's peeing upwind again! | |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | exclusive contracts / forced contracts HOA contracts... are typically BAD news.
Choice goes out the window, and you are typically forced to subscribe wether you want it or not.
Problems with this type of deal is that you have NO control over service delivery or quality. The contract was with the builder and HOA.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
 | |
| | | | Re: exclusive contracts / forced contracts HOA contracts... lol  | |
|
| | Wireless provider This seems like great news to the little guys out there who want to start offering local wireless service. I have heard of small shops who offer wireless service to people in the near vicinity of the shop. I am sure I could get a business deal with verizon Fios to offer such service if I purchase my own equip i.e. Antenna, music servers, and video servers. I bet Comcast get tired of paying for equipment not really being used. | |
|
 furloniumComputer Over? Virus equals Very Yes?
join:2002-05-08
Bethlehem, PA |  I agree
| |
|
1 edit | Buyer Beware Hey, bad business decisions have CONSEQUENCES. The government shouldn't be playing watchdog here. The people that signed their name should be the ones holding the ISP accountable for delivering the service. If they can't, you break the contract with a Breach clause. If you aren't providing me X service reliably X amount of time, then our contract is nullified. Fight it in court. However, it's not the government's mess to clean up. It's the person or committee that had the stupid notion to lock themselves with a company for 75 yrs and any other ignorant entity that would do or has done the same. Simple. | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Buyer Beware The typical problem is that those that use the service are not those that set up the contract.
Housing/tract developers sign deals (similar to mello-roos) where the developers purchase the land from the city and do all the buildouts themselves, then charge it up to the home purchasers almost like 'rent'. HOA is responsible for maint of the services under contract with the developer.
Streets, TV, Telephone, water, etc. Your nieghborhood becomes a private community owned by investors and not part of the city.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | | Re: Buyer Beware En.
Still my point. The people signing the deals (whether it be a builder, tenant association, etc), need to hold the ISP responsible. They need to tell them that if said services are going to be delivered as promised, renters or owners are free to breach their service as a result of failure to comply with the contract. Should these entities refuse to get involved, I would class action the builder and the ISP with everyone who has internet, and sue for damages. Sure it might be expensive, but odds are, you will prevail. A jury is probably going to be sympathetic with people who were locked into a service and cannot get out, even when the service DOES NOT work. Problem with that, it might take years to litigate. The best solution here would be to have everyone cancel their service, and deal with dialup a few months. This company won't stick around if no one is using their service. Theyd be more apt to sell it off as being nonprofitable. Either way, there is recourse, it just depends on how quick one wants it and who is willing to go after whom. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Buyer Beware said by jc100:A jury is probably going to be sympathetic with people who were locked into a service and cannot get out, even when the service DOES NOT work. Not only is this not true, it's really accurate.
To assume that juries don't also have people sympathetic of the business as well (remember, juries have business owners and investors in them too) is simply incorrect.
Additionally, they can be sympathetic all they want towards the consumer, the verdict still must be in the confides of the law. I'd be curious to know of what damages they'd sue for? If the service is sub-par, they can cancel. If they can't get any other service, they knew that when they moved in. I say this because these are all relevant facts that would be introduced in the case, I'm sure.
Do also know that I TOTALLY do NOT support these types of development contracts. I think that every home should have access to every provider that services that city, town, or county area. The one exception I have to this are apartment buildings and complexes. They remain private property and I believe they should be able to choose who they want on their property. (Apartment complexes are not public property and their borders end at the street and not inside their complex boundaries) I still remember moving into a condo complex for rent where cable was available in the neighborhood, however, our complex chose to feed us with a SMATV (in house 13 channel satellite system) instead. But I knew that going in and made the choice to live there anyway.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Buyer Beware I am sure they can sue on several tenants under the law.
1) Breach of contract
2) Non performance and inability provide said promised services
3) False advertising and denying customers services.
My guess, a good lawyer could make a list here and find multiple ways to toss in punitive damages into this contract law. How come? Well non performance is a reason to break a contract. Yet, false advertising is a crime. Touting yourself as able to give something without being able to do it is not allowed. If this company has in writing they will provide the service, and customers are going without, they can at least collect all past subscription fees or most back. Not to mention, a good lawyer could say customers have suffered as a result of their misleading developers into believing they were capable of living up to their promises.. etc etc. Trust me, good lawyers can do ANYTHING... | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | however this is a good reason to avoid HOA's devlopments if possible.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| | blatantly anticompetitive sounds like egregious anticompetive behaviour to me. | |
|
 PaladinSage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | Goes both ways If you ban cable companies from exclusivity contracts for MDU's, it would only make sense to make sure that AT&T and Verizon cannot sign exclusivity contracts as well. Right?
 | |
|
|  Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA | Re: Goes both ways they would likely try to get in a grandfather clause stating prior to XX/XX/XXXX date that those contracts would still be valid. | |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | I'm confused So say Comcast has one of these exclusive contracts to offer internet and TV to my apartment building. Who do they have the contract with? Certainly not me. It's MY apartment, and I am the consumer under NO contract with Comcast, so aren't I able to get internet/TV/phone from any damn provider I want?
What some people/companies need to realize is that not only does the United States guarantee these companies the right of free enterprise, it also guarantees me the right to do business with whatever companies I wish. You simply can't tell me I can ONLY get service from one ISP/TV/phone provider (assuming more than one is available). It's un-American.
--
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe | |
|
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: I'm confused While that may be generally true.. you did sign a lease, didn't you? Terms of that lease may include such things as:
1. CABLE
2. Satellite dishes not allowed
3. Antenna not allowed
4. Phone service to be provided by the cable company through their VoIP
5. Internet to be provided by Cable company
'basic' price is already included in your monthly rent for the 'cheapest' cable TV and phone service that they can provide. Anything else is $$$$$ 
Of course, you can use your cellphone, and if you're lucky enough, get WiFi.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: I'm confused Two Words: Clear Wire. Wait, I think that's supposed to be one word. Oh well.
My buddy has Clearwire in his house. All it is is a SurfBoard-like device that simply sits in front of his window. No external connection and no external antennae required. So long as you can get a signal, who's to stop you from getting Clearwire as opposed to the company that has a contract with your landlord (and subsequently you, through a cleverly written lease)?
--
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe | |
|
| | | |
| | | | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: I'm confused We used to have a very technologically-similar service in the US called VideoWave. It was point-to-multipoint microwave TV service, just like Look TV appears to be.
--
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe | |
|
| | |
| | | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: I'm confused That's what I was thinking, but I didn't know where to find it. | |
|
| | | | said by en102:While that may be generally true.. you did sign a lease, didn't you? Terms of that lease may include such things as: 2. Satellite dishes not allowed 3. Antenna not allowed In the 2 above cases, refer to the FCC's OTA rules.
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
If a house or apartment has a clear view of a satellite, then can put a dish (non-permanent install in the case of an apartment) and no lease can restrict that. There are restrictions but even those are clearly defined and the burden of proof falls on the property owner. | |
|
| | | Some people are missing the point. In a lot of these instances they have an exclusive agreement with a company(let's say cable), and all other companies are denied placing their facilities in place. So even if you wanted to change providers they would not be able to service you because their plant was never layed down in the construction phases. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Torn I am torn. On one hand, I do not want government involve in what is a private business. At the same time, I saw fist hand how bad these exclusive contracts are. Once the telecom or cable gets the contact, there is no incentive to improve them. To me the only response is the free market response. Before buying or renting, ask about whom is providing the cable. If it is an exclusive contract move on. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Brooklyn Shadow Wasn't this exactly what they're doing in an UPSCALE part of Brooklyn, NY... with the new wall street residential builds in the gentrified part of Brooklyn, NY?
However, it's not ok when cable company competition does the same? Huh, go figure..
In reality.. both sides have claimed this "competition is good for the consumer" bit and at the same time claim "exclusive contracts by the competition" is bad for consumer choice, etc.
Cable and Telco can't really have walled gardens, astro turf, and two faced lobbying schems all at the same time without being called on the carpet for what it represents:
hypocrite:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
by extension strike "person" and insert "company"
both companies can share the market footprint and may the consumer win by having choice of providers (minimum 2) in the entire footprint of competitive products/services. | |
|
 fiber_manThings Happen For A ReasonPremium
join:2001-01-27
Port Saint Lucie, FL | Take a guess who provides them with service. We have companies down here doing that with new developments Single family and MDU's. But guess what at&t provides them with the means to connect their customers with the internet.
--
GO NOLES!! | |
|
| | I have to agree with AT&T and Verizon on this one. I am in this exact situation AT&T and Verizon are upset about. Where i live. My property has an exclusive contract with this god awful company BDR Broadband. The contract runs through the end of next year. If there were no contract. We would have three choices for tv here. We could get satellite which we have through BDR. We could have Time Warner or we could have FIOSTV. I honestly hope the FCC does something and maybe we can get out of this contract before its set to expire. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: I have to agree with AT&T and Verizon on this one. Your "property"... do you own? are you in a HOA? or are you renting in an apartment complex? Who "owns" the property you live at?
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| | | | Re: I have to agree with AT&T and Verizon on this one. We rent at a apartment complex. I can't remember who owns it. It was recently purchased and the name of the new company escapes me right now. It was previously owned by greystone they were the ones that signed the contract. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: I have to agree with AT&T and Verizon on this one. The way it works now, and in my opinion the way it should continue to work, is that since you are renting in a complex, you get what the complex offers you.
The easement runs along the street in front of the complex. When you enter, you're now on private property.
The way I see it, utilities should be required, as they are now, access into the complex. Power, Gas, Water & Sewer. That's it! Cable and internet is not a utility at this time.
If a complex owner doesn't want Cable to come into their complex, then I support that. I do NOT support them keeping the phone company out for cable either. MOST cable does not offer a fail safe, government regulated, network powered phone system like POTS. SOME cable does offer network powered switched based 5ESS phone service. Even then, it's still not network powered in MOST apartment complexes, which should be the requirement for an exclusion of phone.
Example: In this system, there is still switched network powered phone service offered by comcast. While most apartments use a RiSU box inside the apartment, SOME of them have network powered shared RSUs in the boiler rooms or basements meaning the phone service stays on like POTS with no inside equipment.
Bottom line, is that when you rent in an MDU complex or building, you are not offered and extended full rights as a home owner or to simplify it, a NON-MDU dweller. Unless and until the government classifies cable as a utility, I believe that cable SHOULD be kept out at the owners request. Phone, however, IS a utility and MUST be allowed in.
That's my 2-cents.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
| Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| We ruled out buying a condo recently due to something like this. The community had a contract with someone and the condo fee included rebranded, under strength, Dishnetwork for Tv, and Verizon 1.5/384 Dsl, but it wasn't normal Verizon. It was Verizon Community or Verizon x, or something. When we found out it was nonnegotiable, we walked.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. | |
|
| | | Power is another thing we only have one choice for here too cause of another exclusive contract. We can only get it from a company called Coserv. | |
|
 ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | locked for life 75 years ... guess they really want a return on investment | |
|
jacourPremium
join:2001-12-11
Matthews, NC Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·SureWest Cable
 ·AT&T Southwest
| Not going to happen Historically, the FCC has taken the position that they can regulate the market. However, they do not get involved in private use contracts that knowing adults entered into of their own free will. Sure, with 20-20 hindsight some of those agreements look incredibly stupid but it is not the job of a regulatory agency to undo a stupid contract. Nobody held a gun to their heads when they signed the agreement, so now they are probably stuck with it until the expiration date. | |
|
| | Intracoastal Yacht Club - Sunny Isles FL I am one of the persons living in a complex which is completely monopolized by an exclusive contract cable provider. The cable service is over priced. In my particular situation, the cable company merely provides the apartments with additional channels leaving aside features such as menu, DVR, and any other basic information (about upcoming show times and other menu options) that other cable companies provide. Additionally, when you call customer service, they respond "hello"? It seems as if they are running the entire cable company from an apartment with one person answering the phone. And don't even think about calling after 5 p.m. or on the weekends. Customer service for internet and cable is closed on the weekend. What else? I can go on and on forever! What verizon is really saying is that the people in these complexes have the right to price competition from internet/cable service providers which offer better features, service, pricing, and promptness. And they are right. | |
|
| | | Re: Intracoastal Yacht Club - Sunny Isles FL I feel your pain. Our cable company BDR Broadband you can only call them monday-friday 6am to 6pm pacific. They have no customer service on the weekend except for their internet service. | |
|
1 edit | Stuck with Cox The neighborhood I'm located in has a DSL option, but the apartment complex I live in is limited to Cox by contract. They didn't even wire it with any RJ11. It's a big place with over 400 apartments, and our node has become overloaded recently, making using VoIP very difficult. It would be nice to try out all my options. | |
|
|  CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX
·Suddenlink
1 edit | Re: Stuck with Cox Does another cable company besides Cox service your town? My condo complex is limited to Comcast, but so is the rest of the town and, in fact, the county. The nearest Charter installation is 25 miles away, where it's only Charter (not that I'd want them anyway).
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? | |
|
| | | | Re: Stuck with Cox I think Cable America use to also service the area, but now it's Cox and only Cox. | |
|
| | Provider of Last Resort I seem to remember reading somewhere that Bellsouth (now AT&T) was no longer going to the provider of last resort in these new subdivisions/complexes being built. If you contract with company xyz, and they cannot get you up and running in time for your new owners/tenants. then tough sh*t. Does anyone else recall this?? | |
|
|
|
·
·
