how-to block ads
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread said by davoice  :Basically it allows the MDU to double dip. They can now go back to the original contract holder, legally threaten to bring someone else in and look for additional concessions. Or they can bring in a 2nd provider, stick their hands on both providers pockets and play both sides of the field. Whee. That is about it - for existing apartment buildings. And if they can squeeze out better terms by pitting one against the other, they MIGHT pass those savings on to their tenants. But they also might just pocket the savings for themselves.
With a new apartment building going up, the power is probably a little less. A TV provider probably won't want to pay the costs of pre-wiring the building knowing that the building owner could then bring another vendor in at any time to blackjack the original provider in to lowering rates even more. The building owner could still play one vendor off against the other, but the significant capital costs of wiring the building for a promise of an exclusive contract can no longer be used. So my guess is that building owners will have to pay their own upfront capital costs for wiring the new building. And it is this scenario that is the basis for Comcast and the cable industry claiming costs could rise for the consumer.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|  
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread We'll I can think of certain apartments around here that will take this and finally let comcast or time warner in. Lots of places have some company you've never heard of who provide crappy service.
I wonder if comcast or timewarner has worked with complexes to wire cable only and forces them to use thier voip phone service. No phone line so you can not get dsl or anything. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread said by NOCMan :I wonder if comcast or timewarner has worked with complexes to wire cable only and forces them to use thier voip phone service. No phone line so you can not get dsl or anything. Many times. I've heard you get just phone jacks. There is a cable version of a DSLAM serving the whole building or the flood in a closet. So you dont need to worry about a modem or a battery for it. (Although if your not looking after the battery, who is?  ) | |
| 
Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
| A TV provider probably won't want to pay the costs of pre-wiring the building knowing that the building owner could then bring another vendor in at any time to blackjack the original provider in to lowering rates even more.
this is a false assumption. the problem most old buildings have is one cable provider does not want to share it's cable tray with another, and the building does not want two sets of cable trays in their hallways. if they kick out the original cable provider, he can remove his wiring from the tray before the next provider comes in the building, but most buildings would not allow such disruption of service to their tenants.
in the case of a new building, the cable provider would either negotiate to retain ownership and maintenance of the distribution wiring, or only bring his service to the distribution box, and building maintenance is responsible for maintaining distribution wiring. either way, the wiring plant can't be used as leverage when enlisting another provider.
As far as this FCC ruling goes; it does not go far enough. while I would not want it to break existing deals, it should have more teeth to compel building management to allow competition to come in their building if dwellers want it. if 5% of building occupants want a new provider, and that provider is willing to light up that building, there should be a legal remedy to compel building management to allow it, assuming the new cable provider does not do damage to the building in order to distribute service there. or if 5% of a building want roof access for satellite dishes, there should be a better and more enforceable legal remedy to do so. So the power to break any building's monopoly is still in the hands of the building management, not in the hands of the individual consumer who is overpaying a monopolist cable provider. | |
| | | |
|
