Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19360157 en Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:11:03 EDT Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:11:03 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19363129 Packeteers : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19363129 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:59:47 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19362717 patcat88 :
said by NOCMan See Profile :

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? :huh:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19362717 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:38:53 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19361940 fiberguy : Yea? and? Buyer, beware. Renter, beware. It's part of the free market. If the exclusive contract is a horrible thing, then potential buyers should use caution.

Lemme explain - structures are built with things in mind to increase value and sometimes things people do decrease value. In this market, if broadband, telephone, or television choices are a big deal, then it's probably a bad idea to invest into that property because it could be a negative to the potential business ability - ie: renters. If renters are going to be turned off by the limitations, then it hurts. Why buy the property? The issue is, the renter really doesn't have a say in the owner's business other than to do business with them or not. ie: rent from them. If you are a renter that wants specific service that you can't offer, the renter is likely to go elsewhere making your rentals harder to sell.

As for the "In many cases the exclusive deal was made with the builder of the complexes, and imposed on the MDU or Condo Assn." Not true. Many of the builders were hired by the owners and it was the owners that signed the agreement. The general contractor just does what they are asked of by the owners - usually a corporation that wanted to save money on the bottom line. HOAs are formed by two ways.. the builder or the owner formed association. Again, if it was formed by the builder and potential buyers, which are disclosed, want, say, Qwest for telephone and find out they can only get Cox, and it's a selling point, then the buyer may likely turn away from the seller. Other buyers may certainly buy into it, and later fight to change something they were aware of - or simply get remorse in which case I don't feel sorry for. This is a country of individuals that have a long history of not wanting to honor the contracts they sign.

Again, it's the free market at work. In the case of an apartment complex - still, as a renter, it's not your place to decide on the business dealings of the owners. This is why at all costs I am against this ruling and I hope it dies in a court battle which I am sure will be launched.

People here want competition in the market. Those that support this ban are actually against free market. Why? Before you hit reply - in the case of a renter of an apartment, YOU ARE NOT the part of the free market/competition equation as it's NOT your building or residence. A home? HOA? Another story.. but still.. buyer beware.

Due diligence works in the private sector as well.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19361940 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:52:28 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19361693 fiberguy : You are correct.. and why is that?? because FiOS wants to put their video signal over the existing coax wire which cable tv has exclusive access to since they put it in. Additionally, "for their work" and because of the agreement, the owner of the building may not allow others to wire during the period of the agreement.

If FiOS was more like U-Verse and they didn't have to put anything over the existing coax (example, they could drop a modem on the copper then a coax to the tv with out using the house wire) then I don't think that the agreement means squat.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19361693 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:33:14 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19361569 grandpinaple : I thought uverse wasn't considered "cable" service. That is how they got away without having to deal with franchise agreements?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19361569 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:40:05 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360500 DMS1 :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

said by DMS1 See Profile :

You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts.
Not True At All!

FiOS still has to get permission from the complex, building, or property owner, to get the Right Of Entry. Verizon's FiOS is going to need to being in new lines on the property. It would be different if they were doing something like U-

Verse, which if I recall was never banned by an exclusive agreement since the service already existed.

No 'exclusive agreement' could stop a provider from sending more services down an existing wire. It stopped them from connecting to existing wires of another provider/type. IE, FiOS taking CableVision off the Coax for their own.
Read what I wrote. I was specifically referring to the situation where FiOS is already installed, but FiOS TV isn't available because of an existing exclusive agreement. I live in an apartment complex that is in exactly that situation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360500 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:16:34 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360490 JohnA :
In many cases the exclusive deal was made with the builder of the complexes, and imposed on the MDU or Condo Assn. Many have contracts as long as 25 years, and the Assn is powerless to break them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360490 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:14:25 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360198 fiberguy :
said by DMS1 See Profile :

You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts.
Not True At All!

FiOS still has to get permission from the complex, building, or property owner, to get the Right Of Entry. Verizon's FiOS is going to need to being in new lines on the property. It would be different if they were doing something like U-

Verse, which if I recall was never banned by an exclusive agreement since the service already existed.

No 'exclusive agreement' could stop a provider from sending more services down an existing wire. It stopped them from connecting to existing wires of another provider/type. IE, FiOS taking CableVision off the Coax for their own.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360198 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:28:26 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360157 fiberguy : They sure do! And I wish they had never done these deals in the first place. I would rather have loved to see apartments that were never able to get cable, just the POS satellite services they used to get, and hear the residents bitch about not being able to get cable because of cheap managers. It would have been move entertaining rather than people misguided in their beliefs that a cable company should be their friend, their brother, and their parents too.

The fact remains. Cable came in and wired up apartments at no cost while managers sat back on their cheap hands and wallets and refused to pay to upgrade their buildings - as many managers will refuse to do. Cable came in and said, "Fine, we'll wire you up for free, but if we're going to do something for you, for free, we want something in return" which was the exclusive ROE.

I fail to see the problem. It's called a contract between two businesses and a very rogue part of the government is coming in and invalidating what is in a sense contract law. I predict court battles.

Secondly.. you now see satellite putting their signals on lines that cable TV installed for customers already. Current cable + HSI customers will drop TV and get satellite while keeping HSI. Satellite comes in, doesn't care, and cuts into all lines killing the HSI at the same time. Subscriber calls who? Cable. Their gripe? "My HSI stopped working" Cable gets to the house, tells the customer "Satellite cut our lines and your choice is to get satellite back out to rewire you up, or it will cost you (circa) $50.00 for us to fix this problem" Customer rants, raves, threatens to cancel. Cable says "fine" and leaves.

What has happened here? It's called a mess and this is part on the FCC. When they makes these blind rules, they don't take into account real world situations. Who gets blamed? Cable - EVERY TIME. Who should be blames? Satellite? Phone? No.. the FCC.

The lines installed are now that of the customer because of FCC rules which is fine. However, when a service is already on it, another provider is not supposed to cut them off for theirs - yet they do and expects the other to absorb the cost. The bottom line is rules like this also will hurt the consumer because neither side is going to jump to wire homes any more - or apartments either. In some cases, this now means a customer can only get one or the other but not both.

Another downside to these kinds of rules.. where providers used to wire up homes for free, this practice will now stop all together making installation fees even higher to the consumer. (which people already don't like, or feel they should be paying) The truth is, if cable, for example which requires no contracts to the end user.. why should they come in and wire a unit for free any more when a subscriber can simply cancel and put someone else on the lines?

To be honest, there is plenty of BS to go around to all parties involved in this battle INCLUDING THE CONSUMER who allowed this to happen. I really could care less. I just am pointing out the reality behind what these rules will cause. While it SOUNDS good on the surface (quite honestly to those who are cheap in the wallet and those that really don't matter - renters) this rule is intrusive to the free market place (which renting is) and is yet another government agency taking away another freedom.

Remember the telcom act in the 90s which was supposed to help lower the consumer cable bill? That brilliant piece of consumer saving rule caused rates to increase up to 14% over night on average.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19360157 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:23:25 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19359188 axus : They deserve it for doing those kind of anti-competitive deals in the first place. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19359188 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:31:31 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19359079 NOCMan : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19359079 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:12:51 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358476 TKJunkMail :
said by DMS1 See Profile :

You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts.
You are right that this would wipe out existing exclusive contracts(if the company is a cable company). But the timing of getting the services offered might be delayed by court cases and injunctions. The cable industry beat the FCC in court before and won't go down without a fight this time either.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358476 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:46:04 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358431 DMS1 : You are right, but it is a big deal for Verizon in apartment complexes that have already got FiOS installed but previously couldn't have FiOS TV because of exclusive contracts.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358431 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:39:14 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358272 TKJunkMail :
said by davoice See Profile :

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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358272 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:10:45 EDT Re: Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358154 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.

}Davoice]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358154 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:52:36 EDT Misunderstanding of this rule is widespread http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358119 TKJunkMail : Many people are under the impression that this new rule means that owners of apartment buildings will have to provide access to any vendor who wants access. And that isn't true.

It is key to understand what it DOES NOT do - and that is force owners of MDUs to provide access to other providers. It allows them to do deals with multiple vendors, but does not force them to deal with more than 1.

This statement by Commissioner Copps explains the above point very well.
»fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···63A3.pdf
It does not prevent a property owner from negotiating a bulk discount for its residents or bargaining for heightened customer service requirements. Nor does it give any video provider the right to enter an MDU over the objection of the property owner. It simply removes a large obstacle to providing residents of MDUs with the ability to choose among alternative providers serving the surrounding community

--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,19358119 Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:47:43 EDT